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

May 13, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SHEPPARD SUBWAY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I recently attended a third public meeting of the environmental assessment study for the Sheppard subway. This was an important opportunity for residents of North York, and in particular my constituents in Oriole riding, to review and comment on the preferred route and station locations and layouts for the proposed Sheppard subway.

During these discussions I was struck by two things. I was impressed by the fact that the residents of North York are actively participating in the environmental assessment process. They believe, as I do, that it's an important opportunity to discuss issues of public concern which affect our community. It was very evident that the Sheppard subway has overwhelming community support. All but three of the people who attended this public meeting supported this important Let's Move initiative.

During the many years it has been on the drawing board, the people of North York have consistently supported the Sheppard subway. They're very anxious for construction to begin. They recognize the Sheppard subway will reduce traffic congestion, support growth and create wealth in the cities of North York and Scarborough and be good for the GTA. In the next stage of the environmental assessment, a report recommending the route for the Sheppard subway is expected.

On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, I urge the government to expedite the construction of the Sheppard subway line. Let's move.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the minister with dual responsibilities for natural resources and native affairs. In the April 3 edition of the Sault Ste Marie Star, you indicated it is almost impossible to enforce resource laws if natives and non-natives hunt together. You were commenting on a proposal to bring a native Canadian into a hunting group to hunt on crown land.

You no doubt know that status Indians who carry green cards are permitted to hunt for personal use at any time, provided their actions do not threaten conservation. You suggested this would make enforcement almost impossible by making it difficult for conservation officers to determine who actually shot an animal.

You indicated there is nothing to stop natives from hunting with non-native friends. However, you said it is more appropriate for natives to hunt with other natives. Minister, you said: "We can't suspend freedom of association. However, it is rather undesirable to have that sort of association."

That is a completely outrageous and unacceptable comment to make. You are promoting building walls between two groups of people at a time when walls are coming down around the world. Your comments are especially outrageous when your Premier held a news conference recently to promote racial harmony. Minister, your behaviour is completely unacceptable and inappropriate.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House a letter I received from a young student in the Tilsonburg area. I would like to read that letter today to show the importance and the realization young people have in our communities.

"Throughout the history of Tilsonburg, innovation has been a key factor in its development. The realization that tobacco could turn sandy wasteland into highly productive farm land changed Canada's future. The tobacco belt towns have flourished, building strong educational systems and communities for the future.

"Ironically, we did not learn the lesson the United States did during the prohibition years. Canada is still making millions off the industry established during a period of prohibition.

"An amazing statistic is that even with the 320% increase in taxes since 1985, plus all the health warnings, the number of Canadian smokers has only decreased by 2%.

"Agriculturists have explored finding a feasible alternative to tobacco, but none have equalled the profitability of tobacco. Like a pebble tossed into a pond, the direct and indirect effects in the midst of a recession are immense.

"Our citizens are grateful for your restraint by not imposing any additional taxes on the tobacco industry. We ask that in future you keep in mind the thousands of Canadians who benefit from the $8 billion in tax revenue collected by the Canadian government annually."

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Many of us are avid watchers of CBC television and its news coverage. For many of us who look to the CBC to provide not only national coverage but local coverage, I understand announcements have been made that will bring local coverage on the CBC to an end, that as of 7 o'clock on Friday nights there will be no local news on CBC stations until 5:30 the following Monday. That there will be no local news from 11 o'clock at night on the CBC is, I think, an appalling situation for those of us who believe in the CBC as an instrument at least of discussing not only local but also national issues with a flavour for Canada.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): So impartial.

Mr Elston: There are some times when partiality is often raised.

I regret that in my 11 years here I have attended meetings that have seen the drawback of national operations like the railroads, as they remove themselves from the hinterland. I watched as the CBC withdrew itself from Windsor and other places. I watch as the post office withdraws its service from all parts of our areas. Although it is a federal-oriented statement, I note that the provincial government likewise is following in the same direction.

As we centralize our operations, I only wish that both levels of government would respond to the needs and the knowledge that outside large centres, there are people who need service and there are people who need information and news.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Ontario's cultural organizations are threatened by a severe financial crisis. For instance, the Art Gallery of Ontario has been forced to close on Mondays and cut staff salaries by 20%, while the Ontario Crafts Council is having to sell off its building and lay off staff.

We have to wonder then why the Ontario Arts Council is granting $62,000 for projects with trade unions. The program that I speak of, Artists and the Workplace, was introduced under the Liberal government and continues to flourish under the NDP.

Consider what some of this year's grants are for. One helps the Canadian Union of Postal Workers design posters and construct signs. Another is for the United Steelworkers of America to create employment equity posters. A third helps the Canadian Auto Workers union develop labour music and build a corps of CAW musicians. A fourth is for street theatre productions by the Toronto local of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. A fifth will fund the Peterborough and District Labour Council's production of an outdoor theatrical spectacle celebrating the "forgotten" history of the Canadian labour movement.

How can we explain to the many performing and visual arts groups who have been unable to obtain grants why these union projects are more deserving than theirs?

I call on the Minister of Culture and Communications to conduct an immediate review of the Artists and the Workplace program. With the limited funding available to our community arts groups, we must ensure that the province's money is wisely spent and fairly distributed.

TVONTARIO

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Ontarians of all races and backgrounds passed through a trying and emotionally draining period last week. The demonstrations and disturbances that broke out here were, on one level, in reaction to the recent shooting of a black youth in Toronto. But on a deeper level they echoed the frustration of so many people in our society, racial minorities and young people in particular, who are saying, "We're tired of being hurt and we're tired of being left out."

We saw a lot of anger last week, and I would like to acknowledge the cynicism behind that anger. We also heard a demand to make our society a fair and decent home for every Ontarian.

In light of this, I would like to congratulate TVOntario for moving so quickly to stimulate thoughtful and intelligent public discussion about racism in Ontario. TVOntario, which is an agency of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, began airing an educational series of programs on racism last Friday in response to the recent events in Toronto. The programs, which continue every evening this week, are aimed at children, young people, adults and educators. La Chaîne will be doing programming on the topic of racial issues during the week beginning May 30.

TVO is to be commended for striving to inform the public and to stimulate discussion at every level: at home, in school and throughout our communities. It is a good first step. I would like to encourage TVOntario to take a further step. We need more programming of this kind, programming not just about racial minorities and others who feel marginalized in our society, but produced by these communities.

In addition, I would like to urge the Minister of Culture and Communications and other ministers to look at other concrete actions they can take to build on the need for improving race relations in Ontario.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): As members of the Legislature may be aware, according to the Endangered Species Act, the peregrine falcon is an endangered species in the province of Ontario. Over the past 10 years, the Ministry of Natural Resources has spent upwards of $10,000 per year to ensure that this species is protected and is allowed to flourish within Ontario's natural environment.

I am taking this opportunity to inform the House that one of these birds was shot and killed near Atikokan last year. Considering the amount of money which has been spent by this ministry in protecting this species, it is disconcerting that the person involved was fined but $25.

While a member of the opposition, the current Minister of Natural Resources argued strongly for a revision of the Endangered Species Act to increase the penalties for violating the act and extending the act to include many vulnerable species which are currently left off the list. Indeed, the minister in June 1990 introduced a private member's bill which was aimed at accomplishing this goal. Yet after 18 months in government, this Minister of Natural Resources has done nothing to strengthen the obviously inadequate penalties provided within the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.

The Endangered Species Act list includes, among other birds, the bald eagle, yet there are numerous other birds which are less common in Ontario's natural environment but receive no protection at all. The time for updating the Endangered Species Act is now and considering your past support on this issue, there are questions why you have not done so already.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My constituents in Oakville South and Burlington have responded to my request that they offer their economic solutions to the Premier on how to solve Ontario's economic problems. Their responses have a recurring theme which sounded like a lesson from the Minister of the Environment: reduce, restore and recover.

Reduce taxes, reduce the deficit, reduce provincial debt, reduce the government workforce, reduce burdens to business so they can compete, reduce cost, reduce government waste, reduce hiring, reduce duplication of services, reduce meetings at luxurious resorts, reduce this tax, spend and inflationary spiral, reduce red tape, restore investor confidence, restore manufacturing jobs, restore health to the economy, restore a business climate in this province, restore entrepreneurial investment, restore job opportunities, restore a feeling of confidence in the future for all our people.

There's a big message in this 3Rs lesson from my constituents: Ontario is yours to recover. I say to this government, let's listen to the people of Oakville South and Burlington and let's make it work.

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): The pins my colleagues are wearing in the House today which say, "I am a recession buster," are the brainchild of the Peterborough Chamber of Commerce. Like other places, Peterborough has been hard hit by the recession. Businesses have downsized or gone under and workers have lost their jobs, but Peterborough has great community spirit and there is widespread determination to emphasize the positive and to work together to give our community a brighter future.

Our local media are looking for and featuring success stories, of which there are many to be found. Innumerable groups of volunteers are working in different ways to give help when it is needed. I can't mention every one, but in particular the Peterborough Network for a Healthy Community, the Peterborough Social Planning Council, business organizations and the media have adopted an optimistic but realistic outlook. People from all sections of our community are increasingly working together to help shape our future.

In all sectors we're replacing confrontation with cooperation. We're committed to a community where all people live together in health and harmony and where all have a chance to acquire skills which can then be used both to earn a fair livelihood and to enhance the quality of life for all.

I would like to thank the greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce for its leadership and all those citizens for taking this positive approach and working together for a better future. They are an example for Ontario.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to make some remarks on the passing of the late Paul Blundy, the former member for Sarnia.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

PAUL BLUNDY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On behalf of my Liberal colleagues I would like to very briefly express our condolences to the Blundy family in Sarnia. Paul Blundy was the member for Sarnia for one term from 1977 to 1981. He passed away within the last day. Paul certainly was someone I knew and worked with closely on a number of projects. His political career interestingly was one that was quite linked to another colourful member for Sarnia, Andy Brandt, with whom he contested a number of elections, both municipally and later provincially.

Paul was someone who had been very active in business in Sarnia as well as serving on Sarnia city council and also served as mayor of that marvellous community in southwestern Ontario.

To his wife, Catherine, to his daughter, Martha, and to his son, Paul, we extend our condolences. He will be remembered as a very fine citizen who served his community well, not just in Sarnia but here in the Legislature.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'd like to pass along the condolences of my caucus to the family of Paul Blundy. I knew Paul from 1977 to 1981, and as you may remember that was a minority Parliament. At that time, there was really an opportunity for members to talk more frankly and to meet more frequently with each other. In a minority Parliament, reasonable things had to be worked out in order to reach a conclusion because the Conservative Party at that time did not hold the majority of the seats.

I found Paul Blundy to be a reasonable, logical man of integrity, and even though a member from my party eventually was victorious in replacing him in 1981, I think Paul served this Legislature well during his period of time here and we should respect his contribution made to our Legislative Assembly.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): It is with sadness that I rise today on the passing of former Sarnia alderman, mayor and former member of this assembly, Paul Douglas Blundy. Mr Blundy suffered a heart attack on Monday, May 11, while walking through Canatara Park in the city he loved and dedicated his life to. Mr Blundy was 74.

Paul Blundy was born March 23, 1919, in Sarnia, and was a veteran of the Second World War, serving with the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve. Following his return from active duty with the navy, he cofounded McKenzie and Blundy Funeral Home with Donald McKenzie in 1946.

Mr Blundy was elected to city council in 1948 and served a total of 10 years as alderman, as well as six years on the Sarnia Hydro Commission. Mr Blundy was elected mayor in 1967 and held the office for eight years. In 1977 he was elected to the provincial Legislature and served as MPP for Sarnia until 1981.

He served with distinction as the Liberal critic for Consumer and Commercial Relations, as well as being a member of the justice committee. He also served on the select committee on company law. Mr Blundy belonged to the Sarnia Rotary Club, the Sarnia Liberal Association and the Knights of Columbus. He was a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, branch 62, and of the Sarnia Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the board of St Joseph's Hospital.

Paul Blundy made a huge contribution to the city of Sarnia and its people. He will be greatly missed by his friends and all those he has helped over the years. Sarnia has experienced a great loss, the loss of a man who has been described as the epitome of public service and a real gentleman.

I wish to extend my sincere condolences to Mr Blundy's family and to all those who knew and loved Paul Douglas Blundy. He will be sorely missed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I wish to thank the members for Renfrew North, Carleton and Sarnia for their kind and thoughtful comments about a member who served the Legislature with distinction. Your kind comments will be sent to Mr Blundy's family, and with them, of course, our deepest sympathies.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Monday of this week, the member for Mississauga West (Mr Mahoney) rose on a question of privilege. He informed the House that 10 ministers comprising 40% of the cabinet would be absent from that day's oral question period, thereby preventing members from holding the government accountable. The member was of the view that this amounted to an infringement of members' collective privileges, and in this regard he referred to standing orders 1(

b) and 21(a).

Having had an opportunity to review the authorities and our precedents, let me refer members to the Hansard for April 19, 1977, where Speaker Rowe, responding to a question of order, made the following remarks (at page 623):

"[I]t is surely the duty of the executive council to see that there are sufficient members of the council in the House during the question period to make it meaningful. Certainly, the Speaker cannot be expected to take on this obligation."

On April 24, 1990, Speaker Edighoffer stated as follows (at page 729 of that day's Hansard):

"I have advised all members in the House on previous occasions that it is up to them whether they attend or do not attend, and it is not up to other members to draw their attention to that."

In reviewing our precedents on ministerial attendance in the context of privilege, I note that Speaker Turner stated in 1984 that the Speaker was not responsible for members' attendance in the House. (I refer members to page 3823 of the Hansard for November 5, 1984, and to page 4846 of the Hansard for December 11, 1984.) And in the first session of the current Parliament, I responded to a question of privilege raised by the member for Mississauga West by suggesting (at page 2671 of the Hansard for October 2, 1991) that the House leaders might want to address the issue of ministerial attendance.

I will add that our precedents also accord with citation 481(

c) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne, which states (at page 141) that members should refrain from referring to the presence or absence of other members. Furthermore, citation 289(3) of Beauchesne states the following (at page 90):

"The duties of members have become extremely varied and members must travel frequently. The discharge of those responsibilities will sometimes take a member away from the House. This absence from the chamber should not be the subject of comment."

In closing, I will say that although the concerns that were raised on Monday do not amount to a point of order or a prima facie case of privilege, I hope that all members will find these remarks helpful.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Today I'm pleased to announce an innovative, long-term strategy that will help renew and revitalize the farm and rural economy of Ontario.

As the Treasurer pointed out in the budget, we must respond to current economic challenges by working in partnership with the people of Ontario on new, innovative directions that will lead us back to economic stability and growth.

In keeping with the announcement made in the budget, and in response to the needs and concerns of Ontario's rural and agricultural communities, we are initiating a comprehensive agricultural investment strategy. The strategy comprises five initiatives and includes the recently announced commodity loan guarantee program.

As members may know, the commodity loan program will provide eligible farmers with a new source of affordable credit based on their crop insurance contracts and a 25% government guarantee on the total loan portfolio. In its first year the program is expected to loan out a minimum of $50 million, and in subsequent years as much as $200 million.

The program is unique in that it was developed cooperatively among farm and commodity organizations, input suppliers, financial institutions and this government. It is administered by a producer-run corporation that knows the business and can ensure that the program evolves to meet future challenges.

The four additional initiatives I'm announcing today indicate this government's commitment to an investment in economic renewal in rural Ontario.

These programs include: first, a rural loan and agricultural mortgage pool program designed to encourage investment in rural and agricultural projects; second, a private mortgage guarantee program aimed at attracting more private investors to the agriculture and food industry; third, an agricultural expertise and education program to help farmers resolve financial difficulties, gain further knowledge of farm finance and farm law and enhance the role of credit unions and caisses populaires in agricultural lending; fourth, a farmer apprenticeship program to provide new farmers with opportunities to gain farming experience and build equity to eventually purchase their own farms.

Several government working groups have been formed to iron out the details of each program. As with the commodity loan program, we are working closely with representatives of Ontario's farm and financial communities. I'd like to thank these people for their valuable input and contributions to, and support for, our strategy so far. I look forward to continuing our cooperative efforts with all these groups.

Details of each of the programs will be announced as they are finalized. I expect that all programs will be implemented before the end of this year, with the exception of the rural loan and agricultural mortgage pool program, which will be implemented as a pilot program early next year.

These programs will provide brand-new investment vehicles and will require substantial consultation and background research before their full implementation.

We are anticipating a total government investment of $120 million over the next five years in these programs. This represents an effective use of public funds to encourage private sector investment and self-reliance in our farm and rural communities. Unlike the ad hoc government funding of the past, these programs will be stable, long-term and based on cooperative partnerships among the Ontario government, farm groups and the financial community.

The most striking feature of this strategy is that it was developed by and for the farm and rural people of Ontario. As members may know, one of my first initiatives as minister was to establish the agricultural finance review committee. The committee, headed up by my colleague Pat Hayes, the member for Essex-Kent, travelled across the province asking farmers what their needs were and, as important, for their suggestions on how best to address their needs.

This strategy is a direct result of that exercise. The spirit and much of the substance of the strategy come from the innovative ideas gathered both during the review and by follow-up consultation sessions.

This government recognized early the significance of our farm and rural communities in supporting Ontario's overall social and economic wellbeing. The $17-billion agriculture and food industry employs more than one in 10 Ontarians and is second only to the automobile industry in contributions to our economy in Ontario. The industry also plays an integral role as the foundation of many of our rural communities.

In our continuing efforts to bring stability to our farm and rural economy I'm also pleased that the farm tax rebate program will continue as stated in the budget estimates.

With the agricultural investment strategy this government has made a decision to invest in the future of rural Ontario, to provide farm and rural people with an investment climate that supports innovation and self-reliance, and to build confidence in the growth of our rural economy rather than allow this important part of our society to crumble under the tremendous weight of current economic pressures.

There are several groups I would like to mention that have helped in the design of the programs I've announced today. They are the Christian Farmers' Federation of Ontario, the National Farmers' Union, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Union of Franco-Ontarian Farmers, the Ontario Farm Women's Network, Catholic Rural Life Conference, the credit union movement, and the Ontario Agricultural Commodities Council, all of which have worked very hard in developing these programs cooperatively with us in the government.

I look forward to working with these farm and rural communities in the future. It is a very exciting strategy and I know it will be successful. I also had a meeting today with some of the key farm leaders, who had a sneak preview of what we've announced. I look forward to working with them in the future on this investment strategy.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I would ask the concurrence of the House to be able to make a statement updating members on the Carleton strike situation without a written statement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I'm pleased to inform the members of the House that with the assistance of mediator Vic Pathe the parties have reached agreement in principle to terminate the strike and to submit all outstanding issues to voluntary binding arbitration.

I can further inform the House that on that basis we expect teachers to be back at school tomorrow. As we speak, the parties are continuing their discussions with Mr Pathe to develop a back-to-work protocol.

I want to certainly express my appreciation to the school board and the teachers' federation and obviously to Mr Vic Pathe for the work they have done in bringing a resolution to this issue. Although they have not been able to reach agreement on the terms of the contract, obviously this resolution is the next best thing and allows the resumption of school for the students.

The last thing I want to say is that we will obviously work with the school board over the next couple of days to ensure that the appropriate modifications to the school year are made so that the successful completion of the students' academic year is achieved.

RESPONSES

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Let's be very clear. There is no joy in what the minister has come to announce, because the system failed. You're playing Russian roulette and you've been playing Russian roulette with the students in Carleton, with the students in the Ottawa board.

You walk in at this point and tell us there is some kind of agreement, but you don't tell us anything about it. You say you're going to send it off to arbitration. We don't know what that is going to cost, but we do know what it has cost the students. To pretend that those students in the Carleton board have gained anything from this or from your inaction in dealing with this strike -- the system, Mr Minister, has not worked.

We can't continue to have a system in which these kinds of negotiations go on right to the 11th hour, and then you walk into this House and, without telling us anything, say there's a settlement. Of course we are glad that the students are back in the classroom, but why did it take this long? You know full well that on Monday the Education Relations Commission said those students were in jeopardy. We in this party and those in the third party have been saying clearly since last fall that if you go back to your announcement of the 1% transfer, there was the root and branch of your problems.

Minister, you can laugh and you can pretend that this is some great victory, but this is really a day of shame for the Ontario education system, because this is not a reasonable way in which to bring about a settlement. We have no idea what it's going to cost either the taxpayers of Carleton or the taxpayers of the province. We must have from you a sense of direction, vision and leadership of the school boards and federations so that the next time there is some kind of work disruption we're not going to have to wait, as we did this time, to see what is going to happen.

Minister, we're going to need commitments from you as to how this bargaining system is going to work in the province, because at the present time the focus, which ought to be on the students, is clearly not there. We cannot go through with all the various negotiations that are ongoing at the moment. We cannot look forward to having to go five, six, seven or eight weeks, where finally you come in at the last minute and say, "Glory be, we have a settlement." It's not on, it's not acceptable and it does nothing for the students of this province.

Minister, you have a responsibility to make sure that the students in Ontario are protected in that collective bargaining system. You have a responsibility to ensure that happens. You have not done it in any way in this system, in what has happened here today with your announcement.

Minister, we need leadership from you on this issue. We need to see what kind of stand you're going to take in terms of future situations of this kind. This is not a great day for Ontario education.

AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Although I thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food for his --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Brant-Haldimand.

Mr Eddy: Although I thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food for his --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Clerk, stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. The member for Brant-Haldimand has the floor.

Mr Eddy: Although I thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food for his announcements, I am grieved that my suspicions are confirmed that this government does not understand the agricultural industries. Far too little, far too late. The government refuses to provide Ontario farmers with the capacity to generate an adequate standard of living, and we know there are lineups in Kent county by farmers for food banks -- shameful.

The budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has been cut by $30 million, and this is the first year that it has been cut. There is no new money in this statement. The money is already included in the decreased budget at the ministry. Last year we spent $50 million on farm financial assistance programs. This year it's only $20 million. I assure the minister and the House that the farmers of Ontario cannot continue to produce many agricultural products at a loss.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): The 15,000 students in the Carleton Board of Education have been out for 28 days, so we can hardly say there is a victory today on the part of anybody in what has happened or what we have been told.

I only can say that if perhaps this minister had taken more definitive action earlier on we might not have had the children out as long as they have been out. I am glad, quite frankly, that this dispute is being settled voluntarily by both sides, if in fact it is as it is told by the minister. I'm glad it is being settled that way. I believe it will lead to an easier transition in terms of what will happen in the future for the students in the classroom.

I introduced a bill in this Legislature some three or four weeks ago, asking for the government to legislate the teachers back to the classroom. I believe the minister should have done that three or four weeks ago as well. However, we are told today that both sides have submitted to voluntary binding arbitration. I interpret that, Mr Minister, to mean that there is no option under this for the teachers to go back on strike in the next two years. He is nodding in the affirmative, so I assume that is so.

I am concerned, however, with regard to the process we have gone through. The mediator who was appointed before to bring this dispute to a close failed miserably, I think, because the mediator before came out of the mediation last Monday and acted like an arbitrator. He left the school board trustees in an untenable position. He offered, in my view, a deal which was far too acceptable to one side of the dispute. That side accepted it almost immediately, and it left the school board trustees in a very difficult situation.

I would hope the minister would either discipline that particular mediator or make it clear to mediators who are dealing with disputes that they are not to act as arbitrators and walk out of a meeting and say, "This side accepts what I have offered and that side has not." I was very much upset with that during this whole process.

I want to say particular thanks to the elected school board, the Carleton Board of Education. Those trustees sat through an unbelievably fiery meeting last Monday night when teachers attacked them verbally, asked for their resignation unreasonably and, in my view, lowered the esteem of the teaching profession in the Carleton Board of Education system even further than it already had been through the strike action.

I hope both sides can get back together. The Carleton Board of Education has been an exemplary school board in providing services to its students. I know that both they and the teachers can work together to provide a very, very first-class system for the Carleton Board of Education in the future.

AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): In reply to the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture and Food today, we all know, and the agricultural community knows, that the commodity loans program is not working. There may be one bank that takes it on and that's all. Mr Minister, the idea's good; it's got to work. You're reinventing the wheel here in the rural loan and agricultural mortgage pool. The Farm Credit Corp tried that 15 years ago, as the minister well knows, and was never able to make it work quite well. Let's not reinvent the wheel.

Your ministry suffered a 6% decrease in budget. Some $36 million was chopped. Over and above that, you had to provide $12 million more to cover the farm tax rebate because of increased taxes at the school and municipal level. So how are you going to find these funds when we know you've announced programs that have been tried before and are not working? I'll try and help you to make them work, but I'm afraid this is not good news for agriculture.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing, I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a former member of the House. Seated in the members' gallery west is the former member for Northumberland, Mr Howard Sheppard. Welcome. Welcome to another former member, the former member for Scarborough East, Mr Ed Fulton.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Just in case people didn't see where Mr Fulton is sitting, he is beside Rod MacDonald, who used to work on my staff and who's with us today in the House as well.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce is always helpful. It is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Solicitor General. In the ongoing Sunday shopping shell game we now hear that the Solicitor General himself, it seems a majority of the NDP caucus and indeed perhaps even the Premier now support changes to the Sunday shopping legislation. Given that this change of view has obviously occurred, will the Solicitor General now tell us when we can expect the changes to the Sunday shopping legislation to be introduced? Is it true that we're going to have to wait until the end of the session before we know what the government is going to do?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): There has been no change to the legislation. If and when there is, I'll be pleased to advise the House.

Mrs McLeod: The views of the public on Sunday shopping certainly couldn't be more clear. It seems to us that the views of the NDP caucus on the matter of Sunday shopping have been made abundantly clear, but it seems equally that the views of the public don't count and it seems as if the views even of this caucus don't count.

Obviously the reason we are not going to find out about changes proposed to the Sunday shopping legislation is that the government can't make a decision until it checks with the people who have the real power in this province, the real decision-makers: the leadership of the union movement and the friends of the NDP.

It seems that the views of Julie Davis, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, are of special interest to this government. The views of Andrew Mackenzie, the Minister of Labour's son, seem to be particularly important. Julius Deutsch, the Minister of Citizenship's executive assistant, has a special right to comment on this issue, although the boss's views don't seem to carry much clout. Michael Lewis of the union movement, Lennox Farrell, all need to be consulted before this government can act.

Can the Solicitor General explain why non-elected, card-carrying NDP officials have more clout than he does, more influence on decisions than the elected members of this government?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The party and the government have had consultations on this particular issue for months and months, including sending out a committee of the Legislature all across Ontario to solicit views and comments. That was followed by hearings right here in the Legislature itself, within the precinct, that went on for weeks and heard all kinds of representations.

We are quite proud of the fact that we, as a party and as a government, listen to the views of others and consult with people. We see that as quite a reasonable thing to do. If there are suggestions that this is not an appropriate way to govern, perhaps that's an avenue best left to others.

Mrs McLeod: I would assume then that the Solicitor General is suggesting that having consulted -- although I recognize the first time they consulted they brought in legislation which was not responsive to what they were hearing from the general public of Ontario -- they have now listened to the general public of Ontario again and have heard the public view that they should change their Sunday shopping law.

That therefore suggests to me that if this government is committed to leading on the basis of consultation, it is now ready to bring in the changes. There should not be a need to delay any longer. You've had the discussions among yourselves. You know you want to bring in those changes, at least a majority of you know. You know that's what the people of this province want.

I would suggest to the Solicitor General that governments are elected to lead. That's the government's job. It's not the job of a non-elected governing body of the New Democratic Party, if that in fact is the last body left to be consulted on this issue. It's certainly not the job of the powerful union interests; it's the job of this government.

We wonder what decisions this government needs to check with the NDP governing council. Did you need to check with them before making a decision on casinos? We weren't aware that you needed to check with them before making a decision on public auto insurance. We wonder why it seems you have to hold off on making this decision until you've checked with the governing council.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader conclude her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: Who is running the government of Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I certainly could recognize the familiarity of the leader of the official opposition and the familiarity of that group over there with polls and reacting to them. Notwithstanding that, the law is a law on this particular issue; it must be obeyed and enforced. There has been no change in that view or that situation.

The fact that the government is assessing its policies and doing so on an ongoing basis I think is a reasonable thing for any government to do. The fact that there's a wide range of views in the general public or in caucus or within the party or anywhere else in this province is nothing new or nothing unusual either. At such time as the government feels any need to make any alteration in its policy, it will announce it to the House. In the meantime, there is no change other than the general discussion that is ongoing.

The Speaker: New question, the member for St George-St David.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I had a question for the Premier, but I read in the papers that he's hobnobbing around the world now. Indeed I saw he was having lunch with Senator MacDougall.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Scott: He was having lunch with Senator MacDougall, talking about casinos. He's the president of a big beer company.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member's observations of world events are always well received, but I would appreciate it if he would place a question to a minister.

Mr Scott: Senator MacDougall isn't on the provincial council of the NDP, as far as I know, but he may be soon.

As the Premier isn't here, the question I have is for the Solicitor General. It's about Sunday shopping and it arises in this context. The Premier promised very early in his government that even though he had a small plurality of votes in the last election, he would make policy decisions in the interests of all the people of the province and reflecting all their views.

[Laughter]

Mr Scott: Members shouldn't laugh just because that hasn't happened, because it was the stated intention of the Premier. Over 70% of the people now favour Sunday shopping, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto and in the cross-border communities.

I want to ask the Solicitor General why this matter is going to be debated at the provincial council. The Treasurer said that if you don't debate these things and listen to the provincial council, you pay a price for it. Is it the purpose of this debate at the provincial council to persuade that council to abandon almost the last principle for which the NDP stands, or is it the purpose of that council meeting to induce it to oppose the policy so the government will not have to introduce these changes?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The inputs that the government seeks are simply advisory in nature. The government retains the full right and the full responsibility of all final decision-making with respect to this or any other law in this House.

Mr Scott: I was much taken, as the people of Ontario were much taken, by the Premier's stated principle that the interests of all the people of Ontario would be considered, with a veto for nobody on policy changes. Why is he taking this important public debate to be considered by the provincial council? He didn't do it with automobile insurance; he didn't do it with half the other policy changes that fate has forced these bunch of ideologues to make. Why is he doing it here? What has Lennox Farrell got to do with it? What have Stephen Lewis's brother and sister?

What has Evelyn Gigantes's father got to do with it? What has almost every defeated NDP candidate, most of whom lost their deposits, got to do with it? What has every president of almost every union affiliated with the NDP got to do with it? Can the Solicitor General and his party not make policy on this important issue, bearing in mind the public interest? Why is he taking this issue to a closed debate with an in-house crowd made up of the usual suspects who brought us labour law reform?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I certainly have had representations from members of the general public. I certainly have had representations of mayors of municipalities. I certainly have had representations from the retail sector of this province and from shopping centre developers and a wide variety of people and interests. Why the member opposite would find it strange or difficult for us to speak to other Ontarians who may possess a view, I wouldn't know, but the circumstance has certainly been one of inclusiveness, and I don't understand why the member would have a difficulty with that.

Mr Scott: Perhaps I can ask a simpler question and hope that the minister can answer it. It has to do with my riding. I want the minister to know that I will vote for any bill that opts for Sunday shopping on a regional basis or in cross-border communities, as the minister may propose. I'm prepared to do that, but the people of my riding, particularly many new Canadians, have established literally dozens of mom-and-pop shops where the whole family works together, where they have made enormous investments to support an enterprise.

They will be in real difficulty if Sunday shopping is introduced, and they are terribly concerned that this issue is going to be decided by the likes of Stephen Lewis's brother and sister. They'd rather have Stephen decide it than these siblings they don't even know. They're very upset that Lennox Farrell is going to decide it and they're very upset that an NDP candidate they didn't vote for is going to decide it by this provincial council meeting.

What I want to ask the Solicitor General is, whatever changes he introduces, will he undertake here today that the mom-and-pop operators in my riding, who have made such a commitment to their businesses, will be fully protected?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the Attorney General should join in this debate on that very issue, before the question's answered.

The Speaker: One minister at a time. Right now, the Solicitor General.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, I can assure you that this government will attempt to protect the interests of all Ontarians and all people in retailing, whether they be large or small, in your riding or outside your riding.

I do find it incredible, though; it's almost amusing. I think the Liberal caucus opposite better leave the House, get a caucus meeting together and review what its position is, because I've been assailed by the likes of Mr Sorbara and other members over there who have suggested that they want these mom-and-pop shops and the major retailers open on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and yes, Sunday. Now I hear there's concern about retailers being forced to open on Sunday. So I am prepared to respond to the members opposite, but I wish they would come to some conclusions.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Solicitor General as well. I read the headlines that say "NDP Caucus Backs Wide-Open Sundays," and according to one of the sources that has leaked out of the caucus of this government, "At the private caucus meeting, Solicitor General Allan Pilkey, Treasurer Floyd Laughren and Municipal Affairs Minister Dave Cooke backed the move." On August 15, 1991, during those hearings that you talked about, you told the Toronto Star the NDP would not budge on Sunday shopping. You said, "The principle of a common pause day is not up for negotiation." My question is this: Is this statement still true?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The comments that are attributed are in fact true. They were made, they were meant and they were followed through on. I think the proof of that is resident in the amendments that were brought forward and the position adopted by the government at that particular time.

I would hasten to add, however, as I have indicated in the last number of weeks, as has other leadership within the government, that we continue to monitor public opinion on that, and in fact it has shifted considerably and dramatically. Beyond that as well, there has been heightened interest from the retail sector, which has indicated that because of the depth of this recession it is looking for any and all alternatives to assist it in that regard. The government has simply taken those altered situations and additional voices into account, determined that it is prepared to discuss them and recognize them and has therefore been reviewing the issue.

Mr Carr: The answer is that the principle of a common pause day is not up for negotiation unless the polls change, in which case it is.

I want to take another look at another position that changed. It's the NDP 1990 document that accuses the Liberals of flip-flops costing workers and families. It's a press release of August 18 from the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier, who said: "Voters in Ontario are getting used to Liberals saying one thing during elections and doing the opposite after the ballots are counted. Taxes, free trade and car insurance are among the Liberal broken promises." I can assure you your list will be much longer, Mr Solicitor General.

It goes on to further say, "And we've seen the Liberals flip-flop on Sunday shopping." I say to the Solicitor General, will you take a stand, will you take a position, will you tell us whether you will introduce legislation before the end of this session?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Perhaps in response I might say that given some of the tragedy type impacts that have occurred in this province and indeed in this nation as a result of some of your friends in Ottawa, it's about time they flip-flopped on a couple of issues. We might all be better off if they did.

Notwithstanding that, this party did in fact enact common pause day legislation. It did so after consultation with the public and it did exactly what it said it would do. I don't think any government should be faulted for subsequently listening to the opinions of the public, having discussion on that and taking those new views and altered views into account.

Mr Carr: The fact of the matter is that isn't what you were saying about the Liberals in the summer on August 18, 1990. Let me read from that same press release:

"The Liberals knuckled under to pressure from the big supermarket chains and the big retailers. They dumped the issue of a common pause day into the laps of Ontario's municipalities and left families to fend for themselves. It was an embarrassing moment for the Liberals: A week earlier, then Solicitor General Joan Smith -- the minister responsible -- had said a municipal option was 'the chicken way' of dealing with the issue." It goes on to say, "She was right."

Mr Solicitor General, the chicken way out. Will you tell us today, have you changed your mind? Yes or no? What is your position today, Mr Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Pilkey: First of all, I'm not sure whom to address over there, because there's a tremendous likeness between the two. Notwithstanding, I will address the member and his twin brother.

This government campaigned on a policy of a common pause day and worker protection. It delivered on that promise and that is the law today. The suggestion that any government that is in power wouldn't assess circumstances on an ongoing basis as circumstances alter and change I think is incredible; to suggest that anybody would be stuck in the mud in that position and be handcuffed from any and all considerations in the future. That's all that is happening. There has been an alteration, there has been a shift, and the government is simply assessing and discussing that alteration.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is also to the Solicitor General. I will note that if there was a decent breeze in here, he'd be swinging.

To the Solicitor General, we understand you don't plan to take any action on the issue of Sunday shopping until the NDP executive takes a vote later this month. Is this the same party executive that is so in touch with Ontario's economic fortunes that it has at various times wanted to nationalize Inco, the same one that wanted to eliminate the sales tax, the same group that said we should have publicly run auto insurance and also the same group that said, "We need a greater provincial presence in Nicaragua"? What a group. We now can rest, knowing the decisions won't be with this motley crew but with a circus.

Could you please release the names of these NDP movers and shakers, so we can alert all those interested parties so they at least know whom they should lobby?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I very much appreciated the question and the frivolity with which it was given. I'm not sure I have a serious response to that kind of question. I would say, however, that I think the people we will be consulting will be as equal to the task as those his party consulted, with respect to issues such as free trade, trilateral trade with Mexico and some of the difficult results they have created for people in Ontario who were formerly employed.

Mr Stockwell: You're ruling that's an answer? Okay. It's pretty hard to believe that's an answer, but we'll run with it.

This government didn't listen to its membership when it came to auto insurance. You just have to ask Mr Peter Kormos. It didn't listen to its party when it came to casino gambling. It's ignored its party principles on landfill sites; ask the Environment minister. Let's just face facts. You're using your own membership, this executive, as a scapegoat for not being able to take a position. That's the bottom line. You can't take a firm decision on Sunday shopping because you're stacked with your previous statements. We hear one thing from the Premer's office. We hear something else from you, the Solicitor General. We hear different views from your backbenchers.

Mr Solicitor General, just who's running this operation? When will we hear of a decision? For the people who are shoppers, who want to shop on Sunday, and for those who want to close, when will the final determination come? When are you going to show this much leadership?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The short answer is that if there is any alteration, we will advise you of that circumstance. Let's be very clear, though, the law is the law. Nothing has changed in the enforcement directives that were given in January to police services boards. The government should not be faulted for regularly assessing its policies and its laws from time to time, as any government would be prone to do, particularly when there has been a significant shift in public opinion.

I don't think there's anything wrong with, as I said earlier, our getting input and advice from the party, from business people, from the retail sector, from trade unions and from the general public. I don't see anything wrong with that; that's all that's being done.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to take this opportunity to enlighten the members opposite about the constitution of the New Democratic Party of Ontario.

Article 14, "Discipline," is very clear: "The provincial executive, a provincial constituency association, Ontario New Democratic Youth, shall each have the right to expel, suspend or discipline any member for any conduct contrary to the constitution or the principles of the party."

According to their own constitution, the only one who can't be expelled is Peter Kormos. We're working with you, Peter. These principles that this party has so proudly staked out as turf in the past are as recyclable as the paper they were printed on. We know you're caving, the public knows you're caving and you haven't got a principle left to stand on. Just give us the date when you're caving.

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, if and when there is any alteration to the Retail Business Holidays Act, I will so advise. Until that time, the law is the law; it's being enforced, and I must say, it's being obeyed by the major retailers of this province.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question's also to the Solicitor General and it concerns this question of retail store hours. It is clear to all members of this Legislature that the retail sector in this province is in very difficult straits. I know in my part of eastern Ontario, in communities like Alexandria, Renfrew, Pembroke, Gananoque, Brockville, Prescott and Cornwall, many of those retail jobs are disappearing. The pain is palpable.

Yesterday we heard that Marks and Spencer is going to be laying off hundreds of people because of difficulties in the Canadian and the Ontario retail sectors. Surely, if for no other reason than jobs and creating wealth in this province, the Solicitor General, as the minister responsible, will admit that the current situation, for whatever ideological reason, is not working and that it's costing jobs. Will he not today, if for no other reason than for those people at Marks and Spencer --

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

Mr Conway: -- and thousands of others like them who are either out of work or about to lose their jobs, admit it's time for a change and the time for that change is now?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I understand the sincerity of the question, but I think the question ignores some other very salient facts with respect to retailing and the profitability or lack thereof in this province at this particular time. There is a recession throughout North America that is impacting all retailers, not only here but in the United States where some of the very largest retail chains have had to seek clause 11, if I've got the right clause, with respect to bankruptcy laws in the United States.

I don't think this is an Ontario phenomenon in any way. There are other reasons, which the member I'm sure would be well aware of. Shopping centre developers overbuilt the amount of retail space in this province by some 30% while the population had only increased by 5%, and so an imbalance was created there and perhaps not some of the very best business decisions taken.

With respect to other decisions, he mentions Marks and Spencer. I was simply reading from the newspaper articles where one looks at the product mix or the origin of where a product is bought and how it's marketed successfully or unsuccessfully, or the locations in terms of metropolitan markets versus smaller markets.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his remarks.

Hon Mr Pilkey: These decisions are not necessarily to do with Sunday shopping, but are decisions that are taken corporately, and unfortunately or fortunately, they will have to live with the result.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, the duly elected member for Sault Ste Marie is right when he reports to the Legislature and to his colleagues in caucus about what's happening in places like Sault Ste Marie, because it's happening in Windsor. It's happening in my part of the province. You would have to be a blithering idiot not to pay attention to what people like the member for Sault Ste Marie are reporting.

Sunday shopping is clearly not the only answer, and I don't offer it as any kind of panacea. But if the ridiculous situation in which this Legislature now finds itself is allowed to continue, the government and, I'm embarrassed to say, all of us are going to be debased even further, because we're going to be seen to be regulating that which will not admit to the kind of regulation this government, for whatever good and ideological reason, sought to impose a year ago.

Will the minister responsible give this House an undertaking today that this week he is going to move to respond to the perfectly legitimate and very democratic impulses that the member for Sault Ste Marie is bringing to the caucus in the interest, if not of ideology, of jobs?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I think the member opposite should be encouraged by the fact that there exists here a government that is aware of the shift in public opinion and that has been allowing discussion within our own caucus, by the fact that there are other people being consulted, and that the government, if it decides it is in the public interest, will return with some alternative situation. But at the moment that is not the case; it is not other than study, other than input and other than review. Therefore, the existing law is clear and it's being maintained.

I agree with the member that there are many other considerations beyond Sunday shopping that are impacting the retail sector, and they may be much more telling than the impact of this one particular element.

TEACHERS' CONTRACTS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education. In Ontario 70% to 80% of teachers' negotiation contracts are not resolved by the contract expiry date. There is no other field of collective bargaining where we would have 70% to 80% of the contracts not concluded by the expiry date.

Mr Minister, I know you're aware of your own standing committee on public accounts. This is the 1991 report. Recommendation 8 states:

"The current 'localized bargaining system' for teachers shall be the subject of a Ministry of Education review. This process has raised concerns among teachers, trustees, administrators and the Ministry of Education."

Mr Minister, my simple question today is: When will you begin a review of what is commonly referred to as Bill 100?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): The issue of Bill 100 is, quite frankly, one that keeps surfacing in a number of places. I think we will need to begin to take a look at that issue. I've certainly heard concerns expressed about it both from teachers' federations and from school boards.

I intend over the next little while to begin some informal discussions with representatives of both school boards and teachers' federations around some issues we might want to begin to address, recognizing that at this point I'm not sure whether a full-scale review of the legislation is appropriate. But I certainly would indicate to the member that some of the issues, particularly around some of the time lines, are ones that do concern me as well as minister and I think are ones that need to be looked at.

Mrs Cunningham: Just to remind the minister, in the 1984 Macdonald commission report there was an observation that expressed concerns with the present localized collective bargaining system. This is a piece of legislation that has been around this province since probably 1975 or so. I think most bills of that duration that directly affect our children and our schools are certainly worthy of very serious scrutiny, especially when a standing committee states it.

I have another question subsequent to that. Right now we have about 150 boards currently negotiating for the fall. It's my understanding, asking around in my position as critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, that the process has been slow because boards and teachers are at such opposite ends. Well, I bet they are.

Mr Minister, you know your government set out these guidelines at 1%, 2% and 2% over the next three years and we know that is a reality. If that's what the directions are and we already have problems reaching a collective bargaining conclusion date by August 31, I don't think the minister's response was appropriate or responsible, so I'm going to ask him again.

I asked you what you were going to do about Bill 100. Forget it. What are you going to do about the collective agreements that are not going to be settled by August 31, so we don't have another Elgin strike, another Ottawa strike or another Carleton strike next year for our students? What are you going to do now?

Hon Mr Silipo: It is my understanding that the number of collective agreements the member is concerned about is in fact not that many in the context of the total number of collective agreements that exist throughout the province that haven't been settled. I'm not even sure I would agree with the premise of the earlier question about the comparison in the education sector with other sectors. But I certainly stand to be corrected if my information on that is not accurate.

In the normal course of negotiations, I think we need to understand that sometimes it takes longer for agreements to be reached. I've indicated that I have some concerns with respect to the time lines. That's an issue we need to address and I intend to start some discussions with representatives of teachers' federations and school boards around that issue.

TORONTO SYMPHONY

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): The thousands of patrons and volunteers connected with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra are very concerned about the deficit situation the orchestra finds itself in. I understand that as a result of the deficit they are going to have to cut back on summer programming; they are going to have to cut back on summer recording sessions --

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

Mr Ferguson: To the Minister of Culture and Communications. They are going to perhaps have to entertain some staff layoffs. I'm wondering if the minister could advise the House what she plans to do about this situation.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): As with many other members of the cultural community, the Toronto Symphony is experiencing some financial difficulty due to economic pressures we all are aware of.

I would like to point out, though, that in 1991-92, at a time when municipal and federal governments were pulling back on operating expenditures, the provincial government increased to the Ontario Arts Council, to their base, $7.5 million, which was an increase of 15%. The Ontario Arts Council is the agency of my ministry that gives funding to the Toronto Symphony.

On top of that, I would like to point out --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Haslam: That was in 1991-92, for those who didn't hear me say that. The OAC is an agency of the ministry and does support the operational budget of the Toronto Symphony. Also, the ministry itself gives financial programming --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.

Hon Mrs Haslam: -- to the operations, in particular to their touring, to the value of $320,000.

Mr Ferguson: If in fact the Ontario Arts Council does not provide the assistance that's necessary, I think the people connected with the Toronto Symphony will want to know whether the minister will intervene in the matter.

Hon Mrs Haslam: The Ontario Arts Council is an agency of my ministry and as such it is an arm's-length agency. I cannot interfere and tell them who to give money to. I can't believe that the members in this House expect me to go to one of my agencies and tell them who I want to give grants to and who I don't want to give grants to. If that was the case, I wouldn't be giving grants to them.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Halton Centre.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'd like to welcome the Minister of the Environment back from Europe, but my question is to the Minister of Health.

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Did I understand the Minister of Culture and Communications to say that if it were a member of the opposition and she had her way, she wouldn't give him any grants? I wonder if I could have clarification on that.

Hon Mrs Haslam: Mr Speaker, I withdraw that. I'm just saying they can't expect me --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat. Minister.

Hon Mrs Haslam: Is that a question?

The Speaker: No. The member for Quinte rose on a point of privilege. I acknowledge the minister was contributing to the point of privilege. Has she completed her statement?

Hon Mrs Haslam: No. I would never think of doing that. It's very evident in all of the grants that it's -- what I'm trying to say is that the criteria are there and they are not to expect me to interfere and say where the grants go. I cannot do that.

Mr O'Neil: Another point.

The Speaker: Another point of privilege?

Mr O'Neil: I think it's a very important point when the minister would stand up -- I think Hansard will prove out that she did say that if she had her way none of the members of the opposition would get any grants at all from the Ontario Arts Council.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To the member for Quinte, I appreciate the matter you've raised. It is not a point of privilege. However, it certainly might be the subject matter for question period, which is where we currently are. The member for Halton Centre was recognized to have the floor.

HEALTH BUDGET

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. As you know, the announcements that were made in the health mini-budget on Monday have added to people's fears that the poor, the elderly and the sick will have reduced access to medical care in Ontario. By the end of this fiscal year the minister will have chopped $832 million in existing services out of health care. There's no confidence that the impacts of those cuts have been analysed or appreciated.

Furthermore, the chops have been made unilaterally without the advice of those who would provide recommendations that would make the system work better, with more cost-effectiveness and keeping the principles of medicare intact. The minister has cut $38 million from the funding of tests performed by commercial laboratories with no apparent understanding that it is physicians who order the tests or why they may be needed.

We want to know where the advice the minister received that led to this decision came from. Did it come, by example, from the New Democratic provincial council? We know it didn't from physicians and specialists. We know it didn't come from commercial laboratories. We know it didn't come from consumer groups. We know it didn't come from any report that's being completed, because she hasn't issued the report yet. Where did the minister receive her advice? Did it come from the provincial council?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I rarely engage in cheap shots at opposition members. I'm tempted to say the member doesn't know very much, given the comments she made. Let me go back to the statement she made, where she said we are attacking the vulnerable and the elderly. We are not. Let me go back to the statement she made that there's no confidence we can undertake these kinds of reform and restructuring and save these sorts of dollars.

My experience, in travelling across this province and talking to health care partners and talking to consumers, hospital CEOs, physicians and nurses, is that in fact there's a great deal of confidence that we can undertake these kinds of reforms. So I'd ask the member to stop the rhetoric. Let's deal with the issues.

She talked about the commercial laboratory sector. In fact, there have been discussions that have taken place. The measures we are taking at this point in time are to put in place a utilization formula where tests grow beyond a certain level that could be related to the demographic growth in the community. One of the reasons we feel we are able to do that is that with the greater centralization of laboratory tests and computerization, the costs per unit test have come down. We think that at a certain point we can actually discount that.

There are savings to be had there, which right now accrue to the commercial laboratories in terms of profit. We believe that profit should be saved to the taxpayers of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mrs Sullivan: No one believes you can cut $832 million out of the health care budget without having an effect on the delivery and access to services for people who are poor, who are old and who are sick.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Only CBC Metro Morning.

Mrs Sullivan: In the health care document the minister has indicated that a laboratory review "will promote the use of public health and hospital laboratories." Once again, the minister has signalled that the review will not be a thorough one and that the outcome has been prejudged, just as it was in terms of the decision made on the cutting of fees.

We want to know, however, if this is a signal put forward on the advice of the NDP provincial council, which is unaccountable and unelected, that you intend to put private sector laboratories out of business, and that ideology is once again overtaking the agenda as it did in your decision on child care. I ask the minister if she is telling the House whether commercial laboratories have a place under their government in this province.

Mr Bradley: And will we hear this on Metro Morning?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, the member's attempt at being witty is failing miserably.

Let me say that we have a number of examples where we believe that through better management, and with respect to laboratory testing as well, we can show we are saving money right across the hospital system. Let me cite that just yesterday we released the latest reports from the Scott task force with respect to thyroid testing and guidelines for physicians around when those kinds of tests should be ordered.

A previous report that was released during the time that the Liberal government was in power and the member for Oriole was the Minister of Health had to do with tests for cholesterol. Those sorts of guidelines for physicians for when they order tests are very helpful in terms of bringing down costs of unnecessary tests. We think we can look to the hospital sector, where there are lab tests or X-rays that need to be redone, where in fact money is wasted as a result of that.

The member talks about cuts to the health care system of $800 million.

Mrs Sullivan: Are you putting the private sector labs out of business?

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre.

Hon Ms Lankin: What we've been trying to do is accomplish a slowing down of the rate of growth of the costs of health care. It's very important that we do that in order to preserve our health care system.

Where I would agree with the member is in the very important goal, which we all share --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- of preserving medicare and of ensuring that there's an accessible system for the elderly and for the vulnerable. I am as dedicated to that as the member opposite.

ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Unfortunately I'm asking the Minister of Transportation a question. He has the reputation of being the Hans Christian Andersen of this House, but after the Minister of Health's last statement, hopefully we can get a succinct answer.

Minister, each year your ministry allocates supplementary funding to the municipal roads program. Municipalities are most concerned about knowing whether they're going to get some supplementary funds this year. Can you tell us when you're going to announce them?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Yes, one more time, I certainly welcome the involvement. Indeed, when we're talking about supplementary allocation, money that flows from the treasury to the Ministry of Transportation and directly to address the nuts and bolts, those particulars that are not addressed elsewhere --

Mr Turnbull: When? Tell us when?

Hon Mr Pouliot: When you're asking, "Tell us when?" if you will have the decency to let me answer, I'm about to give you the answer you're seeking.

The timing couldn't be better, for I have the final application. It will allow for ample time to go through the bidding process, to follow due process. It's a matter of a day or two, and the announcements are forthcoming indeed. It's a massive allocation this year.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mr Turnbull: We'd certainly like to know what "massive" means, but I don't think this assembly has enough time to listen to the answer to that.

I notice, as supplementary, that in this year's budget we're talking about a $2.3-billion program on the Jobs Ontario capital fund, with this year's allocation being $500 million. The interesting thing is, we have an existing program, the transportation capital fund, which calls for more money to be spent on transport. By the time you break down that amount of money among all the ministries, there's more money being spent on transport today.

I'd like an assurance from the minister that we're going to get at least as much spent on roads as he spent last year. We want the commitment that indeed Premier Bob Rae said: that he's going to carry through the infrastructure program and that it's not just going to be a reannouncement of a reannouncement. Where are the funds?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I'd like to commend the member opposite. Today is his lucky day indeed. He is most insightful, which is a departure from form from the conglomerate across. The member is absolutely right. He knows about the multiplicator. He knows about shovelling the ground. He knows about our intent to put people back to work. He knows about the work that needs to be done.

He's read what the Treasurer had to say in terms of being innovative to raise new forms of capital, returning the money to flow from the province to the marketplace to build bridges and maintain roads, to say nothing of our usual programs such as winter maintenance. In fact, we are more confident that out of the $500 million that will be spent this year Transportation will have one more time its rightful place under the sun. It will put women and men to work in relatively short order.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question for the Solicitor General. The Grandview Training School For Girls has been the subject matter of government coverup for over 20 years now. As long ago as 1968 the NDP member for Beaches-Woodbine raised his concerns about the violence and abuse that was going on at that place. The then Minister of Correctional Services, Allan Grossman, dismissed the complaints and criticized the opposition member for having the audacity to speak that way about one of the province's training centres. Since then there's been an investigation in 1976, one conducted by local police.

I appreciate that criminal investigations are finally currently taking place in view of the just incredibly horrible and violent assaults on young women -- very young women, children -- who were crown wards, who expected and had every right to expect the comfort and security of being a crown ward.

My concern, though, is about the 1976 report and the fact that it is being kept under wraps. The issue here is the issue of coverup. Why won't the Solicitor General permit the people of this province, permit those victims, those survivors, to know what happened in 1976? Who prepared that report? Who conducted the investigation? Whom was it distributed to? Why weren't charges laid then?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I would be only too anxious to respond to the question from the member, but the information he seeks falls under the purview of the Minister of Culture and Communications and I would ask her to respond directly to his request.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I'd like to give a little background. It's under my ministry, Culture and Communications. In February of this year the archives located, after an extensive search, an investigation report prepared in 1976 by the Ministry of Correctional Services. After consulting with legal counsel, the Archivist of Ontario decided, under the personal information and law enforcement exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, not to release the report.

This same approach was used and followed under similar police investigations of the St Joseph's and St John's training schools, which also relied on records at the Archives of Ontario. The archivist's decision reflects the belief that the public interest is best served by allowing the current administration of justice, including present police investigations, to proceed unhindered by public disclosure in the media.

Mr Kormos: Bullfeathers. I remember asking very similar questions to the last government about St Joseph's Training School, receiving the same answers and our party not being very satisfied about the answers then. There are survivors. There are victims. We know there's a criminal investigation taking place. Hopefully criminal charges will be laid against the culpable people. We're talking about coverup here. We're not talking about the issue of criminal investigation.

Maureen Forestell, a bright young lawyer in Toronto who's been retained by these survivors pro bono -- no fee -- is struggling to obtain access to their own personal files from the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the Ministry of Correctional Services. She's being stonewalled.

I tell you, Mr Speaker, that sort of pat, scripted answer is no satisfaction to those young ladies, to those victims, or any other victim of sexual violence in this province. I want to know why this minister won't alleviate the stonewalling that persists even with this new government.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I am very concerned. I can understand why the member is concerned, because it does deal with very emotional issues, but I'd like to remind the member that once the police investigations are completed and the matter has been settled in the courts, which is what he said, the archivist can reconsider the original access decision, as the law enforcement exemption will no longer apply. Requesters not satisfied also have the right to immediately appeal the archivist's decision and ask for an independent review by Ontario's information and privacy commissioner.

TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer. It has to do with members of the government using taxpayers' money to, I think, deliberately misrepresent the budget. I have a copy of, I gather, a document sent out to the residents of Dovercourt by the member for Dovercourt. It says in the document, "Ontarians making $53,000 a year or more will see increases in their personal income taxes; the other 90% of Ontarians making less than $53,000 will not be affected by these changes."

The Treasurer will know that's not true. The Treasurer will know that in this year, this very year we're talking about, people making $40,000 a year, people making $25,000 a year, people making $20,000 a year, people making $10,000 a year, all of them will pay more personal income tax. The federal government gave a reduction in personal tax and then, Treasurer, as you know, you took that back, and twice as much. You tripled what the federal government had given to low-income earners in this year. The document the member for Dovercourt sent out is totally incorrect. Low-wage earners are paying more taxes this year.

Seeing as public money has been clearly used to misrepresent the budget and to mislead the people of Ontario, I would like to know from you, Treasurer, what steps you are going to take to ensure this misrepresentation is corrected by the members of your government.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I haven't seen the document to which the member refers. I would appreciate having a look at that. I would like to make a clarification, however, on exactly what the comparison of the tax rates is in 1992 and in 1993. This is putting all the changes together, not simply the personal income tax, not simply the surtax, but also building in the federal government's changes on the PIT as well, on the income taxes --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): No, you can't do that. The federal government gave them a break, and you took it back.

Hon Mr Laughren: I didn't know that the member opposite could tell me what I could or could not do in my answer, but if you don't want me to answer the question, fine.

Mr Sorbara: Okay, so you misrepresented.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Centre, would you withdraw the remark, please?

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I said there was a misrepresentation. That is the subject matter of the question. It is the subject matter: whether or not there was a misrepresentation of the information sent out by the Minister of Education, the member for Dovercourt. There's nothing to withdraw here.

The Speaker: What would be helpful is if the member would allow the Treasurer to complete his response, and his own colleague might have an opportunity for a supplementary.

Mr Sorbara: I would be delighted to hear what answer the Treasurer is going to give to this very important question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would you stop the clock for a minute, please? I listened carefully. The words I heard suggested to me that there was a very strong difference of opinion. I did not hear the member saying the Treasurer had misled the House. At the same time, I must caution all members that any language which leads to disorder is out of order and unparliamentary, and further, it's very helpful to question period if members would try to use temperate language. Among other things, we may get a few extra questions in. Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I shall have undying gratitude to the member for York Centre for allowing me to respond in the way I think is appropriate, and with which he will agree. It is

an act of enormous generosity on his part. It was a serious question from his seatmate, unlike his interjections.

In 1992 the changes in the tax system were as follows -- I don't know whether the member opposite was thinking of married or single, because it does change the equation a bit: for a single person earning $10,000 a year, unthinkable but nevertheless, the net change in taxes would be a $5 increase for the year; at $20,000, a $20 increase; at $25,000, $30; and so --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will try to answer what I think was a serious question. If the members don't want to hear the answer, that's fine; I don't have to give it.

For a one-earner married couple with two children, for $20,000, $5 less in taxes for 1992; at $25,000, $95 less; at $30,000, $30 more; at $40,000, $55 more.

When you move into 1993, which --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't know why you are being so wrangy today and won't let me answer a very straightforward question with a straightforward answer.

For 1993, which is the real year in which the federal and provincial combination of taxes takes place, for a single person everyone up to $50,000 would have an increase in tax; for a one-earner married couple with two children, at $20,000, $25 less; at $25,000, $95 less; between $30,000 and $60,000, no change whatsoever; and above $60,000, $50 more, and so the scale goes up after that.

I think the member opposite should at least allow me to paint the entire picture before he starts trying to shout down my answers.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The question I asked was clearly that the householder misrepresented. I am unsatisfied, Mr Speaker, with the response. I would request -- and later you will get it in writing, which I gather is what you require -- an opportunity for what I gather we call the "late show" here, an opportunity to explore the answer in more detail at the end of one of our sittings.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Indeed, the member has a point of order, and perhaps he would file the necessary document with the table.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As one of the obligations of House leaders in this place, it is necessary for us from time to time to consider seating arrangements of the members of this forum.

We were greeted this morning, on seeing the newspaper reports of meetings of the caucus of the government party, that there was tremendous breakup. Prior to there being some difficulty in being able to sit in their current positions, I am wondering if you could tell us whether independent members of the New Democratic Party caucus would have to sit in the far corner of the House together or if they would be allowed to intersperse themselves, as they currently are, when they vote against the government on the Sunday shopping bill. It's necessary for seating arrangements in the House, sir.

The Speaker: The Speaker has many duties, but I'm not sure that one of them is rearranging the furniture. I do appreciate the point you have brought to my attention.

PETITIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition today signed by 26 employees of the Graham Fiber Glass Ltd company in Erin in my riding. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent, empirical studies of the impact that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario, signed by 34 residents of the county of Middlesex in the city of London:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have signed it as required.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have about 10,000 signatures from the greater Hamilton-Wentworth area as part of the now about 125,000 signatures on the petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

That, as I say, is about 10,000 for today, and it has my signature of support.

NOISE POLLUTION

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition here signed by approximately 172 members from the riding of Wentworth North. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, Canada:

"Whereas over the past four years the residents of the town of Ancaster and nearby communities have experienced serious noise pollution from airplanes flying over their residences or workplaces, said airplanes having taken off from or being about to land at the airport in Mount Hope, Ontario; and

"Whereas the said noise pollution has often been disruptive, causing loss of sleep and contributing to ill health and reduced ability to enjoy real property and to function as human beings in home and work environments; and

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

"To take whatever specific action is necessary, including but not limited to undertaking a full environmental impact study on the Mount Hope airport to ensure that the abovementioned residents are not subjected to the said noise pollution at night or at any other times."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition regarding the Rent Control Act, Bill 121:

"The proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out necessary major repairs to residential rental buildings;

"This bill, if enacted, will result in the private sector being unable to build new residential rental housing, with an ensuing loss of tens of thousands of jobs;

"This bill will ensure that the non-profit housing sector will be the only builder of new residential rental units, at enormous cost to the Ontario taxpayers;

"This law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"The rent-freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To cancel the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed and the role of the private sector in the construction of new rental housing."

I affix my signature thereto as well.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 160 signatures. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"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 abovementioned implementations;

"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."

RENT REGULATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have two pages of petitions signed by the residents, the tenants, at 770 Hager Avenue in Burlington. These tenants have said:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent-freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

I have signed the petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by over 2,400 Ontarians.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act,

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's fourth report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS' LICENSING ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES PERMIS D'UTILISATEURS DE BATEAUX À MOTEUR

Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 17,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators / Loi prévoyant la délivrance de permis aux utilisateurs de bateaux à moteur.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just have a brief explanatory note. The bill, which applies only in respect of motor boats propelled by engines of at least 25 horsepower, prohibits the operation of such a motor boat by any person who does not have a motor boat operator's licence.

The bill requires every person to carry a motor boat operator's licence while operating a motor boat to which the bill applies, and to produce it when requested to do so by a police officer. If unable or unwilling to produce the licence, the motor boat operator is required to give the police officer his or her name and address.

The bill creates the offences of careless operation of a motor boat and impaired operation of a motor boat. A person who contravenes any of the provisions of the bill or certain regulations made under the bill is liable to pay a fine not exceeding $1,000 and in some cases to have his or her motor boat operator's licence suspended or revoked.

LEAD ACID BATTERIES RECYCLING ACT, 1992

Mrs Sullivan moved first reading of Bill 18,

An Act to require the Recycling of Lead Acid Batteries.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Some members of the House may recall that this bill was presented to the House in the last session. It was considered in members' debate as Bill 26, received second reading and died on the order paper.

It's a bill that requires the recycling of lead acid batteries and the involvement of the manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers and consumers in the full-cycle process. It has the support of retailers and the international battery council and is in effect in many other jurisdictions. I believe it is a bill of some importance and I would like to have it presented again.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Mr Johnson, on behalf of Ms Wark-Martyn, moved third reading of Bill 130,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As the Revenue critic for the official opposition, I rise today to begin the debate and the discussion on third reading of Bill 130, which is the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act of 1991. I would like to take a few minutes to explain to people in this House who are here today for this debate, as well as those who may be watching on the parliamentary channel, what this piece of legislation is about; also, if I could, to share my concerns and, as is my responsibility as critic, to appropriately and properly criticize from a number of different perspectives.

The first perspective from which I believe criticism is warranted is the overall policy that this legislation represents, and as well during the debate, as I have on other issues, I will be offering constructive alternatives and advice to the government. I will hopefully, during my debate on this piece of legislation, be able to hold them accountable by making sure that anyone who is watching this debate fully understands the implications of this legislation so that he too can question the government's policy -- tax policy, fiscal policy, economic policy -- which I think is fundamentally flawed.

The issue of Bill 130 implements the NDP's budget policy of extending a gas guzzler tax on new automobiles. This was originally announced in the first budget of Treasurer Laughren, the first budget of the NDP government in April 1991. It is still before this House today because it represents such a misguided fiscal policy that I believe the prolonged debate is an opportunity to alert the public to what we believe is in fact damaging to the automobile sector of our economy and our society.

This tax -- that's what it is; it is a revenue bill, it is a tax -- has been called by some the tax on auto workers.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Who would have said that?

Mrs Caplan: That phrase was coined by my colleague the member for St Catharines, who has the major General Motors facility in his riding. On numerous occasions, as he referred to this as the tax on auto workers, he explained what this would mean to General Motors, to the workers in the automobile industry who were going to be impacted because of this so-called gas guzzler tax on auto workers, Bill 130.

This piece of legislation levies additional taxes on the purchasers of new cars. We are all aware of the state of the Ontario economy. We know that we are hopefully at the end of the worst recession in the province's history in many years, since the days of the 1930s and the Depression.

I have said on occasion in this House that I believe the recession has been prolonged by the misguided economic and fiscal policies ideologically driven by the New Democrats, and this is probably the best example of the kind of initiative that has slowed the recovery unnecessarily for the people of this province and has hit an industry that is fundamental to the economic prosperity, the creation of wealth and the overall economic health of this province.

As Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, has so often said, this tax on auto workers is killing jobs. We know what's happening with General Motors; we know what's happening within the auto industry and what Mr Bradley proposed and what I support and would like to suggest today as an alternative to this tax. There's still time. This bill has only been put before us today for third reading. The government could still withdraw this bill and it could replace it with an incentive for the public to purchase new cars.

There are many precedents for this. It would not only stimulate the economy and the auto industry and protect jobs, but also have the additional benefit of removing from the roads environmentally unsafe, older clunkers, gas guzzlers. If you really wanted an environmental bill that was going to resolve the issue of emissions and inappropriate gas use through inefficient engines, surely to goodness this government would understand that it could do that by replacing those old cars with unsafe emission standards, those old cars with inefficient engines.

By doing that it would increase the revenues that would have been produced by this piece of legislation through increases in its retail sales tax, because retail sales tax is levied on those automobiles already.

This tax on tax, this additional tax on the purchase of new cars is a message to the consumers of this province and it's the wrong message. At a time when we want to instil consumer confidence, when we want to say to consumers that now would be a good time to buy a new car because that would be good for the economy of Ontario, that would stimulate economic growth, that would help with wealth creation, that would help to lead us out of the recession we are suffering from, this legislation which we are discussing today in third reading sends exactly the wrong message.

Under this legislation which was a part of that budget of 1991 revenue has been collected already by the Ministry of Revenue since the budget that announced this initiative.

Over the course of the last year when we were all hoping we would see an economic recovery, which we didn't see, when we were hoping that with consumer confidence we would be seeing an economic recovery occur in this province faster and stronger than any of the predictions at the time were suggesting, this legislation, the dollars that were collected from the consumers who purchased new cars over the past year and the number of people who did not purchase new cars because of the additional tax, because of the additional cost, because of their concerns about the lagging recession, has ended up costing this province jobs.

We have not seen the kind of thoughtful presentation from the Minister of Revenue or the parliamentary assistant which would in any way justify this kind of legislation at this time. We know there is a very big difference between the way this piece of legislation is being introduced and implemented and what was originally contemplated by the first tax of this kind, which was implemented during the time of the government I served in. I'd like to explain the significant difference in policy.

It's important to note that the Liberal gas guzzler tax was only targeted to the minority of cars with the highest fuel inefficiency. That's very important to note. It was primarily designed to exact a premium from, and discourage, those luxury purchases and foreign-made automobiles such as Rolls Royces, Ferraris and cars of that nature. That is a very different kind of initiative. In fact, I would argue that policy was good for the car industry in Ontario, because it was designed to discourage the purchase of foreign luxury cars, fuel-inefficient cars, and encourage the purchase of Ontario-made, North American-built cars. That was the policy at that time.

This change is very significant, because the other difference between the tax that was instituted during the time of the Liberal government and this tax is that our tax was not a major source of government revenue. It produced minimal amounts of money. It was designed primarily as a policy initiative that would encourage the purchasing of Ontario-made and Ontario-built cars. It was designed to send a signal out to those people who were purchasing foreign-made luxury cars. I believe it was a very significant and successful policy initiative. It was not designed as a tax grab. Bill 130, this bill, is a tax grab, clear and simple, and I'll show you the difference.

This tax says that for cars whose litres per 100 kilometres average between 8.5 and 8.9 litres, the tax is an additional $200. That proceeds gradually through 9 to 9.4 litres at $700; 9.5 to 12 litres, $1,200; 15.1 to 18 litres, $4,400, and over 18 litres, $7,000. Under the original NDP budget plan, the tax rate was doubled and the tax was extended to cover vehicles with consumption rates down to 8.5 litres per 100 kilometres. The tax was also extended to include sport and utility vehicles.

This tax hike had been denounced by management and unions alike, including Bob White and Ken Harrigan. We all know who Bob White is; he's the head of the Canadian Auto Workers. Ken Harrigan is the president of Ford. It was also denounced by the head of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. The tax was criticized as being unfair because it penalized sport and utility vehicles often used by families which have no other choice of vehicles, and that is particularly large families driving mini-vans and northerners and farmers using their trucks and off-road vehicles.

This NDP tax on auto workers captured many vehicles built or partially built in Ontario, including the Chrysler Magic Wagon, with its automatic transmission, several Ford products, including engine plants in Windsor and St Thomas, the Chevrolet Lumina, the Buick Regal, built in Oshawa, as well as the Suzuki Sidekick. It is now basically extended to all full-size vehicles, including four-wheel-drive trucks.

General Motors has estimated that the original budget version of the NDP gas guzzler increases would hit 21 of its car models and as many as 32 of its sport utility vehicles, such as four-wheel-drives. Ford estimated it would have 15 models affected. Chrysler, although it said there were fewer of its models affected, was also very concerned about the policy of NDP Bill 130.

According to the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association, an additional 202 vehicles would have been hit by the budget announcement of the NDP automotive tax. The budget version of the gas guzzler resulted in Ford reconsidering plans to relocate production of its Bronte line to Oakville. Ford estimated that the tax would have cost it $50 million and 3,000 lost vehicle sales of its 1992 models.

Even the environmental groups agreed that the tax-only approach is not necessarily the most effective way of helping the environment. Friends of the Earth said that a better program would be to also offer tax rebates to purchasers of fuel-efficient vehicles; exactly the proposal that was put forward by Mr Bradley, former Minister of the Environment, who understands the opportunities that are possible when you look at encouraging economic development and protecting the environment at the same time.

The idea of a tax rebate to encourage the trade-in of fuel-inefficient or environmentally unsafe older cars is not a new concept. It's not something of which Ontario would have even been able to say, "This is leading edge, new policy, ground-breaking ideas." The state of California has had that kind of policy in place and it is working. The NDP government in Ontario could have achieved two policy objectives rather than simply raising revenues and having the potential I've just outlined in my remarks of having such a negative and serious impact on a fundamental industry in Ontario.

When we look at some of those projects that have been piloted in the United States, what we find is there are what they call scrap-car programs to encourage owners of older vehicles to turn them in for scrap purposes, allow those old cars to be recycled and reused so that we could reduce the emissions. Where have we heard that before: Recycle, reduce and reuse? We've heard that from the Minister of the Environment of the NDP government. We've heard that from Mr Bradley.

Yet, this Bill 130, this policy of the New Democratic government, flies in the face of those environmental goals, because this bill will not cause older vehicles to be scrapped. This bill will not encourage trade-in. This bill will not encourage people to go out and purchase fuel-efficient, energy-efficient and environmentally sound new cars. This legislation discourages that. That shows how misguided Bill 130 is.

The Liberal official opposition has raised concerns about Bill 130 and this new tax on numerous occasions over the course of the past year. We were particularly concerned with the original proposal that was in the budget. As a result of our appropriate action, our appropriate criticism and our appropriate questioning, the Treasurer, under real pressure, re-examined his proposal. He finally held a series of consultations.

I believe some of the problems they had originally with that first budget were a result of inexperience. We said so at the time. It was a government that didn't expect to be elected, that didn't know how to govern. But this is almost two years later and we still see proposals that are left out, that were drafted at a time when the government was inexperienced and didn't understand. You would think that now, after having time to reconsider, this government would realize you can withdraw those misguided proposals. You don't have to follow through. The public wants you to do what's in the public interest. The public wants you to reconsider.

We heard today a debate in the Legislature during question period where everyone was saying, "Look, rethink your position on Sunday shopping, just as you rethought your position on other public policy matters." So during this debate on Bill 130, I'm saying to the government, rethink your position on this gas guzzler tax. Rethink your position, because this is not going to achieve the policy objectives that are in the public interest in Ontario.

Even though the Treasurer went back and made some initial adjustments to his original proposal, I don't think the changes have been good enough. We know there were a number of consultations that went on. As a result, the Treasurer introduced changes to his budget, to the gas tax, and the minister introduced Bill 130 to implement the new policies.

The basic effect of the changes was to lower the rate of the tax for many vehicles, but to extend its range to a wider range of vehicles; again totally contrary to the kind of message you want if what you're really looking for is an environmentally friendly tax, totally contrary to what you really want if you want to encourage new car purchases in the province.

The changes in this tax have changed from being targeted to only the worst gas guzzling vehicles to covering most vehicles. With this piece of legislation, Bill 130, you now no longer have a gas guzzler tax at all. The previous policy of the former government has been sent to a landfill dump, probably soon to be established in the member's riding. I see him smiling opposite.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): We can always give you another ski hill, Elinor.

Mrs Caplan: Yes, we're going to see.

In all seriousness, and this is a very serious debate, Bill 130 is not at all what it was purported to be. It is not a gas guzzler tax. It is, as Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, has said so eloquently on numerous occasions, a tax on auto workers, a tax on the auto industry, a deterrent to car sales in Ontario, a deterrent to economic recovery in Ontario. I believe it is the wrong signal at this particular time to consumers and industry alike.

The revised Bill 130, this NDP proposal, has changed from an environmentally based deterrent to a broad tax grab. That's what this is. The Treasurer, I'm sorry to say, refused to answer questions about how the latest extension of this tax to include 99% of all vehicles would deter people from purchasing fuel-inefficient cars. Do you know -- well, I know you know, Mr Speaker, why he didn't answer those questions. He couldn't answer those questions because Bill 130 is not a deterrent not to purchase. That's a double negative. Bill 130 is not going to deter the purchase of fuel-inefficient cars. Bill 130 is going to deter the purchase of any car in Ontario. It's that simple.

I say for the members of the government caucus opposite, many of whom have auto parts industries in their ridings, many of whom have the spinoff industries of the auto sector which is such an important component of the Ontario economy, that this legislation, Bill 130, is not a deterrent to the purchase of energy-inefficient cars. This is not an environmental bill; this is a deterrent to the purchase of cars. It is an economic deterrent. It is a deterrent to the consumer, who we all wish at this time would help lead us out of this recession with renewed confidence. The purchase of automobiles made in Ontario would be very significant in assisting our economy through this difficult recession.

I mentioned Bob White before. Do you know what he had to say about Bill 130? He said this is a more uniform tax. He said it's much less damaging to the bottom line of the industry in terms of how it would skew the sales of certain models -- not exactly a rousing endorsement; in fact, an acknowledgement from a union leader as to what this really is and also, I believe, a statement that points out how misguided the policy of the NDP government is and was in understanding the fundamental importance of the automobile industry to Ontario.

The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers had this to say: "As the tax stands now, it will damage the automobile industry at a time when it's just beginning to recover from the recession." Do you know who said that? Donald McArthur, Canadian president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. "As the tax stands now, it" -- this Bill 130 -- "will damage the automobile industry at a time when it's just beginning to recover from the recession."

Hello? Is anybody listening over there?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): We don't want to listen to you.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, I appeal to you. This is a very important debate on Bill 130 and yet the member for Yorkview, who is not sitting in his seat, interjects, which I know is unparliamentary. I ask that you call him to order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Oriole has the floor. If indeed you wish to participate in this debate, the third reading on Bill 130, you will have the opportunity. In the meantime please allow the honourable member for Oriole the decency of listening.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On that point of order, Mr Speaker -- not on a point of order but on the member for Oriole's point of order: She sat down. She appealed to you as a matter of process because she --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Wi