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

December 8, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OF FARM COMMODITIES

BAR ASSOCIATION AWARDS

EVENTS IN MIDDLESEX

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

DEVELOPMENT IN RENFREW COUNTY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

SAFE HAVEN FOR CHILDREN

VISITORS

CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX

EXPENDITURE CONTROL

LANDFILL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

ONTARIO HYDRO

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

LONG-TERM CARE

EASTERN ONTARIO ISSUES SUMMIT

CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

ROAD MAINTENANCE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

WCB PREMIUMS

TAXICABS

MINISTER OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

TIME ALLOTTED FOR PETITIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OF FARM COMMODITIES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to reaffirm our party's commitment to agriculture in this province and indeed our country.

Right now at the GATT talks our farmers are being threatened by the loss of marketing boards. We are caught in the crossfire of an international trade war, and our farmers need to be protected.

Our marketing board organizations do not contribute to the oversupply of agricultural products which has depressed international markets and led to the current focus of debate at the GATT talks. Our producers should not be penalized for a problem they did not create.

This morning I talked to Lyle Vanclief, the recently appointed parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who told me that he will make every effort to not let other countries dismantle our agricultural industry and assured me that our farmers will not be abandoned.

Our leader, Lyn McLeod, in a letter dated November 24 to the Prime Minister of Canada has reaffirmed our party's ongoing commitment to the agrifood industry and asked that he personally intervene on our farmers' behalf. I too echo those sentiments and personally call on my friend Jean Chrétien to intervene.

Now, more than ever, we must pull together to protect our province's second-leading industry, one that produces over $5 billion worth of food products.

As my good friend former Minister of Agriculture Eugene Whelan has said on many occasions, quoting Plato, "When the land lies fallow, all other forms of life shall perish."

BAR ASSOCIATION AWARDS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On Friday, December 2, the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario announced the 1993 CBAO awards for distinguished service. This year's recipients are Mr Donald R. Cameron QC, Mr John R. Campbell QC and Ms Linda Silver Dranoff.

Mr Donald R. Cameron QC has made an outstanding contribution to the legal profession through his work in continuing legal education. Mr Cameron has been active in the continuing legal education committee of the CBAO for over a decade. He served as chair of the annual institute on continuing legal education in 1982-83 and was chair of the main continuing legal education committee from 1984 to 1987.

Mr John R. Campbell QC has made an exceptional contribution to the legal profession as a founding member of the Ontario bar alcoholism program and the Canadian legal profession assistance program. Mr Campbell has been active in the area of rehabilitation and recovery from alcoholism for over 16 years.

Ms Linda Silver Dranoff has been prominent in the CBAO through her promotion of the need for reform in women's legal and community issues. Most recently, Ms Dranoff assisted in the formation of a

section within the CBAO entitled the feminist legal analysis section, which was established to focus on law reform from a feminist perspective.

On behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I would like to congratulate this year's recipients and thank them for their contributions to the legal profession and to the people of Ontario.

EVENTS IN MIDDLESEX

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): The spirit of Christmas, of sharing and of remembering that we all have a part to play to make our communities caring and welcoming places to live is alive and well in the riding of Middlesex.

This past weekend I attended the Christmas open house sponsored by the Strathroy and Area Association for Community Living and by ACCESS, the adult community centre for educational support services of Strathroy. The fortunate residents of Strathroy and area were invited to the ACCESS facility on Industrial Road. The grades 1 and 2 students of John Calvin School had helped to decorate the building in festive Christmas style.

Visitors were invited to make crafts, sing Christmas songs, whisper their wishes in Santa's ear, have a picture taken with Santa, eat hot dogs and build their own ice cream sundaes. I helped out at the build-your-own sundae table, guiding aficionados of the ice cream treats to the chocolate fudge, caramel, strawberry, peanut, maraschino cherry and whipped cream toppings.

Needless to say, the enthusiasm of participants was most gratifying and the folks of Strathroy rose to the occasion.

Thanks to Pat Walker, Sherri Kroll, community living board members, the Strathroy community itself, as well as the staffs and clients of Community Living and ACCESS. Your care and devotion represent the very best spirit of the Christmas season.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I rise today to speak about an issue of equity. The whole point of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act amendments which are now being brought forward in the Legislative Assembly is to give some sense of, I understand, a more reasonable organization around the public service. In that regard, several professions have received special consideration to be allowed to practise and to organize under their own professions and are not required to become members of any particular union.

In that regard, the veterinarians who are employed by the public service -- and there are, I understand, some 60 of them -- are asking for the same treatment that other professionals are given. The veterinarian profession is, as we all know, a self-regulating profession and recognized as such under legislation in this province.

One of the constituents in my area who is employed as a veterinarians has said he is not opposed to being treated the same as all other professionals, but he believes it is an inappropriate way to treat the veterinarians in this province to require them to belong to a non-professional group while other professionals are in fact allowed to organize their own self-regulated professions.

I agree with this person. I think the veterinarians should either be allowed to become part of their own self-regulated organization within the Ontario public service or all professions should be treated the same way.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My statement today is addressed to the Minister of Education and Training. In early November, the Wellington County Board of Education and the Wellington County Roman Catholic Separate School Board submitted their 1994 capital expenditure multi-year forecasts to the Ministry of Education. In other words, they submitted their applications for provincial grants for new school construction.

In Wellington county there is a real need for new schools and additions to our existing schools because of the considerable increase in population over the past few years in the county. The submissions from the two boards include growth and non-growth priorities.

At the top of the Wellington county public board's growth list is a 110-pupil-place addition for Centre Peel Public School in Peel township. The board's non-growth top priority is a 71-pupil-place addition to Salem Public School in the township of Nichol.

The Wellington county Roman Catholic school board's top priority is an expansion of the classroom space for St Joseph school in Fergus. The construction of six portables as freestanding units is needed to alleviate a serious overcrowding problem. The board's non-growth top priority is the need for improvements to outdoor facilities for Our Lady of Lourdes school in Guelph, which many Wellington residents attend.

From this brief

summary, it's evident that the need for improvements to school infrastructure in Wellington county is every bit as great as other areas of the province. There are too many portables in the county and this situation simply must be addressed.

I urge the Minister of Education to carefully review and give serious, positive consideration to the multi-year forecast needs of the Wellington county boards.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Last week, Dr Doug Kittle, the medical officer of health at the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph health unit, lobbied me about the proposed tobacco legislation.

The Addiction Research Foundation reports a 50% increase in the proportion of grade 7 students who smoke. Our local health unit surveyed two area schools where the number of youths under 18 smoking exceeded the provincial average of 22%. In one school 35% of students under the age of 18 were smoking, and at the other school 23% were smoking before the age of 18.

Parents were concerned that their children would be exposed to smoking earlier when one of the high schools also incorporated the grades 7 and 8 classes. Studies show that the majority of youth who experiment with smoking start in earnest probably within two or three years and then they are hooked by the age of 15. Many students told their health unit that they bought their cigarettes from local retailers. Despite the fact that 35% of Wellington pharmacies voluntarily do not sell cigarettes, cigarettes are easily available to youth.

The health unit also found, and this is significant, that 40% of these students who smoked wanted to quit and wanted help to quit.

Dr Kittle tells me that education is not enough. He points out many examples where legislation combined with education has ensured greater benefits: seatbelt legislation, stiffer penalties for impaired driving, childhood immunization. It's easier to help kids stay smoke-free than to help them quit after. That's what this legislation is all about.

DEVELOPMENT IN RENFREW COUNTY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Last Saturday in the city of Pembroke in the heart of the county of Renfrew, some 200 people gathered together under the auspices of the economic development committee of our county to attend what was billed as an issues summit looking at a number of very contentious land use and resource controversies that are currently before the communities of the upper Ottawa Valley. As I indicated to the House last night, the mood and the temperature of that meeting was, from my point of view and I'm certainly sure from the point of view of the Ministry of Natural Resources, a real concern.

It is obvious that loggers and farmers and small business people, men and women, young and old, who depend on their economic livelihood for and from the resource base in that part of the province are feeling very, very threatened by a variety of resource policies that are being pursued by the current government.

There is a sense in my part of eastern Ontario that the current government, and particularly the imperial authorities of the Ministry of Natural Resources, are more worried about the health and safety of deer, moose and wolves in places like Round Lake, Killaloe and Pembroke than they are about the jobs of people who are working and paying taxes in those communities.

The message from that issues summit in Pembroke last Saturday: "Government, stop and listen. You are developing policies that are being driven by narrow special interests that are not in the general public interest where everyone's concern is about jobs and economic growth."

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise on behalf of pharmacists and seniors from across Ontario to note that the government has finally come to its senses and will withdraw its severe and heavy-handed Bill 81.

I'm certainly pleased to see the government finally listening to the concerns that have been raised by me and my caucus colleagues concerning this dangerous bill and the impact that it would have on pharmacists and seniors.

The government's decision not to charge user fees to seniors for prescription drugs is also a recognition of what our caucus has been saying about the issue of user fees. User fees currently exist in our health care system and are being applied by Liberal and NDP governments in a random fashion without regard for the individual's ability to absorb the cost. Because we already have hundreds of millions of dollars of user fees in our health care system, what is needed is an open, extensive public discussion about what role user fees should play and are playing in our current health care system.

I was glad to see the government finally listen to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and to seniors from all across this province, who believe the government should stop adding user fees in an ad hoc fashion, stop lying to the people of the province about this particular issue and come clean on the issue of user fees.

SAFE HAVEN FOR CHILDREN

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to share a story of help and compassion, a true story which took place recently in my riding of London South.

Four Bosnian children arrived in London on November 22 to receive medical treatment at Victoria Hospital/ Children's Hospital of Western Ontario. These children would not have been able to receive care in the former Yugoslavia, now war-ravaged Bosnia-Hercegovina, due to existing conditions.

Over a year ago a group of individuals in London saw the news reports of brutal war acts against children in Bosnia. They formed a humanitarian, interfaith, multicultural organization of Canadians citizens called Safe Haven for Children to set up a temporary haven for these children until it is safe for them to return. Safe Haven is based on a fostering parent plan in which each host family, screened by a team of professional social workers, agrees to provide a loving, caring home.

Dr Jonathan Kronich of Victoria Children's Hospital provided a special kind of help to Safe Haven by offering to bring their hope to get medical care for these children before the hospital board of directors. Safe Haven's concerns and goals were discussed, a task force was formed, and physicians volunteered their time to treat the children. Now, after 18 months, the effort has proved successful: Six-month-old Haris, three-year-old Lejla, five-year-old Danita and 13-year-old Amir will be the first to receive medical treatment in London.

I laud the good work of every individual involved in this project.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, a visiting delegation from the consulate of the United States of America, headed by the consul general, Mr George Kennedy. Please welcome our special guests.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Later this afternoon, I will table a bill entitled the Corporations Tax Amendment Act. With this legislation, we are acting on a promise made in the budget that I presented last May. At that time we pledged that large profitable firms in Ontario will pay at least some minimum amount of corporate income tax.

Today's legislation accomplishes what we set out to do. It helps to ensure tax fairness, the cornerstone of our tax policies. At the same time, it acknowledges the important role of the private sector, particularly small businesses, in Ontario's growth. Our corporate minimum tax will stop big, profitable companies from taking advantage of tax preferences to the point where they pay little or no corporate income tax.

We have designed the tax so that it will not hamper the current recovery, discourage investment in our future or impair Ontario's tax competitiveness. I should note here that the United States imposes a more onerous and complex minimum tax on corporations.

I would like to outline briefly to the House how our tax will work:

First, it applies only to large firms, those with assets of more than $5 million or gross revenues of more than $10 million a year. This means, right at the outset, that small businesses, in fact about 90% of the businesses in this province, will not even have to calculate or file the tax.

Second, it targets only those large firms that are profitable but are able to use various tax preferences to reduce or eliminate their corporate income tax. We are asking these firms to pay a minimum amount of corporate income tax.

The tax will be phased in over three years, starting in 1994. Transitional measures, including this phase-in, are being provided to give relief to firms which are just returning to profitability after the recession.

In addition, in recognition of the cyclical nature of business, corporate minimum tax paid in one year can be credited against future corporate income taxes. Further, losses related to the tax can be carried forward for up to 10 years.

In outlining this tax in the budget, we asked for feedback on its technical aspects. One of the messages we heard clearly in our consultations was that the requirement to file audited statements would add to the cost of complying with the corporate minimum tax. As a result, we have dropped the audit requirement. This will make it easier and less expensive for firms to comply.

This legislation represents an important balance between the need for fairness for all taxpayers and the need to maintain tax incentives that encourage new investment and help to create jobs.

With this corporate minimum tax, we are achieving this balance. We are ensuring that large corporations pay their fair share, which reduces the burden on other taxpayers, whether they are small businesses or individual workers. It is our tax system, after all, that provides us with the health care, education, training, roads and public transit that benefit all members of our society.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I would like to respond to the Minister of Finance's statement and suggest that, I think, as we look at the bill, it does run the risk of doing more harm than good. I realize the political optics of it may be good, but in terms of good public policy I suggest time will tell on that, Minister of Finance.

Let's be clear on what we're dealing with here. As the Fair Tax Commission report points out, why are corporations not paying taxes? Why would you think? The reason profitable companies are not paying taxes is solely because of government programs, such as capital costs allowances, R&D allowances, programs that the government brings in and says to corporations, "Please participate in these things because they are good public policy."

Corporations around the province do participate in them and then, as they participate in them, find that by taking advantage of programs introduced by the government, suddenly they're not paying taxes. What we're doing now is introducing a corporate minimum tax. Let's be very clear about it; I think the public must understand why the corporations aren't paying taxes. It is because of government programs designed by the government to get corporations to do things the government feels are in the best interests of the public.

What we're going to do, and let's be also very clear about this -- 13,000 companies in this province now will be required to fill out forms, to go through the whole corporate minimum tax exercise, to do all of the bureaucracy associated with that for one reason: so the government can claw back money it already gave them. The minister himself points that out.

What are we doing here? We're chasing our tail. The rest of the world is getting on with running the economy and competing successfully and we're just running around chasing our tail. We introduce a program and say, "Apply for it." They apply for it. Suddenly we've introduced another tax to get the money back. Something's wrong.

The Fair Tax Commission's report, $9 million and three years later, is coming out when? Next week. The Fair Tax Commission points out that there is about $4 billion of what's called "tax incentives." Incentives, I guess the minister would call them: tax expenditures, programs that the government, the taxpayers, pay money for corporations to participate in. As a matter of fact, I think many economists would suggest, as the Fair Tax Commission itself suggests, that the solution to this isn't a minimum tax. It is dealing with those tax expenditures.

But no, we are going to put 13,000 companies through this exercise January 1. We're going to put them through that exercise when the Fair Tax Commission's report, you taxpayers out there who have spent $9 million on it, is coming out next week -- one week from today, I think, or one week from tomorrow. Yet here we are proceeding with a minimum tax piece of legislation.

As I say, the politics and the optics may be good on this because everybody wants those welfare corporate bums to pay their share of the taxes, but what we've done is we've told them: "Get involved in these programs. We want you to be involved in capital cost allowance and depreciation." As a matter of fact, the Finance minister's own budgets proposed these things. They did, and now we're going to set up a whole bureaucracy; 13,000 companies will go through an enormous exercise to claw back the money the government gave them.

The second thing is, the minister says this doesn't affect small business. That's not the fact: 20% of companies in this province with between five and 19 employees will be hit by this tax. Where are the jobs coming from? I recall Premier Rae saying it's small business that will create the jobs. We've all heard that. Who will be hit by the corporate minimum tax? Twenty per cent of the companies with under 20 employees, between five and 20 employees, will be hit by this.

Here we are spending our time sending our tax auditors out after those 13,000 companies that have taken advantage of the programs we told them to take advantage of, while the rest of the world is out competing and taking our business.

As I say, I understand the optics of a corporate minimum tax. As a matter of fact, I suspect 80% or 90% of the people watching this say, "Yes, I'm for a corporate minimum tax." Indeed, it sounds great, but as we get involved in this thing, I will suggest it will do more harm than good, unfortunately.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The master of doublespeak is the Minister of Finance. You go through the press release and the statement you've made: soft, lovely, sweet-sounding, syrupy words, and they stink. They really do.

"We are acting on a promise made in the budget." That's one promise we didn't want you to keep. "It helps to ensure tax fairness." There isn't any tax that's fair, Floyd. They're all bad. You say tax fairness "will not hamper the current economy." The economy is in such sick shape, I can't see you doing a thing to help it.

"It applies only to large firms." Oh, that's great for you guys. If you can go after the big fellows, you'll feel bigger, because you're so small as it is now. Beat up the big ones. "It targets only those large firms that are profitable." That's something the New Democrats have really tried to do. If you want to have a small company, buy a big one. It will get small, because you're taxed to death by the New Democrats.

These are the words of your press release: "to help create jobs." I can't believe it. You put right in the statement that you're going to create jobs with another tax. That's an impossibility. What you're really doing is taxing the big companies out of business. This, Minister of Finance, is the wrong time to be levying any more taxes. The people of Ontario have hit the tax wall. We can't afford to keep paying you guys. Don't do it to us.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): That's it. Hit the little guy.

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

Mr Cousens: The people out there are trying to get the economy going again, and the moment they do, there's going to be Pink Floyd putting his hand in their deep pocket, trying to take some more taxes away from them. This is the thin edge of the wedge.

During the election campaign, in the Agenda for People, the New Democrats talked about an 8% tax like this. They haven't come in with 8% right now, but they have said it's 2% now, 3% in 1995, 4% in 1996. What they haven't said is that it's going to be another percentage point in 1997, 1998, 1999. By the year 2000, it's going to be up to 8%. It's just going to keep on going. Once you start a tax like this, it just keeps on growing until we're like the United States, where it's at 12%. Starting off really small now, it's just going to build.

We're the only jurisdiction in Canada that has done this, so again we're going to cause people to celebrate in Halifax, Quebec City and out west, because Ontario is now the place that businesses, where they're already trying to get established, are going to emigrate from. They're going to move out of this province and settle somewhere else. Why should they stay here and be taxed to death by the socialist government of Bob Rae?

I think what you've really done is made an ideological position with this. It's a $100-million tax grab. What it is is a sop to the left wing of your party. What you're really trying to do is say to the people who have supported you in the past, who probably won't support you in the future -- yes, left-wing Floyd is trying to support the people over to the left of his party -- "Hey, at least we're out getting some money for the government from the big guys, those who made a profit" -- that evil word "profit." "We're going to take some money out of them. The corporate minimum tax allows us to do that."

You as a government say, "We're going to build jobs in Ontario." What you're doing with another tax is eliminating jobs. Every tax dollar has a way of eroding jobs and the ability for companies to create new jobs.

Why don't you start collecting some of the taxes that are already out there? We've been on the committee on finance and economic affairs. People, through the underground economy, are generating $1 million a night down in some of the places near Cornwall. That's just three months' business for those guys. Why don't you come out there and start doing the job you've already been given? But in the meantime, you have a way of explaining and justifying another tax for the people of Ontario.

I oppose it. Our party will oppose it. We see it as another offence of the New Democratic government, where you stand up with all the sweet-sounding words that you're doing us a favour by having another tax. Let's face it: It is not the time to keep taxing the people of Ontario. We've had it with your taxes. People are fed up with a government that doesn't even know how to administer the functions of government right now. But in order to keep things going, here you are raising another $100 million over the next couple of years with this one.

I just am so disgusted at the way Ontario's starting to look. You're just ruining it for the next guy, you're ruining it for the --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXPENDITURE CONTROL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns his expenditure control plan. For the first time publicly, this morning we learned that you were starting on round 2 of the expenditure control plan. Colleges and universities have been informed that they will be cut by at least $34 million.

In responding to the concerns about these cuts on the radio this morning, the Minister of Education and Training admitted, confessed indeed, that this new round had begun and the implications were clear that there would be further cuts for municipalities, for social agencies, for school boards and for hospitals.

The minister went on to say, "I think that all of us have reluctance to start talking about multi-year because then that appears that there are absolute floor guarantees of what transfer payments will be." Surely, I say to the Minister of Finance, we want our transfer payment agencies to know what those transfers are going to be and that the planning process is one that is open and honest.

You, Minister, are responsible for the expenditure control plan. My question to you is, what is your hidden agenda? What is it you're planning to do for colleges, universities, municipalities, social service agencies and school boards? What are you trying to hide? When are you going to introduce clearly what cuts you're planning for all of those other sectors?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Perhaps I should begin by assuring the member for York North that there is no hidden agenda. That is really an assertion that's without foundation entirely.

I think it's a fair question the member asked. Last spring, we went through the exercise of trying to find $4 billion in expenditure savings this year and to make sure it was not just a one-year exercise, because that would just create a bulge in the balloon and come back to haunt us in year 2, year 3 and year 4 and so forth.

What we did was engage in an exercise in which we were able to identify $4 billion in savings in committed expenditures for the year in which we are now, 1993-94, but I think the member would appreciate the fact that it's virtually impossible to be precise and pinpoint every expenditure as you go out in subsequent years.

What we did was lay out the details, ministry by ministry, for all the expenditure reductions for 1993-94 without doing the same for the subsequent years. That really would have been a very daunting exercise indeed. But it is encouraging to hear the member for York North assert his party's position that we should be letting those expenditures go up.

Mr Beer: I say to the Minister of Finance very clearly: You are the government. You are the ones who are working with the transfer payment agencies and you've got to work with them in a way that people understand what is going to happen, particularly in these difficult times. The great concern out there, expressed this morning by officials in colleges and universities throughout the province, but also by those who have to head up hospitals and school boards and other transfer payment agencies, is that they don't know exactly and precisely what you are doing. I want to say to the minister I'm glad there's no hidden agenda.

My second question is very simple: Will funding to municipalities for next year be cut? Will funding to hospitals be cut? Will funding to school boards be cut? If there is no hidden agenda, then are you prepared to stand in your place today and make the commitment that your transfer payment agencies are going to receive at least the same level of funding as last year? If you can't make that commitment, then will you tell us today how many additional millions of dollars you are intending to chop?

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to make one thing perfectly clear, because the member for York North is the Education critic for his caucus. The Minister of Education for the government did have meetings with the educational sector. A memo went out to them detailing exactly what expenditures they could expect to be reduced. As well, when the universities prepared their tuition proposals to the government, they factored in those reductions. There's no surprise for the post-secondary sector here.

For the other part of the member's supplementary question, he asked whether or not I will provide a guarantee that there will be absolutely no cuts in any of the transfers. I would say to him that he could be very helpful if, first of all, he would guarantee that his friend Paul Martin will assure that there will be absolutely no cuts in transfers to the province of Ontario. That would be very helpful.

Mr Beer: Again, I simply say to the Minister of Finance that he is responsible for the finances of this province and that's why the question is being directed to him on this issue. What the transfer payment partners don't understand and what they're still trying to figure out is precisely how to implement the midterm cuts that you announced last April. There is still a great deal of confusion out there about exactly what it is that you wanted done and how it was to be done.

The second problem is that we are now in December, and it is at the 11th hour, as they finalize their budgets for next year, that they learn from the minister of colleges and universities, bingo, no $34 million. So everyone else is very nervous and very worried.

You justify your silence by saying that you're afraid your finances might be worse than you expect. Minister, everybody knows that your finances are going to be worse than you expect. This whole exercise quite frankly has been transparently dishonest, because you're treating colleges, universities, municipalities, hospitals, school boards and social agencies like mushrooms: You keep them in the dark and you feed them a load.

My question, Minister, is simply this: Why are you again making these decisions behind closed doors, without consultation? How can your transfer partners plan their budgets when they frankly don't know what or how much you're going to cut for next year?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for York North, when he talks about mushrooms, left out one of the parts of that famous expression about how mushrooms are treated and encouraged to grow, and that's what the member for York North is doing to me. I would tell the member that there was absolutely no element of bingo for the colleges and the universities. They were told that information months ago by the minister of colleges and universities and education. It's not a great surprise to them; they were not being kept in the dark.

With regard to the other transfer agencies -- the municipalities, the school boards, the hospitals and so forth -- that announcement will be made in a regular way in due course. We're not trying to stall that any longer than is absolutely necessary. But I do find it regrettable that the member for York North finds irrelevant the level to which we receive our fair share of funding from the federal government. I can only assume that he will be there lobbying with the rest of us to make sure that Ontario, unlike in recent years, will start to get its fair share from the taxes that we turn over to the federal government.

LANDFILL

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, I've been provided with a copy of a document which has been produced by the Ministry of Environment and Energy. It's entitled The Environmental Assessment Proposal: A Guideline for Public Sector Waste Management Planning. Basically, this document is a blueprint for getting landfills approved.

I'm referring to page 38 of the document, where it states, "In combination with the systematic site selection approach, proponents may choose to undertake a willing host siting approach." It goes on to say, "For a municipal proponent, a willing host site is defined as a site where the owner is willing to sell their property for the purpose of landfill development and the host municipality is supportive of the proposal."

Minister, I can see that the previous Minister of the Environment is whispering to you at this very moment. As you must be aware, this is totally inconsistent in principle with Bill 143. My question very simply is this: Can a municipality, such as for instance Kirkland Lake, stand as a willing host for waste, for garbage from municipalities located outside the GTA?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'm not familiar with the document or the page the member is reading from. I'm not the Minister of Environment. I'm sure the Minister of Environment would be glad to provide an answer. But if the member would follow the normal courtesy of opposition, which is to provide the document from which he's reading, maybe we could give him an answer.

Mr Offer: By way of normal courtesy, this document was provided to me. It is not a private document; it is a public document. It is and was and has been devised by your government since February 1993, almost one year ago.

However you wish to term it, the inconsistencies are glaring. On one hand you have Ruth Grier, I think just a few seconds ago, as well as Bob Rae and Bud Wildman, telling Durham, Peel and Metro to forget about looking at willing hosts; it's not allowed. On the other hand, this document, your government's draft document tells municipalities located outside of the GTA that it's okay to ship their garbage to a willing host.

From this document, three conditions are necessary: firstly, that all sites must meet the screening criteria; secondly, that the willing host sites are compared to other sites; and, thirdly, which is the problem with Bill 143, that the most environmentally acceptable site is chosen. What's the difference between waste from municipalities located outside the GTA and waste from those located within it?

Hon Mr Philip: We have said fairly clearly that if Kirkland Lake or any other municipality wants to go through a full environmental assessment the same way as any other site or the three sites in the selected municipalities selected by the IWA are going through, it can do so.

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Philip: There is nothing preventing Metro or Kirkland Lake or any other municipality from going through the full OMB environmental assessment process. I'm sure that can be accommodated, and indeed the IWA has said so.

Mr Offer: That response is absolutely ridiculous, because your own Bill 143 says these municipalities outside the GTA can go through an EA hearing, they can spend all the money, and if at the end of the hearing it's decided that they are the safest environmentally to accept garbage, your government isn't going to accept it.

The question is, will you now change the policy? There was a press conference today. The mayors -- Vic Power from Timmins, Stan Lawlor from North Bay, Joe Mavrinac from Kirkland Lake -- as well as representatives from the CAW and the Transportation Communications union came to this place, came to Queen's Park and said, "Change your policy." Will you today change the policy and say to those people that municipalities outside of the GTA which want to stand as willing hosts that if their site is chosen and is the best and safest environmentally, you will in fact as a government accept the decision of an environment assessment board?

Hon Mr Philip: My colleagues who have been elected in the north have said very, very clearly that the north does not want to accept southern Ontario's garbage, in the same way that the people of Durham said they didn't want the Liberals to follow through with their policy of putting Metro's garbage in Durham, and that's what the Liberal government was doing.

As for economic development, let me just say this to Joe Mavrinac and to the people of Kirkland Lake: No government has done more for economic development of that community than this government has. Since we were elected, we have put $16,051,466 into the economic development and infrastructure of that community. We have nothing to hide from and everything to be proud of in terms of Kirkland Lake and northern Ontario.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question again is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjections.

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

The member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson: Mr Minister, your government has accomplished the impossible. It has united the province of Ontario. It has brought together northern Ontario and southern Ontario, rural Ontario and urban Ontario, environmentalists and engineers, entrepreneurs and labour. They want you not just to allow the Kirkland Lake site to go through the environmental process, but for you to include the environmental assessment under the Interim Waste Authority so that it has a fair chance.

They're very frustrated. The mayor of Kirkland Lake today has called for the resignation of the Minister of Northern Development, he is so frustrated. He has termed this Interim Waste Authority process the worst meddling in his 35 years in politics.

My question to you: If you won't take action to help the environment in Caledon, Vaughan and Pickering, if you won't take action to help the economy in northern Ontario, will you at least allow this environmental assessment through the Interim Waste Authority process for the sake of the political future of your own party?

Hon Mr Philip: The decision not to ship Metro's garbage out of Metro into northern Ontario was endorsed by environmental groups.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's been thrown out of Metro, Ed. It's going to York. Holy smoke.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Philip: It was endorsed by a great number of groups who saw that the 3Rs method of dealing with garbage was the correct and environmentally responsible method, and that you don't pawn off your problems by shipping them out to someone else.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon Mr Philip: The decision not to ship garbage from southern Ontario to northern Ontario was a cabinet decision; it was not the decision of the Minister of Northern Development. But I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that the honourable member, who obviously is just newly elected and isn't aware of what this government has done for northern Ontario --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Philip: Let me tell you that the Minister of Northern Development has done more for the people of northern Ontario than any previous minister and she has the complete support of this cabinet and the Premier.

Mr David Johnson: I may not have all the answers to all the problems, as the minister obviously does, even though the rest of the province doesn't agree with him, but one thing I know, and I wonder if the minister does: Does the minister know what happens in Seattle, Washington? In Seattle, they have the best recycling and waste recovery process in the whole of the United States; 40% waste is recycled or diverted. What do they do with their waste in Seattle? The waste that is left over, they transport 325 miles to Gilliam county, just as the mayors of Timmins --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Neither the intemperate language nor the volume is assisting any of us in being able to conduct a normal question period. I would ask members on the government side to listen to the question posed, and members on the opposition side to listen to the response provided. The member for Don Mills, please place his question.

Mr David Johnson: What I know and what the mayors of Timmins, North Bay and Kirkland Lake know is that it works in the United States. What they also know is that there will be jobs created, 287 permanent jobs, that there will be considerable assistance to the Ontario Northland Railway, that there will be construction jobs. They know this will be good for the economy of northern Ontario. They ask you, Mr Minister, why do you continue to refuse these economic benefits to northern Ontario, a region that needs jobs and needs economic growth?

Hon Mr Philip: The member points out that Seattle is recycling 40% of its garbage. In fact, we think that is the real economic benefit, to develop the green industries to recycle, to reuse. That is what the previous minister was doing and the present Minister of the Environment is in fact doing, along with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, developing industries that can be exportable, new technologies in terms of recycling and reusing.

That is the program. Indeed, the environmentalists are telling us that we can reach an 80% recycling and reusing. We think we can beat Seattle. All we have to do is have the will and the kinds of policies that this government has enacted and that the previous governments completely ignored.

Mr David Johnson: It's interesting that the labour movement does not agree with the minister. I thought this morning that the most poignant aspect of the press conference was when the labour representative spoke. I refer to Debbie Graham, representing the Transportation Communications union. She spoke of families and people and real jobs: 287 jobs. I refer to Craig Kemp of the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 103, who said there will be no winner in the present IWA process. He said that in the region of York the site will never be prepared.

The mayor of Kirkland Lake has called on you and the cabinet to either allow the environmental assessment through the Interim Waste Authority so that it has a fair chance, a fair and equal chance through the Interim Waste Authority, or to admit that there is another agenda. That other agenda is one driven by ideology, one that is not for people, one that is not for job creation.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr David Johnson: My question, Mr Speaker: Minister, will you admit today that the Adams mine site makes sense to consider, but that your refusal is because your government thinks that it's not a politically correct site?

Hon Mr Philip: In the first instance, the member is wrong when he says that the union movement has not agreed with us. In fact, CUPE, which is the largest municipal union, has been cooperating very closely with us. Indeed, the Canadian Food and Allied Workers have been working very closely with the Minister of Environment and Energy on a number of programs that will reduce and recycle garbage. So to say that the union movement is not working with this government and supporting what this government is doing in its garbage policy and its garbage reduction policy is simply wrong and the member should get his facts straight.

As for whether or not we want to move to a completely privatized system, which is what the member is suggesting, the answer is no. We don't think that would be in the interest of the taxpayers. It certainly wouldn't be in the interest of the workers. It would not be in the interest of the environmentalists. And the answer is no, definitely no, to his question.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Today in the Toronto Star the head of the Workers' Compensation Board said that he intends to hold "public consultations" on, believe it or not, expanding WCB coverage to approximately 30% of businesses not covered in Ontario.

Mr Minister, given the already fragile state of Ontario's economy and given the current mess of the WCB that we hear about in daily reports, will you immediately put a stop to any discussions of this policy that is nothing more, in my opinion, than strictly a cash grab? This is fantasy, any expansion of the WCB, considering the absolute mess this particular government agency is in.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): To begin with, I don't accept the "absolute mess" comment that's made across the way. I am sure that one of the jobs of the Workers' Compensation Board is to look at areas that may need the coverage. In almost every other coverage in North America, the financial institutions are covered. But I want to tell you that the board won't make that decision; this government will make that decision if it has to be made. One of the jobs of the board, as it did when it came to lung cancer, asbestosis or many other areas that were not covered, is to first go through an extensive consultation process, and that's exactly what it's doing.

Mr Stockwell: If you won't buy "absolute mess," maybe we can agree on a phrase that everyone will accept, like "complete screwup" -- I don't know; what the heck -- "the fiasco" --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): "Chaos."

Mr Stockwell: -- "chaos," "the black hole," "the cash pit." Pick any of the above.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): "The swamp."

Mr Stockwell: Everybody who has looked at this particular proposal has come to at least one conclusion, and that conclusion is that any assessed increased expansion of WCB will accomplish one thing for sure, and that is kill jobs.

I have a copy of a report done by the management working group of the Premier's own Labour-Management Advisory Committee. These are the Premier's people. This report says, and I quote:

"Coverage of currently exempt industries" -- and I want the minister to listen very carefully -- "may have a negative financial impact on the Ontario economy."

Mr Minister, if this is what your handpicked group of people are saying, would you agree that Mr Di Santo should not even be talking about a policy of expansion at the swamp, let alone an implementation of expansion?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The comments I'm hearing from across the way are one of the reasons I've tuned out that member for almost the last year every time he gets up in the House.

I want to tell you also that the Workers' Compensation Board has the responsibility for looking after injured workers when they're injured on the job in the province of Ontario, and I'm wondering what the members across the way want. Do they want us to do away with the board and go back to the old having to sue or go to court before a worker could be covered? That's absolutely ridiculous. What we've got to do is take the current board and make darned sure it can do the best job possible for workers without having to revert back to the provision of having to sue before you get coverage.

Mr Stockwell: This minister has tuned out 90% of the province. He doesn't listen to reason. You refuse to listen to the reasonable positions that are being put forward by the business community with the expansion of WCB. I'm not talking about going back and suing in the old days. The WCB's in place as it is. No one's suggesting that's the case, and for you to make that allegation is nothing more than a red herring, trying to cover up for the absolutely inept job you are doing at the Labour ministry.

Why don't you answer a question instead of getting back to your labour-management confrontational attitudes when it comes to real problems that are on the table? The business community is saying, given the current mess at the WCB -- if you don't think a $13-billion unfunded liability is a mess, then I'd like to know what you think is a mess -- it is ludicrous for the chair to talk about any expansion of coverage.

Instead of desperately grabbing for even more money from Ontario business and costing Ontario business jobs, Minister, will you immediately place a moratorium on all new coverage policies of the WCB and for once deal in reality and give the businesses of this province a break?

Hon Bob Mackenzie: I don't know how long it takes to get through, but we've had a freeze on the assessments for two years. We currently have an increase, which the members obviously don't like, of 4%; that's the average across the board. We have some 50,000 companies where their assessment is going down, not going up; we have some companies where it's going up. And the assessments are based on their accident record; in other words, if you've got a bad record when it comes to accidents in your place of business, you're likely to see an increase in the assessment rates.

Is the member across the way telling us that he doesn't believe in that kind of fair approach?

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Deputy Premier concerning Ontario Hydro.

In light of the fact that we know there has been considerable expense to Hydro in its transition program in retiring, with severances, over 6,000 people, plus understanding that a big write-down of its assets has also cost it considerable money, and in light of the fact that in 1993 the net income is not going to pay off the debt, which is statutorily required to be retired, and that in 1994 a reduced income will likewise not enable these people to retire the debt, which is required of them, can the Deputy Premier advise whether the government is bringing forward amendments to the Power Corporation Act and whether the government has authorized or will be authorizing Ontario Hydro to proceed with injecting new equity into Ontario Hydro through employee purchases, through federal or municipal funding of some manner or another, or by the selling off of certain assets of this public corporation?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): There's a lot in that question.

The board of Ontario Hydro is looking at a variety of ways in which it can get its financial house back in order. I think the member opposite would appreciate the fact that there are problems with their finances. At the present time the government has received no proposal from Ontario Hydro to do any of the things which he suggests; at least, to my knowledge, there's been nothing that's come to the government.

Certainly the government has been sending as strong signals as possible, both the Minister of Environment and Energy and the Premier, and I will repeat it again today, that we are not interested in privatizing Ontario Hydro. At the same time, there is an opportunity, I think, for Ontario Hydro to engage in some joint ventures, whether it's the generation of hydro on the supply side, or, on the conservation side, to engage in joint ventures to accomplish those goals. But at this point there's no intention to do what the member is suggesting in his question.

Mr Elston: I would like to know if the Deputy Premier of this government believes it is appropriate for the rate stabilization fund, which used to be at one point C$6 billion, to be completely eroded, in fact perhaps put into a deficit position in breach of the Ontario Power Corporation Act; whether he thinks it is appropriate, therefore, to make special arrangements that will allow those steps to take place to help to stabilize the Ontario Hydro corporation and whether or not he is in favour of perhaps offering Hydro shares to the public as a public equity offering and whether he considers that to be a partial privatization of Ontario Hydro.

Hon Mr Laughren: To answer the last part first, yes, that would be a partial privatization of Hydro, in my view, and I wouldn't support that, no.

As well, it's my understanding that the Hydro board is indeed looking at some kind of merger of the rate stabilization fund and the statutory debt retirement fund, but I don't know what it's going to recommend to us on that. There are some changes, particularly as regards the statutory debt retirement fund, that I believe would require amendments to the Power Corporation Act, so that would have to be considered before any such step was taken by Ontario Hydro. We would have to wait and see what recommendations come to the government from Hydro, and I certainly haven't seen anything like that at this point.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. Yesterday, Minister, when asked about the auditor's findings that Ontario jails are the most expensive in Canada to run, you said: "...when we look at the newer facilities...the efficiencies and cost per diems are lower than the average. It's the higher cost and loss of efficiency in the older institutions which I suggest skews the overall numbers in the report."

Let me remind the minister of a situation I raised with you last spring. The addition to the Mimico Correctional Centre, one of the new facilities that should be much more efficient to run, was supposed to open a year ago. This facility cost the taxpayers of this province $6 million to build. It is complete, but due to the serious security flaws in the jail bars, locks and other hardware, the facility is still not open, although the staff was hired and then had to be laid off. Ontario's taxpayers are paying to light and heat this building which sits empty.

Minister, why is it taking so long to open this new facility?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I believe the honourable member will find -- if it hasn't already happened, certainly the decision has been taken -- that 60 of the beds in that facility indeed will be opening up, and we are now taking a look at the timing for the remaining beds.

Let me also say that in light of the other findings of the auditor's report in terms of the issue she has raised about older institutions and newer institutions and regionalization, we want to factor in the recommendations and issues he has mentioned when we take a look at the issue of the timing of opening the remainder of the beds.

Mrs Marland: There are several other provincial facilities that have been investigated over the security hardware that was supplied by the same company that I brought up in connection with the Mimico centre. The other facilities are the Maplehurst Correctional Centre in Milton, the jails in Stratford and Windsor, the Northern Treatment Centre in Sault Ste Marie, and several others, including the OPP buildings in Downsview, Peterborough, Belleville and Perth, and the courthouses in Oshawa and the East Mall in Etobicoke.

I realize, if you don't, Minister, that this is a very serious matter. We actually have a situation where substandard locks were rebuilt and then the contractor added Chubb security labels to them, although they were not a Chubb security product.

I would like to know, Minister, when you are going to have a police investigation of this matter. In the meantime, can you assure the people who work and live in the communities close to these facilities that in fact all of those facilities are safe and secure?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think I heard three questions; I'll try to touch on all three very briefly.

First and foremost, yes, I can give the member the assurance that these facilities are secure, and as I said yesterday in my comments, that will remain a priority and we will continue to take whatever steps are always necessary when there's a question of the safety of inmates, staff or the public.

Second, there was an ongoing investigation, as I think the Chair of Management Board has mentioned before, the status of which, whether or not that has been completed, we would have to be in touch with the OPP about. I don't make decisions on the beginning and ending of investigations, but I think we can get that information or at least ensure that the right person can be directed to the member.

Last, let me just say on the issue of the grille work that the honourable member really is mixing apples and oranges. On the one hand we're talking about the efficiency and the operational ability of older facilities to be as cost-efficient as newer facilities. The issue the honourable member raises is one of construction and an issue around materials and work done by contractors, which, as the member knows, is also the responsibility of the Chair of Management Board. But that really does not bear any direct relationship to the issues mentioned in the auditor's report at all.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Health and has to do with the redirection of long-term care, specifically multiservice agencies. Many long-term care providers in my riding of Kingston and The Islands have talked to me about this important initiative. In September this year the Minister of Health released a blueprint for multiservice agencies that will provide one-step access to long-term care services for residents of Ontario. What is the Minister of Health doing to ensure that the proposed multiservice agencies blueprint will be flexible enough to meet specific local communities' needs?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I think that question goes to the heart of our long-term care policy, which is to take a patchwork of fragmented programs and design from them a system.

What we heard very clearly from people during the extensive consultation that took place under a number of ministers was that consumers wanted a system that was fair, that was accessible, that was close to home and accountable to the people it served. That's why we asked the district health councils to do the planning in the various communities, because they didn't want it to be government-run and they didn't want it to be a cookie-cutter approach from Queen's Park telling one region of the province how it ought to be run in their community.

With respect to the member's own area, I can tell him that I'm aware that the district health council is working collaboratively with the community-based agencies and with the public health unit to ensure that the plan for that area is built on the very best of what already exists, that the administration is streamlined and that there is a labour adjustment program to make sure the transition is smooth. I think we will have a consensus from both consumers and providers about the type of MSAs that indeed have the kind of flexibility the member is calling for.

Mr Gary Wilson: The question also has been raised about the role of for-profit agencies providing long-term care services. There is concern in my riding about the employment of workers currently in the profit-making health care sector. I'd like to know what the minister is doing to address this concern.

Hon Mrs Grier: My colleague will know that this government has announced that we have a preference for a not-for-profit approach in the health care sector, and at the time we made that decision with respect to home care we indicated that we wanted to ensure that government-funded health care dollars went into the community-based and volunteer component of the delivery system.

We provided our long-term care offices with a plan for rationalizing the system over time, and we've recognized that in some areas of the province the transition will take longer than in others. We believe that the development of long-term care is a growth industry in this province and that there will be a considerable number of new jobs provided, and we believe that the funding from the province should go into the delivery of services and the improvement of services, not into the profits of the various agencies concerned.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health and it also relates to long-term care issues. Ever since your government took office you've promised residents of nursing homes that money provided by the ministry to those homes would be based on levels of care, that it would be equivalent to the funding which is provided to residents of homes for the aged and would ensure that the resources are provided based on the actual nursing and personal care needs of residents in each facility.

Assessments of every resident have been made to measure what those actual needs are, but those assessments are sitting on a shelf. I'm asking you why you've changed your mind about providing levels-of-care funding to meet the individual needs of long-term care residents.

Hon Mrs Grier: I haven't changed my mind. In fact, levels-of-care funding and the case mix index of the various homes are the whole basis for our funding of long-term care facilities under Bill 101.

Mrs Sullivan: That's precisely the point. We passed Bill 101 and it received royal assent on June 1 of this year. I have that document here.

I also have a document here which is a letter sent by the minister on November 22 to Julie Davis, the secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Federation of Labour, and to Ina Caissey of the Ontario Nurses' Association in the aftermath of the implementation of the social contract bill. It indicates quite clearly in this letter that the government is in fact not implementing levels-of-care funding but is reverting to the old formula-based, minimum hours of care provided. The minister is telling the OFL that she will seek changes to the regulations.

Now, those regulations being under Bill 101, she doesn't have to follow that law. What do you have to say to those residents now about this change in your direction?

Hon Mrs Grier: What I have to say is the member is quite simply wrong. Under Bill 101, levels-of-care funding is what will be implemented. With respect to that, what had to happen next were contracts that laid out very clearly the level of care for individual patients.

In the interim, what we found was that in some homes, in the absence of having reached the stage of having designed those contracts, homes were withdrawing care from patients because in fact the rules had changed. Many people were complaining to me and to my members that the care was deteriorating and in fact the employment was changing because nurses were being laid off and replaced with other workers.

In an endeavour to make sure that until the contracts that finally implement Bill 101 were in place, no resident of a long-term care or nursing home in this province was going to suffer with less care than they had had before or that they were entitled to under our reform.

EASTERN ONTARIO ISSUES SUMMIT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I will expect a very informative answer, because he's been well briefed on this question. My colleague from Renfrew North already has briefed him through a statement this afternoon in the House.

However, Minister, as you are now very well aware, the Eastern Ontario Issues Summit was held in Pembroke on Saturday, December 4, and 175 delegates attended this summit. They paid $20 each to cover the cost of the hall and other related costs for that meeting.

An empty chair sat at the front with the Ministry of Natural Resources marked on it and it sat there vacant. I ask you, Minister, when this was called for the three most important resource issues in eastern Ontario, namely, the Madawaska highlands, the Algonquin natives' land issue and the new wilderness zone outside of Algonquin Park -- those three main issues are of real concern to the people in the Ottawa Valley, and they planned on your being there. Can you tell this House and tell those people why you were not there and why you didn't think it important enough to send a representative?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I appreciate that the member wants to present an issue with some bombast in the House. I think it would be only proper to make sure that the member is fully informed of exactly who was there.

In fact, from the Ministry of Natural Resources, the manager of planning for the central region of Ontario was there; the district manager of Pembroke was there; the district manager for Algonquin Park was there and the person we have created a new position for, as adviser to the wood products industry in eastern Ontario, was also there. It's quite inaccurate to say no one was there from the Ministry of Natural Resources. People were there.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, I'd like to answer the question. If the Conservatives don't want the answer -- the reality is that I received an invitation from the warden of the county only two weeks before the meeting was held. I told the warden at that time that my

schedule had been booked up for some months. To attend that meeting on very short notice, I would have had to cancel meetings with other groups and organizations.

I would say through the member to the county warden that if he wants someone to attend a meeting like that, it is better that someone receive more than two weeks' notice. But certainly don't say that no one was there. In fact, four very highly placed members of the Ministry of Natural Resources staff were there and were available to discuss with people there all of the issues.

Mr Jordan: Mr Minister, that is the problem with your ministry throughout this term of this government. You will not take responsibility as minister. You're trying to dump it off on staff. The summit in Pembroke was a clear sign that you will not personally listen or send a specific delegation to listen. These people were not identified at that meeting as representing the Minister of Natural Resources.

The purpose of this summit was because your consultations on land use have been nothing more than a shabby, smoke-and-mirror attempt to make the people think that they have been consulted. Despite your attempts, we know that the price to pay for your policies will be lost jobs in forestry, lost jobs in tourism and lost jobs in land development. Mr Minister, will you please make a commitment to seriously consult one to one or on a group basis with these people regarding these three issues?

Hon Mr Hampton: I don't want to embarrass the member opposite, but he really should check his facts. A week before this meeting was held in Pembroke, I met for over three hours with the county warden, with the economic development officer of the warden, with the veneer mill at Pembroke.

In fact, he should read the press from his own riding. "Canada Veneers Now Optimistic After Meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources." "Natural Resources Minister Looking at Problem of Low Veneer Log Supply: Canada Veneers Happy." Not only did I receive this in person from the people in the county, I dealt with their issues in detail.

Finally, the member should read his own newspaper in his own riding because, at the same time that this meeting was being held, the Ministry of Natural Resources was able to arrange for a new investor in a sawmill in the member's own home town, creating new jobs. I don't want to embarrass the member, but the member should check his facts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There is not enough time to compare press clippings.

CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Jamison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope people are willing to listen to my question because I believe it's one that's pertinent.

The Speaker: To whom is it addressed?

Mr Jamison: The question, for the second time, is addressed to the Minister of Finance. We would have heard that if the House was quiet enough to listen.

My question is about today's announcement about the minimum corporate tax. I've spoken directly to a goodly number of my own constituents and they believe this is a good idea. They believe it reflects fairness in our tax system and is a step forward towards that. The question I want to ask, and I guess it reflects an earlier question, is, why are we introducing this now?

On top of that, having some responsibility for small business, I want to be assured that the small business community is exempt from this tax. I want to clear the air on that issue right now. I believe, as most people do, that they're looking for more fairness in the tax system. Therefore, I would ask the Treasurer to explain or give explanation to the question that I pose here now.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate very much the question from the member for Norfolk. I was expecting a slashing, vitriolic attack from the opposition on this, but they don't seem to be as opposed to it as they pretend to be.

To the member for Norfolk, who asks a very good question, the reason this bill is being introduced now is, first of all, it is a long-standing commitment of this government to proceed with a corporate minimum tax.

Secondly, in the budget that was brought down last May, we very specifically said we wanted to introduce it later this year. We put out a consultation document which was distributed widely. We got some very good advice from the corporate sector on ways in which it would be better adapted and better amended and so forth.

I do believe very strongly that this has nothing whatsoever to do with any damage to any part of the private sector, but in particular to the small business community. This will not affect the small business community one iota. As a matter of fact, only the top 10% of large companies, 10% of all the corporations in Ontario, will be affected by this, and 90% of corporations in the province will not be affected by this whatsoever.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: It is a reasonable approach that recognizes the fact that small business is struggling to come out of the recession, and I believe it's the right tax at the right time.

Mr Jamison: My supplementary, I would stress, would go towards certain articles that have appeared in the paper and certain questions that have come and gone from the opposition members in this House, that is, that this tax would in their opinion have some detrimental effect on the economy of this province. I personally don't really agree with that, but again the media reports reflect this somewhat.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Jamison: Mr Speaker, I've had 38 seconds.

The Speaker: Could the member place his supplementary.

Mr Jamison: I will. The media seem to be blowing this up more so than they should, something similar to us stealing Christmas, which you should be ashamed of.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Jamison: The supplementary question is: Does the Minister of Finance have any qualms on introducing this tax as far as its being detrimental to this economy is concerned?

Hon Mr Laughren: The major consideration as we examined all of the options available to us was to what extent this could be brought in as a fair tax without endangering the competitive position of this province, because as we come out of a recession, it's terribly important that we remain competitive. With this tax, we will still have a lower corporation tax than is present in the neighbouring states to the south of us.

As well, some people say, "What about the province of Quebec?" I can tell you that the province of Ontario still has lower payroll and capital taxes than the province of Quebec. There is absolutely no question that Ontario remains a competitive jurisdiction and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future.

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question concerns the 1992 murder of the native teenager Teddy Bellingham. As you know, Teddy's murder was discovered more than a year later, in September 1993. The Ottawa Native Concerns Committee, the Native Women's Association and the Indigenous Bar Association, among many others, are reminding us that the children's aid society did not know where Teddy was, nor did it even know he was missing. They did not file a missing person's report and they failed to provide Teddy with guidance or direction in his young and difficult life.

The Ottawa Native Concerns Committee wrote to you on November 23. My question, Minister of Community and Social Services, is, will you grant their request for a public inquiry to review children's services available to aboriginals, the youth court process and the child welfare system as it serves first nations people? Will you grant a public inquiry on this important request?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think it's fair to say that it's my sense that at this point a public inquiry is not the appropriate way to address this issue. The member will appreciate the fact that we have taken some steps with some follow-up as a result of the specific incidence that happened with the particular children's aid society as well as outlining, in some very clear fashion, our expectations to all children's aid societies around ensuring that reports are filed when youths are missing and ensuring also that the ministry is notified promptly when those instances occur.

The reason I said at the outset that I don't think a public inquiry is the appropriate way to go, at this point in time at least, is because there is clearly a process under way to deal with some of the issues here, under the criminal investigation. Obviously, some people have been charged. I think it would be incumbent, certainly on us, to ensure that this process is completed and that those issues are resolved before we could even contemplate the notion of a public inquiry.

Certainly there are issues, Mr Speaker, that I can say to the member, through you, that we continue to pursue beyond what we've already done. Those I will continue to pursue because I believe that the issue is not only of knowing the whereabouts of our young people who are in care of the children's aid societies, but also what we do is very important and is one I'm committed to ensuring that we pursue very vigorously with children's aid societies to ensure that what happened in this case does not happen in other instances.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Through you, I request an apology from the member for Etobicoke West for his intemperate language directed at government members during question period. In light of the frequent admonitions made by the member for Etobicoke West whenever he perceives intemperate language from our benches, I'm sure that he would appreciate my calling attention to his intemperance and would also appreciate the opportunity to apologize to members on this side of the House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Middlesex, I did not hear the unparliamentary language to which she refers. However, as has been the practice, if one member of the House is offended by something which was said during the sitting, we allow the person identified the opportunity, if he or she so chooses, to withdraw whatever remark may have been found to have been offensive.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Is this just a general, at-large complaint or is there a specific? You know what? I'm sorry.

The Speaker: We have restored general goodwill on both sides of the chamber, and that's very good.

PETITIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

It's signed by 208 constituents. I affix my signature.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition from the Concerned Citizens for Bible-Centred Education that reads as follows:

"Whereas

section 262 of the Ontario Education Act has not been struck down in principle by the Ontario Court of Appeal; and

"Whereas

section 50 of the Ontario Education Act gives parents the legal right to choose what kind of religious education they want for their children;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Peterborough County Board of Education to institute a program of opt-in religious instruction in Christianity according to the pattern of two half-hour periods a week. The program should be implemented and administered in a non-coercive manner with the assistance of the local clergy or their appointees."

This petition is signed by 1,065 people.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've listened very carefully in this House and I wish an apology from the member for Etobicoke West as well for his intemperate language.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): That's not a point of order. We will continue with petitions.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has consistently mismanaged its finances and failed to support the economy of the province; and

"Whereas the government's new tax agenda has hurt many businesses across the province and killed tens of thousands of jobs; and

"Whereas the government has lost over $2 billion in revenue even after imposing $3 billion in new taxes; and

"Whereas the government is raising non-tax revenue through raising fees on everything it can think of, including toll roads, photo-radar, snowmobile fees, ferry fees, health service fees, children's services fees, without consultation or without studying the impact of these new fees on local communities; and

"Whereas the government is camouflaging its deficit crisis by phantom sales of government buildings; and

"Whereas the government is hiding its spending by setting up crown corporations to take on new debts; and

"Whereas the government even after all these questionable measures has still been unable to control its $10-billion deficit; and

"Whereas the government is planning to introduce even more taxes, which will only lead to further job losses across the province, reduce business confidence and prolong the recession; and

"Whereas the government continues to waste money through tens of thousands of dollars in unjustified expenses on meals and hotels by senior political and ministerial staff;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government to take action to halt any new tax increases, cut its own wasteful spending, take real action to support business and job creation and get the province working again."

I affix my signature along with the people who have signed this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is approximately 100 names of people from Willowdale, North York, Port Perry, Zephyr and communities south of York region and some in York region and Durham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45;

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples -- "

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): What about your bill?

Mr Cousens: Bill 55 has been removed and has not --

Mr Mahoney: What about your bill?

Mr Cousens: I withdrew it. There will be no further action on that bill. If Mr Murphy would do the same, we'd go a long way.

Mr Mahoney: Was that on orders of your leader?

Mr Cousens: It's on orders from me.

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority with no PC support in the second reading debate of June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

This is a very, very important petition and I'm very pleased to affix my signature to it with the hope that it has some impact on the Liberal and NDP majority in this House so it will do something to reverse this process.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too have a petition signed by many people in the London area expressing their opposition to Bill 45, the private member's bill put forward by the Liberal member, Tim Murphy.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I also have a petition regarding that legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We have moved away from a position where homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties. At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for different opinions.

"Therefore, we request in this petition that the House refrain from passing Bill 45 and Bill 55."

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Shebeshekong Road is in a bad state of repair,

"We, the undersigned, request the government to take the necessary repairs immediately or as early as possible in the spring of 1994."

I have affixed my signature as the member thereto.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): "To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows" -- it's regarding Bill 55, which the PC member for Markham has introduced and I understand has withdrawn. I'll just sign this.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is submitted on behalf of 66 corporate citizens through the Canadian Association of Recycling Industries. I affix my signature thereto as well.

TAXICABS

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Metro) and its agency the Metropolitan Licensing Commission (MLC) has created and caused untenable, harsh and restrictive regulatory and business practices to the Metro Toronto taxicab industry; and

"Whereas the MLC and Metro have refused to deal with the taxi industry in a civil and businesslike manner, thereby causing hardships to all individuals within the industry; and

"Whereas the MLC and Metro refused or failed: to accept province of Ontario vehicle safety standard certificates, or to provide published mechanical safety standards to be applied in lieu of the certificate; to provide an appeal procedure for mechanical safety inspections for vehicles used as taxicabs; to implement the MLC bylaw rewrite as promised for January 1990; to provide leadership and control over the MLC despite continued complaints by the industry and others; to stop conflict-of-interest situations; to stop discriminatory fee practices against the taxicab industry; to publicly tender contracts for services; to exhibit apprehension of bias against the taxicab industry as a whole;

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

"That under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990,

chapter M.62,

part 28,

section 278, to investigate the activities and the relationship of Metro and the MLC, and as a result legislate that Metro and the MLC establish a separate Metropolitan Toronto Taxi Authority with the appropriate taxicab industry representation."

This is from the Toronto Taxicab Owners and Operators Association and signed by over 1,000 owners, operators and users of the taxi industry in Metro Toronto. I affix my signature thereto.

MINISTER OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has indicated that she consulted with members of the mining industry regarding the termination of eight claim inspectors of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; and

"Whereas the assistant deputy minister has indicated that no such consultation has taken place; and

"Whereas this set of circumstances is consistent with previous actions of the minister in the past;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Premier to investigate the inconsistent remarks made by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the assistant deputy minister forthwith."

This is signed by a number of people from northern Ontario and I too attach my name to that petition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve) : This completes the time allotted for petitions.

TIME ALLOTTED FOR PETITIONS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I didn't want to rise at the time because the clock was running on the petitions segment, but at the beginning of this petition time period, over two minutes were consumed in a point of order by a member of the government asking for an apology from the member for Etobicoke West.

While I understand that it was seen to be an appropriate statement, I just wanted to ask, Mr Speaker, why in this particular case the clock was allowed to run down by over two minutes when petitions were delayed by more than two minutes and as a result people were prevented from carrying on the routine business of the day.

Had I thought I could have won the day, I would have stood at that point and asked that the full 15-minute time period be reallocated. I would ask you to check into the regular or traditional way of handling that and advise us if, when this happens again, we could have the full 15 minutes for petitions to be presented in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I want to remind the honourable members that the Speaker has an allotted time to work within and must recognize the honourable members on a point of personal privilege or on a point of order. I appreciate that it does shorten the time and I would remind members to possibly bring their points of order, points of personal privilege, at a time when there is no time allocation or time limit.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just read a petition into the record. I wish, as the Mines critic for the Ontario Liberal Party, to indicate what I was talking about.

This is reading from an

article in Northern Ontario Business, which indicates: "During a recent visit to Timmins, Mines Minister Shelley Martel was quoted in a newspaper

article as saying she consulted with the industry before making the decision to lay off the eight claims inspectors," as I indicated before. "But Gammon," who is the assistant deputy minister to the minister --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I can appreciate that it's a point of view and it's an opinion and the member is quoting. However, there will be a time and place for that. It's not a point of order.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 12th report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The member for Mississauga South, Mrs Marland, has provided a report from the standing committee on government agencies. Does the honourable member have some brief remarks to make pursuant to this report?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the fact that the standing committee on government agencies this morning appointed two very exceptional citizens of Ontario to responsibilities.

One of them is Mr Peter Munk, who has been appointed as a member of the University of Toronto Crown Foundation Board. Mr Peter Munk, as I think everyone in this Legislature recognizes, has been a very outstanding citizen of this province and this country and will serve, as he has in many voluntary positions, extremely generously in terms of his own personal time as a member of the University of Toronto Foundation. I think we're very fortunate to have people of his calibre and experience willing to serve for the public good.

Also, Dr Swaminath, as a member of the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board, who is himself a psychiatrist, is also willing to make a personal contribution for the good of the people of this province.

I think we are indebted to both of these individuals for their willingness to serve and we applaud their generosity.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Mills from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment.

Bill Pr67,

An Act to revive All-Wood Land Clearing Ltd.

Bill Pr68,

An Act to revive Le Groupe Concorde Inc.

Bill Pr73,

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

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr39,

An Act respecting the United Townships of Dysart, Bruton, Clyde, Dudley, Harcourt, Eyre, Guilford, Harburn and Havelock be not reported.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on Bill Pr73,

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Mills has moved a motion on the standing committee on regulations and private bills. Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pertaining to the previous report by Mrs Marland, pursuant to standing order 106(g), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates presented a report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member have brief comments? If not, pursuant to standing order 60(b), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and office named therein as not being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

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

Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 133, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I am introducing for first reading a bill to amend the Corporations Tax Act. This bill will implement the 1993 budget proposal to introduce a corporate minimum tax for the province.

The corporate minimum tax will apply only to corporations or companies in an associated group with total assets of more than $5 million or gross revenue of more than $10 million. Profitable corporations over this size which are currently paying little or no regular income tax will be required to pay the corporate minimum tax.

The corporate minimum tax will improve tax fairness while maintaining tax incentives for new investment and job creation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Orders of the day.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Before I move the calling of the first order, we had some discussion among the House leaders about an item which we'll be dealing with later this evening, Bill 120, which we'll be coming back to late this evening. We've reached an agreement that at the time that debate ends this evening, regardless of whether there should happen to be five members present to stand and cause a division, we will see a division and the vote will be deferred until before orders of the day tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement from all parties? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Cooper, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, moved third reading of Bill 80,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do you have some opening remarks?

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): It's my pleasure to rise today and move third reading of Bill 80, a bill designed to promote greater balance and fairness in relations between Ontario construction union locals and their international parents. Ontario-based construction locals have long expressed the desire for greater control over their own affairs, and I'm pleased that several members are here in the galleries today to watch this.

I am proud to say that this government is responding positively to these concerns. Right now, these local unions need more say in how internal union jurisdiction issues are resolved. They need a fair voice in the collective bargaining process and they need protection from sanctions imposed by their parent international unions. These Ontario locals have often had little input into the administration and use of their funds for employee benefit and pension plans to which their members have contributed.

These circumstances have developed over time and can be traced to the unique nature and history of trade union organization by craft in the North American construction sector. Bill 80 will bring a sense of balance and fairness to the relationship between locals, their members and their international parent unions.

In particular, these reforms will guarantee to Ontario construction locals joint bargaining rights with their international parents across the entire construction sector, much greater protection of their geographic and work jurisdictions, greater protection from interference or reprisals from their parent unions, and representation on the boards of their benefit plans proportionate to the number of local members enrolled.

Bill 80 is the latest in a series of progressive measures our government has taken on behalf of working people in the province of Ontario. I urge this House to give its final approval to these important legislative proposals.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to rise and join in the debate on this particular piece of legislation. I anticipated that there would have been a separation of time per caucus, but I understand that hasn't yet been decided. I'll still have enough time, I believe, to put a few points on the record.

Let me say at the outset that I am currently the Environment critic for our party but previously was the Labour critic and, as such, was involved with this particular piece of legislation really from its outset. At that point I was very concerned with the legislation, with the way in which it was arrived at and what it was doing to good, hardworking people in this province.

My concern is that this particular piece of legislation has not helped many people. I am concerned and opposed to the bill for a number of reasons, and let me indicate that the first reason deals with the whole process by which this bill came about.

We all know in this Legislature that it was a year and a half ago that the Minister of Labour, when introducing the now infamous Bill 40, in his statement to the Legislature on June 4 indicated in one paragraph of that statement that there was going to be another piece of legislation coming. At that point in time, what he was referring to without name was the subject matter of this particular piece of legislation, known as Bill 80, and indeed they did introduce Bill 80 at the end of the month, June 1992.

The problem that has happened is that no one who was impacted upon by Bill 80, no one who was involved in the unions of that kind, knew about this particular piece of legislation, knew that the minister was going to be introducing a piece of legislation that dealt with this, knew that the government was considering dealing with a piece of legislation that was going to change their rules and regulations.

For me, at that time as the Labour critic, I received a number of pieces of correspondence, by telephone, by letter, by fax, from good, hardworking people who were saying, "What the heck is this government doing?"

The Minister of Labour stands up and makes a statement on a particular subject matter about which he has not spoken to anyone who is affected. They don't know that the minister was in on this bent to deal with the issues such as Bill 80. They weren't involved in any consultative process; they weren't involved in dealing with any of the issues. But all of a sudden the Minister of Labour stands up and says, "And hey, by the way, something's coming down the line in a month's time." That became Bill 80. That was a problem from its outset and it's a problem that this government has had from the day it was elected.

The fact of the matter is, you don't know how to talk to people. You don't know how to deal with the issues of the day. You don't know how to make decisions that do anything less than exclude people from policymaking. You've done that countless times. You have Bill 80 as an example. Before Bill 80, you had Bill 40 as an example. Before Bill 40, you had other pieces of legislation as an example, such as the waste management legislation, Bill 143.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): You have been talking about Bill 40 for 40 years.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Agriculture and Food is up and is saying something. The fact of the matter is that the legacy of your government is a government which divides people, which deals with issues in a manner which seeks to exclude people, and Bill 80 is another example of that.

We are under time allocation. We can't speak about all the very important issues that arise from Bill 80. We can't talk about the many people who want to have some discussion on Bill 80. This government seeks to shut the door on the people of this province. The problem is that it hurts good, hardworking people, people who don't want to be involved in stuff down here. What they are concerned about is jobs and their family, and Bill 80 does nothing to help in that area.

Bill 80 is an intrusion. It's an intrusion into the way in which people manage and organize their own affairs. It's an intrusion into the way in which unions organize and orderly deal with the issues of the day. It's government saying, "We know better." The fact of the matter is, it is the worst example of governing in the 1990s. If there is ever a lesson to be learned, it is that what you guys are doing in so many areas is dead wrong, not only in terms of the substance but in terms of the process.

You don't deal with the issues of the day by picking teams and by saying: "Here's the issue and now we're going to pick teams. We're going to divide. We're going to seek to increase chaos, seek to increase opposition." That isn't how you deal with these things. That isn't what makes a healthy economy. That isn't what creates a climate for investment, for job creation not by government but by the private sector: the good, long-term, high-paying, highly trained jobs, the ones that come from the private sector. But this government just continues to work along the path of saying: "We know best.

One group we will shut the door on. We will not listen to your concerns. We will invoke what has become institutionalized in this place, and that is time allocation."

We know that what time allocation is is limiting debate. Why the heck were we elected? We were elected to bring forward to this place the issues from our constituents and from interested parties across the province. This government invokes, day after day, time allocation. If it isn't on Bill 80, then it's on Bill 40. If it's not on Bill 40, then it's on the Environmental Bill of Rights. If it's not on the Environmental Bill of Rights, then it's on waste management. If it's not on waste management, then it's on photo-radar. And the list goes on and on and on.

The legacy you leave is one of a group of people who shut doors, either to this Legislature or to committee rooms -- also, in fact, to your own constituency offices, because how do you tell people that you can't listen to their concerns any more because the bill has already whooshed through the Legislature?

That's what your legacy is. It's a legacy of division. It's a legacy of chaos. It's a legacy of dealing with matters that are important in an improper way. It's one on which I, as one member of this Legislature, hope that some members on the government side will finally get the message that your job is to listen and to deal with issues and to seek to bring together people.

But you like chaos, you like dissension, you like division. We see it each and every day. The problem is, that doesn't create jobs. It doesn't create a healthy economy. It doesn't create a climate for investment for good, well-paying jobs. It doesn't create a message that Ontario is a place where you can invest, either in terms of dollars or in terms of some brainpower, to build business here.

I know my time on this particular piece of legislation is coming to an end because we're under this crazy time allocation rule. I will be against Bill 80. I've been against Bill 80 from the outset. I've been against Bill 80 not only because of its substance but because of what it's done to good people in this province. You should be ashamed for standing up and seeking to defend something which divides people.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understood that there was an agreement with the House leader that we would split the time equally, which would mean there would not be the two-minute responses to each speech. That was agreed with the government House leader. Can I ask for unanimous consent?

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to forgo and divide the time evenly? Agreed. Further debate.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The Bill 80 consultation process was flawed from the outset, further emphasized by the fact that we had time allocation brought in on this bill. The government has been ramming it down the throats of supporters and opposers alike in the same way it rammed photo-radar down everybody's throat and everything else on this government's agenda is being rammed through. Let's take a look at the list of the bills they've been pushing through.

We've had time allocation this session on Bill 8, the casino bill, something the government certainly didn't run on in the last election; in fact, it always ran in exactly the opposite direction from the casino bill.

Bill 47, the photo-radar bill: This is the most draconian measure the government could take, and Bill 47 is something we had no public hearings on whatsoever. It's been suggested, in fact, that it's Orwellian, that we're going to have cameras supervising the speed limits now, and we have no opportunity for the public at large to express their disdain for this. I've received over 200 communications at my office on that subject alone, and only three of those communications have been in favour of photo-radar.

This government, that ran on a platform that it was going to be an open government, has said it is not interested in any debate. We've seen that again with this bill. We've had time allocation on this bill.

We look at Bill 100, the regulated health professionals bill; Bill 164, the auto insurance bill; Bill 48, the social contract, and now Bill 80. In all of these, closure was applied. The record of this government is that it's escalating this process: In 1991 there were two time allocation motions, in 1992 there were four time allocation motions and in 1993 we've had six.

At a time when so many construction workers are out of work, this bill does nothing to create jobs. Surely the top priority of this government, of any government, should be to ensure that jobs are created in this province. What are we seeing? We're seeing a government that is determined at every turn to pay off its buddies but not to get on with the main job, and that is restoring prosperity to this province. Instead, they're digging us into a sea of debt.

This bill has caused a tremendous rift within their unions, and it's a great shame when you consider that we have relative calm within the union movement at this moment. We find that the unions --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I want to remind all members that interjections are out of order. Members will have the opportunity of participating.

Mr Turnbull: The government brought this in at a time when it should be concentrating on the provincial economy. It's very hard to see how this could be demonstrated as being beneficial for stimulating the provincial economy. The government has made absolutely no useful case to demonstrate that this was an urgently needed bill.

My friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, the parliamentary assistant, smiles. I guess I would have to smile that little smile if I were having to carry through the House a bill when the minister responsible is too chicken to be in the House to take the knocks. Every time we've asked him a question we've got some mealy-mouthed answer. He's usually half asleep and he doesn't have any respect for the questions that are asked.

He's got his prepared notes and he looks at the ceiling and then reads some absolutely inane answer, instead of getting on with the business of solving the problems -- the problems which are impediments to creating jobs -- the very minister who should be addressing the serious problems at the Workers' Compensation Board so that injured workers get their fair payout in a timely manner.

I know all the problems I handle in my office with respect to injured workers. At the same time, they have an enormous bureaucracy which is out of control and they're spending money, instead of on injured workers, on building a Taj Mahal for themselves, an office building they had no permission from cabinet to build. Yet the minister refuses to do anything to bring them to heel.

We've had a chair of this board who has clearly misled this House and the committee. We had the deputy chair in charge of administration mislead the House. We have called for the resignation of both of them, but the government has not seen fit to do anything about that. Instead, they're concentrating on job-killing legislation like Bill 40, and now we see this useless piece of legislation.

Let us be fair. Let's say, for example, that half of the union members want it and half of them don't. I really don't think there is a demonstrated need. Certainly in the small amount of the hearings that I sat in on, there were not very many people speaking in favour of the bill. There were some, nevertheless the majority of the people who spoke to this bill were saying this is not needed.

At a time when we are talking about level playing fields and international markets and we have multinationals, why on earth do you want to limit unions just to Canada? A perfect example of how this can be detrimental to the union movement would be with the Canadian Auto Workers. Since they split away from the United Auto Workers, they have now got no support in the US to maintain auto jobs in Canada -- not very good for Canadian auto workers.

Fortunately, Canadian auto workers have been, on the whole, more productive than US auto workers, and there are some competitive advantages that we enjoy, but not in all plants. But the United Auto Workers' desires are strictly to maintain their jobs in the US, instead of having an interest in Canada.

This bill does nothing to affect the vast majority of taxpayers in this province. Why are we handling this? Once again, the government's priorities are out of whack. There are many other changes that this government should be addressing, and number one on that list has got to be job creation. How do you create jobs? The very best way that has been demonstrated throughout the world is to make sure that businesses have an incentive to invest and to increase their investment and have long-term plans for the nation.

As an environment becomes inhospitable, you know what? Investment goes away, and so it should. We're in an international market. Today we have an international economy which is so completely and fundamentally different from the economy that existed 25 years ago that we cannot take these narrow views that perhaps past socialist governments have taken throughout the world. We must look in an international way at our ability to compete. This bill is doing nothing to do that.

Instead the government is bringing in corporate minimum tax. Well, my friends, let me tell you something about corporate minimum tax. The fact is that not many companies are making any money. You won't be getting very much money. I challenge you, next year at this time, when you see the revenues that you've had from corporate minimum tax, we'll see if it is any significant amount of money. But it is demonstrative of the attitude of this government, an attitude of greed and avarice against anybody who would be successful.

We have seen the attitude of this government with respect to doctors. The government talks about the income of doctors and they talk about their gross income, as if they didn't have any expenses. It's well known that the average doctor's expenses are 40% of his or her income. That demonstrates an ignorance of how to stimulate the economy.

We've seen it time and again. We saw the best demonstration with the enactment of Bill 40, the famous job-killing legislation which our party, the Progressive Conservatives, has said unequivocally we will revoke immediately upon forming a government.

We're in favour of protecting unions and union members, have no mistake about it. We are not bashing the unions, but what we are saying is we must make sure that legislation is such that it respects the ability of the employer and the employee to be able to strike a fair bargain. We talk about level playing fields. It is such a common term today in a time of internationalization and yet this government is moving in the opposite direction.

There are many other challenges and, as I've said, job creation should be the number one challenge. Bill 80 interferes with the internal workings of unions. Bill 80 will override the building trade constitutions and takes power to solve international problems out of the hands of unions, placing it in the hands of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

There is a very, very serious question. Why does the government think, at a time when it is quite clear the government is absolutely broke, it should be taking on more responsibilities into government institutions? Do they want to bankrupt us just a little quicker? Although, of course, it could already be argued that we are bankrupt now and that any commercial corporation in the financial straits we're in today -- I would suggest that probably a private corporation would have already been in liquidation because its creditors would have moved in on us.

We are now one of the most indebted places on the face of the Earth and this government has done everything to create that set of circumstances. They have, in the three years that they have been in power, doubled the total amount of debt that occurred --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for York Mills has the floor very legitimately. Other members will have their turns.

Mr Turnbull: I find it interesting, the interjection from across the floor, talking about the debt for Ottawa. Haven't you learned a lesson from that, my friends? The lesson is, they will throw you out, based upon those figures. It is just so shortsighted for you to throw all of these abusive comments out and not think and contemplate maybe your own belly. I think Buddha would have some words of advice for you on this.

We have a problem in this province and the problem is that investment is not coming into the province. We have no way of being able to completely identify the forgone investments. Here's the funny thing. I'm hearing one of the ministers heckling.

I was appointed to the investment panel of the Premier's Council and let me tell you, my friends, because I heard it and you didn't -- I heard it at the same time as the Premier that one of the Premier's own appointments, Professor Horvath from York University, did a study on behalf of that council and concluded that the absolutely essential element was to abandon trying to attract investment, because we were fairly unattractive, and concentrate on trying to keep the investment we've got.

The government's solution is to get some of its favourite corporations like Bombardier, bail it out, and then for massive amounts of tax dollars to go to subsidize those foolish decisions, instead of letting businesses survive on their own merit. Instead, we now have the situation that for every aircraft that is made in Toronto, there's probably several million dollars in subsidy. It's not a very healthy situation. It's not a situati