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

July 6, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House the ongoing land claim discussions between the government of Ontario and the Teme-Augama Anishnabai nation in the Temagami area.

As members will be well aware, since 1975 the Teme-Augama Anishnabai nation has had a land caution on most of the south part of the Timiskaming riding for all that time and because of that caution development has not been able to happen. We've not been able to have prospecting and development of new mines and other activity for the benefit of the economy in the north.

Discussions are going on and I'm receiving many letters from my constituents in regard to the slowness of these negotiations. I stand in my place today to plead to the government of Ontario and the Bear Island band to really get on with the discussions because the government has set a deadline of March 1993 and the people of Timiskaming want to see that deadline come to fruition.

We know there must be a settlement. We want to see a just settlement on all sides, but we must have a settlement so that the economic activity of Timiskaming can continue.

POLICE STAFFING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): For the past five months I've been writing to the Solicitor General requesting a copy of the Ontario Provincial Police report on the province-wide review of service delivery and uniform staffing levels. I have received several replies from the Solicitor General each time denying my request for this information on the ground that senior officials within the ministry are reviewing the report.

I believe it is essential that each member in this House be provided with this vital information on OPP staffing levels across the province. The Solicitor General is merely increasing the concern of my constituents by hiding relevant information from the public on police staffing levels and service requirements.

In some parts of my riding of Wellington, burglaries have increased by as much as 48%. According to the June 3 issue of the Erin Advocate, within the 500-square-mile jurisdiction of the Guelph OPP detachment, there has been a significant increase in crime: 535 burglaries last year as compared to 361 in 1990.

Since 1986 the population of Wellington county has grown by 17%. In some municipalities the growth has been dramatic. The population of West Garafraxa, for instance, has grown by over 36%. With increases in population, there is a parallel need for the service infrastructure to support such growth.

To best represent the safety and security interests of my constituents, I must have access to the report which the Solicitor General has denied me. I would then be in a position to fully assess the precise extent of the OPP staffing shortfall in my riding relative to other areas of the province and to continue to bring the issue to this government's attention. I call upon the Solicitor General to end the secrecy and table the report on OPP staffing levels in Ontario, and he should do so today.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of yet another group of citizens who are opposed to the proposal of the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a waste treatment facility in my riding.

The Concerned Citizens are a group of Lincoln activists who have taken it upon themselves to help keep the public informed of the ongoing environmental assessment hearings that are currently considering the OWMC proposal. These people have sacrificed hundreds of hours of their time to drive to the hearings in Oakville to represent the public. They are relentless writers of letters to the editor of all of Niagara's newspapers in order to let everyone know what is happening in Oakville. Much of the time they are the only people present who are not engineers or lawyers, yet they are as knowledgeable as anyone at the hearings.

Many of these people are farmers who must perform their daily farm chores before and after attending the hearings. In addition, they read report after report on toxic waste technology and are right up to date on the evidence being presented at the hearings. These people are not looking for recognition. The only thing they want is that this outdated, ill-conceived proposal be denied.

HURON LODGE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I wish to bring to members' attention the plight of 34 elderly residents who are concerned about their home because the Ministry of Community and Social Services has denied an emergency request for $52,000.

Elliot Lake's Huron Lodge, which is in my riding of Algoma-Manitoulin, has been walking a tightrope since the welfare-burdened Algoma district social services board announced that it cannot fund this lodge beyond June 30 of this year. Four area municipalities served by the lodge have agreed to fund $45,000 of the shortfall, and the city of Elliot Lake has now pledged the remaining amount of money, but we have 34 elderly residents who are uncertain about their future. They are uncertain whether they will be able to remain in their home after this fiscal year ends.

Elliot Lake has had 2,000 new residents come for its retirement living program. Elliot Lake needs a commitment to the seniors' campus, which this government continues to drag its feet on. In the interim, I would urge the Ministry of Community and Social Services to pledge the money necessary to keep the people at Huron Lodge in their home.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the fact that lower speed limits, stricter law enforcement, boater education and the licensing of boat operators were among the 22 recommendations made by a coroner's jury examining the deaths of a King City man and a Waterloo woman who were killed in a 1990 Labour Day boating accident on Lake Joseph in Muskoka.

Not only is the idea of licensing boat operators on the waterways long overdue, but the recommendation to make education for boaters mandatory is an issue that must be addressed.

An editorial in the June 22 edition of the Orillia Daily Packet and Times under the headline "Jury Was Right On As Inquest Concludes" says:

"It's interesting to note the stringent rules that apply to driving an automobile in the province, such as enforced seatbelt laws, speed limits, types of automobiles, and how they're driven.

"But on the public's waterways, which are also transportation routes, there appears to be a degree of anarchy."

I urge the provincial government and my colleagues here in the Legislature to give second reading to my private member's Bill 17,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators, coming this Thursday morning, so we can send it to a standing committee for public hearings, where it could be amended to meet any concerns that might be raised.

When we look at the statistics, we see the grim problem we're having here. It has supplied all the necessary stats required to rationalize implementation of such a very important bill.

WELLAND HISTORICAL MUSEUM

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I appreciate the opportunity to tell members what I did on Saturday just past. I had the opportunity to meet Bas Degroot, his wife and his three kids.

Mr Degroot, who is well known in Holland or the Netherlands for his artistic endeavours, is now living in Wainfleet down in Shirley Coppen's riding, Niagara South. His art work is on display at the Welland Historical Museum.

Mac Swackhammer, the curator of that museum, never fails to amaze me. Once again, he's done it. He's put on a first-class display. He had a first-class opening. I was so pleased to meet young Dagmar Degroot, the youngest child of Degroot, whose painting of the boy is one of the paintings on display.

The Welland Historical Museum, with a modest budget and excellent staff under the leadership of Mac Swackhammer, who came from out west but now lives in Welland, has carried on the tradition that it's established of outstanding displays. Along with the Degroot art display, which everybody should make it down there to see, is also a display of old maps and photos of the city of Welland, and indeed of Crowland in the south end of the community.

On July 16 the dinosaurs are coming to the Welland Historical Museum. No, not some of the older members of this Legislature, but real dinosaurs that are going to be on display to the amazement and thrill of youngsters and oldsters alike.

I welcome all of my colleagues here down to the Welland Historical Museum to see Mac Swackhammer and his staff's great work.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): It's well known to all members of this Legislature that young people are having a particularly difficult time as they face summer employment in 1992. I want to raise once again in this chamber a concern I've raised -- I know my colleague from Trenton has raised it -- and that is the ongoing difficulty that a lot of young people, and in some cases people who are not so young, have in trying to get a driver's test in a timely fashion.

People in my constituency in eastern Ontario, in communities like Deep River, are being told now that they are going to have to wait up to three months to be tested. I know my friend the member for St Catharines was reporting earlier today that he had a constituent who was in his office over the weekend saying that he was not able to hire a young person because that person could not be tested for the needed driver examination in a timely fashion.

A number of members, myself included, have told the Minister of Transportation that the difficulties his department is having in providing timely driver examinations are simply causing all kinds of difficulty for people, particularly young people. I say again that a three-month delay or waiting period for anyone, but most especially a young person who might need that driver's licence to get a job, is simply not acceptable.

I say again that if the government cannot provide a more timely and sensitive service, it should get out of the business and turn the driver examination service over to someone who can run it more efficiently in the interest of at least helping young people get licences and jobs.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Last Friday the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance for Long-Term Care Reform released a report regarding the lack of planning by the NDP in the management of health care of the vulnerable and frail elderly in Ontario.

The report expressed concerns about the many seniors whose lives would be jeopardized as a result of the implementation of an ill-conceived plan of deinstitutionalization of the frail elderly before the necessary community support programs were planned, funded and in place.

Jane Leitch, the chair of the alliance, pointed to the fact that less costly chronic beds are being shut down in Ontario hospitals while chronic patients occupy beds in acute care hospitals. She also opposed the NDP plan to create more bureaucracy in terms of 40 "service coordination centres in Ontario when existing health councils can do the job."

Ontario seniors are rightly suspicious of what the NDP has in store for their long-term health care needs when the recommendations of several reports, studies and extensive consultation remain unaddressed by this government, such as the chronic care hospital study, the report of the Advisory Committee on Rest Homes, countless reports by the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, the Weistaubb and Lightman reports and this recent study entitled Rural Roots: Aging in Small and Rural Communities in Ontario.

Seniors will not be conned by any government offering simplistic solutions. Ontario seniors deserve adequate long-term care planning, not platitudes, and they deserve services sensitive to their care needs, not insensitive socialist rhetoric.

DURHAM EAST NEWSPAPERS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My riding of Durham East is served by a number of community newspapers which each week keep their readers informed of local events. I want to refer to those people who take the time to write a weekly column about events in the villages. This effort takes time and a good deal of effort and I want to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed.

I want to thank Betty Wright for providing "Happenings in Enniskillen," Edna Barrowclough for "News from Wesleyville," Jack and Hazel Cragco for their report from the village of Newcastle, Isabelle Chalice for the "Report from Orono," Edna Thickson for "News of Elizabethville," Peter Sun for "The Courtice Connection," Harvey Malcolm with "News from Yelverton," school reporter Coby Veenstra from Durham Christian High School, the "Blackstock News" from Joyce Kelly, "Happenings in Hampton" from Michelle Balson and Audrey Johnson for the Courtice news.

All these volunteer weekly columnists help me keep in touch with the things going on in the riding of Durham East. I appreciate their efforts in making this community news available not only to myself but to all the citizens I represent in the Legislature and I thank them for that.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING / FONDS D'AIDE TRANSITOIRE

We called on our college and university stakeholders to work together with each other in this same direction. We asked them to explore and develop restructuring proposals that would maintain access and quality with the level of funding that was available.

We received over 400 proposals representing a tremendous amount of cooperative effort between faculty, students, administrators and staff within our colleges and universities.

Nous avons reçu plus de 400 propositions de projets, ce qui témoigne d'un effort coopératif colossal de la part des enseignants, étudiants et administrateurs, ainsi que du personnel des collèges et universités.

Because of the excellence of these proposals, I was able to announce in April that our post-secondary system would receive nearly $40 million in transitional assistance. I indicated at that time that the colleges would receive $17.4 million as their part of the transitional assistance. This money is not top-up of regular base level funding. It is money for projects that will help our post-secondary institutions in their efforts to restructure.

Ce montant ne vient pas s'ajouter au financement de base accordé aux collèges. Il s'agit de fonds destinés à des projets qui aideront les établissements d'enseignement postsecondaire dans leurs efforts de restructuration.

Today I want to tell you how the largest part of the $17.4 million going to our colleges will in fact be used. Over the last few days my colleagues and I have announced that $12 million will be used to fund nearly 100 projects at 23 colleges of applied arts and technology. They look at ways to rationalize programs within and between colleges and propose measures to promote closer ties between colleges and high schools.

These proposals respond to very real challenges within the college system, including the retraining and redeployment of staff affected by restructuring.

Ces projets veulent répondre à des défis bien réels au sein du réseau collégial, dont le perfectionnement professionnel et la réaffectation du personnel touché par la restructuration.

I truly believe that these projects represent the beginning of real change in our college system. I know the long-term restructuring steering committee for the colleges, which is now beginning its work, will consider very carefully the work of its predecessor, the short-term transition assistance task force, which worked with the government to review the excellent projects I'm announcing for funding today.

The close collaboration between students, faculty, administrators and staff in the college system in developing these projects is precisely the type of cooperation that is needed as we move to meet the longer-term challenges facing the college system. It shows to us all that shared decision-making by employers, employees and clients can lead to the development of a more effective and efficient way of delivering services to the public, as well as promoting cooperation in the workplaces themselves.

Il semble clair que la prise de décisions partagée entre employeurs, employés et clients peut mener à l'élaboration de modes de prestation de services au public qui soient plus efficaces, en plus d'encourager la collaboration en milieu de travail.

In the coming weeks, I will be making further announcements relating to the restructuring of our post-secondary system, involving partnerships between our colleges and universities, human resource initiatives within the college sector and projects dealing with the restructuring of the university system as well.

Today I want to congratulate our colleges. We expect the best from them, and, once again, they delivered it.

RESPONSES

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING / FONDS D'AIDE TRANSITOIRE

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Let me start by saying, frankly, that I don't like always being negative and critical, so I will begin by saying that any additional money that is going --

Interjection: It's not additional.

Mr Daigeler: It's not really additional money, but any --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Rediscovered.

Mr Daigeler: -- rediscovered money that is going to the colleges or to the universities these days is certainly good news, so I don't want to denigrate the fact that there is some money going into the colleges.

Nevertheless I think we should remember where this money is coming from. It's announced under the transition program that was put in place when the Treasurer said he was limiting the transfer increases to colleges, universities, hospitals and schools to 1% and 2% the year after. He had reserved what I can only term a slush fund of some $40 million for the colleges and for the universities. Why do I say "slush fund"?

Because essentially the minister said, "If you universities come up with some programs and some initiatives that fit into our NDP priorities and in our program, then we will give you this additional or this extra money that we've put aside that really belongs to you, but we give it to you only if you follow our viewpoint and our ideology."

Frankly I've been surprised how uncritical the university and college community has been about this effort, because what we're seeing very clearly here is targeted money. The universities up to now, and certainly the colleges as well, have been very insistent on their independence, and rightfully so, because I think there has to be a certain distance between the system of higher education and the government of the day. In the pursuit of knowledge, it is very important that they can maintain their integrity and their independence somewhat from the government of the day.

This step that the minister is so proud of -- targeted funding, the $40 million for the whole higher education system -- I think leads the universities and the colleges in a direction which in my opinion is very dangerous.

I should perhaps indicate at this point that while I appreciate the fact that there was some money set aside in terms of transition, making it easier for the system of higher education to adjust to the limited transfer payments, there was nothing, for example, for the Art Gallery of Ontario, for example. Where was this transitional funding for them, even though they have to struggle just as much with this adjustment to a new financial reality? Why is it the AGO has to close? Why is that? Is it because they are not good friends with the NDP government?

Il y avait 400 projets qui ont été soumis au ministre. Je me demande si c'était une utilisation vraiment efficace du temps des personnes pour préparer des projets et se soumettre à toutes sortes de réunions, de commissions et de comités afin de recevoir seulement 17 millions de dollars. Je me demande vraiment si c'était un effort efficace et valable pour les professeurs et les administrateurs dans le système des collèges.

The minister is so proud that this initiative has come forward at this point. It took him half a year to evaluate these 400 projects. Now he says he has a long-term restructuring committee that he announced well before Christmas as well. He's saying now it's just getting off the ground. If it has taken him half a year just to decide on the results of his short-term restructuring committee, which is the transition funding committee, how long is it going to take him to really approach the key issues in our colleges and universities, taking an in-depth look, as he says and I agree with him there, at the way we provide higher education in this province?

I certainly hope this long-term restructuring committee, which is a very important one, and which unfortunately is just getting off the ground at this point, will be much more effective and will be able to work much faster than the short-term restructuring committee of which the minister is announcing the results today.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I would like to respond to the announcement today by my colleague and neighbour the member for Hamilton West, the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

First of all, this is apparently the third time this announcement has been made. One would suspect that the initial response from the media was poor and therefore it required a second run up the flagpole. Then the second response from the faculty and community colleges and their students has now necessitated a third attempt at running this up the flagpole to see if someone is going to salute it as some sort of meaningful contribution to the context in which our community colleges and universities are struggling.

I know my Liberal colleagues won't appreciate hearing this but I'd like the House to cast its mind back to 1982-83 when we had our last severe recession.

It was at that time, with the exception of the obvious impact on social assistance payments required of any government of the day, that the largest single increase by the then PC government of Ontario was made to colleges and universities in double digits in recognition of the fact that in recessionary times the worst thing to do is to block students' access to post-secondary education -- whether it is for their regular ongoing academic needs or because of job layoffs in the economy -- to go to a post-secondary institution and to receive the necessary training and upgrading and additional skills so that their re-entry into the job market can be meaningful and helpful not only to themselves but to a productive society.

What is disturbing is that today we have an announcement of $17 million. Yet on October 2 of last year, the Treasurer gave my friend and colleague the member for Hamilton West the bad news that he was cutting $13 million out of his operating budget. One might even cynically take the view, as I know the Ontario Federation of Students has, that these kinds of announcements that we're hearing today for the third time in this House are very much paid for on the backs of the students and the faculty in these very institutions that saw $13 million taken away last fall.

It's very clear that if this government saw the context in which our students require these necessary upgrades in this economy, it would be re-evaluating some of its most recent announcements, like $100 million from the same fund for it to continue its ideological race against the private sector in day care services in this province.

How much more productive could this province be if that money had gone to our colleges and universities to assist -- I'm told by the Council of Ontario Universities -- some 15,000 students who will make application this year and be denied access to a university or a community college in our province? Yet this government and this Treasurer and this Premier have $100 million to continue their offensive fight -- and that's what it amounts to -- against the private sector providing day care services in this province.

Those are the kinds of priorities that cause many people to ask questions. Undoubtedly, as these questions continue to be unanswered, this government will probably rise again in the next couple of weeks and announce for the fourth time that it's spending this money on its transition programs in community colleges in Ontario.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): When you talk about recycling, this minister really seems to have taken a lesson from the Minister of the Environment in recycling and recycling old announcements. At least the Honourable Ruth Grier is getting through to one of her ministers with recycling, and I have to commend the Minister of the Environment. There's nothing new, as we've just heard from the member for Burlington South; it's just over and over again. At least you're good at that and we commend you for that.

MEMBERS' SAFETY

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I rise on a point of privilege, Mr Speaker. I want to present to you and to the House an issue for consideration which affects the privileges, I believe, of all members of the House. That issue is physical threats or threats of violence against members.

The particular nuance of the issue takes us beyond the physical geography of the precinct, and as a consequence, according to modern

interpretation of parliamentary privilege, may be seen to be problematical in terms of a Speaker's ruling. None the less, this may be an issue on which our Legislature itself should speak and that is why I present it through you.

First I want to put to you two isolated incidents, one recent and one from four years ago. One of those affects one of our colleagues in this Parliament; the other affected me directly in a previous Parliament.

Just about a week ago, the Minister of the Environment, in her capacity as minister of the crown but also as a member of this Legislature, attended an event in Georgetown, Ontario. In that place, her automobile was rocked and, according to press reports, she was physically molested on her way to attend an event. The minister indicated to the press that to her the incident was "threatening." The justification from the crowd was that their futures were threatened by a potential siting of a landfill.

I spoke to others about that particular situation, because it seemed to me more than the usual shouting down of the minister or member from people opposing a government action or a legislator's point of view. There was a very real potential of physical injury to the minister simply because the member was doing her job.

In one of the conversations that struck me as particularly troublesome, somebody said that the minister should have known not to drive her own car. I had to conclude that what that person was saying was that members of the Legislature, in whatever capacity, in the course of their activities must have, on a routine basis, protection against physical threats by the very people they are to represent and that members should therefore plan for the potential of physical violence as a routine part of their work.

I cannot accept that and I don't believe that members of this place should be placid in their acceptance of that view. It is an expected obligation of elected members to attend events as part of their duties as legislators and to take into account the sometimes vociferous reaction of the electors to government and legislative actions, but there's no obligation on the part of a member, or a Legislature, to accept willingly physical threats against a person who happens to be a member of this House. These are not revolutionary times, and nothing justifies that.

Under the last government, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, I participated in and led for the government the standing committee on resources development hearings into changes to the Workers' Compensation Act. The now Treasurer was Chairman of that committee, and my view is that he provided a model of fairness and resolve during those hearings.

None the less, in a particular northern town, a group of well-organized union officials chose to select me -- because of my particular responsibility -- and my car to rock. As it happened to be a taxi with a young driver who was very frightened, I can tell you that it was a situation where violence -- which is the way we saw it from the enclosed space of the cab, which was surrounded by hundreds -- could have begotten violence, and many people could have been injured with one heavy or panicked foot on the accelerator. The clerk of that committee, who was also a passenger in that taxi, can corroborate the tension of that time.

I recall talking at that time to people who served on the committee about that incident. They included the now Minister of Labour and the now minister of northern affairs. The response was a singular and, to me, puzzling acceptance of the incident. But from then on, the Ontario Provincial Police was assigned to protect members who were involved in those legislative hearings.

Erskine May, in the British parliamentary tradition, tells us, "It is a breach of privilege to molest a member of either House while attending such House or when going to or from it." The work of legislative hearings traditionally is an extension of the work of the House, and there was a clear breach of parliamentary privilege in the instance in which I was involved, although it was not brought before the House for resolve.

Erskine May, however, in the same edition, the 20th edition, also tells us, "To attempt to influence members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege." The citations surrounding that directive tend to those relating to publishing of statements impugning the conduct of members or sending letters threatening action if a member does not vote in a particular way.

To my mind, the threat of physical violence, such as what was experienced by the Minister of the Environment recently, is equally, and in the same context, a breach of her privileges as a member of this House. But that breach is equally a breach of the privileges of every member of the House, and any silence from the House on this or like instances condones that breach of privilege and the physical violence or threats of violence that brought that breach of privilege to the fore.

As a member of this House sitting in loyal opposition, I do not favour many of the actions and decisions of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in her capacity as minister. I do not relish, however, any thought that she should be silenced in her actions or decisions by violent threats directed against her personally.

I believe, Mr Speaker, that the House should speak on this issue and that the Speaker, yourself, should take a lead in formulating with all of the parties in this place a public response to incidents of this nature. That response should be a simple one: that we do not condone or tolerate physical violence against any one of our members or any minister of the crown. If this Speaker and this House choose not to make a statement, then it will be seen to be accepting of a method of opposition that has no place in this province, that is, physical threats of violence against members of the Legislature.

In presenting this issue to you, Mr Speaker, I do not speak for the Minister of the Environment, but rather as a member of the chamber who is convinced that violence against any member of the Legislature is violence against us all, and that to be silent is to condone and encourage. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): May I say first to the member for Halton Centre that I deeply appreciate her bringing this matter before the House. While I am not precisely sure of what help your Speaker can be to you, I say most sincerely that I will take this matter under serious consideration, and if there is any way at all in which your Speaker can be of assistance in trying to ensure that all members of the House will never have to operate under any form of coercion or intimidation then indeed I will do whatever I am able to do within the confines of my responsibilities.

Again, I appreciate both the member having brought it to my attention and the manner in which she has done it. It's a matter which obviously she's given some serious thought to and I for one appreciate the approach she's taken.

It is time for oral questions, and the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Treasurer. When the Treasurer delivered his budget in April, we did question the credibility of a Treasurer who, as we saw it, would do just about anything to bring in his budget under the astronomical deficit figure of $10 billion. The Treasurer was prepared, as we all recall, to reschedule pension payments, to include fiscal stabilization payments from the federal government when it was far from certain they'd arrive, and he created a phantom Ontario Land Corp.

Even though we had reason to question the Treasurer at that time and even though we had reason to have some concern about the Treasurer's record on his budget figures from the previous year, we did decide this year to give him the benefit of the doubt when it came to estimating his revenues. We assumed that after last year's record he'd be a little bit more careful this time and he'd give the Ontario public some figures that would be more reliable. But we were obviously far too trusting. It seems we gave the Treasurer credit on this particular measure where none was warranted.

Today we're being told that the Treasurer's budget projections are off by hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, it would seem this Treasurer may be preparing to take at least $300 million more out of the hands of Ontario taxpayers than he told us just two months ago. Will the Treasurer confirm that his revenue projections are way off base and that he is preparing to take at least $300 million more out of the Ontario economy?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): First of all, there's a certain amount of contradiction in what the Leader of the Opposition says. If I were attempting to come in under the $10-billion deficit and moving heaven and earth to do that, I would not have underestimated the amount of revenues coming in from income tax and other sources, I would have inflated them;

whereas the report to which the Leader of the Opposition refers states that we are underestimating our revenues.

Now that I've had a chance to look at the report and at some of the assumptions built into that report, and looking at the model that was used to extrapolate numbers from a 1986 base through to 1993, I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that no, I'm not prepared to concede that we're going to get $300 million more than was in the budget or that the numbers in the budget are wrong. I really believe that the numbers in the budget are as accurate as it is possible to be, given the fact that we are working with more recent information and a total database,

whereas Mr Grady was working on a sample, some but not all of which is based in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: The Treasurer is right when he raises the question of how the opposition can possibly know what are the right figures and who to believe. We're not sure how we can have confidence in the Treasurer's figures. We're not sure on what basis he would question the validity of a study that is based on a model that has been developed by Statistics Canada.

But I do share the Treasurer's seeming concern that the economy may not recover as one would hope and that the revenue figures will not be, therefore, as projected or hoped. We've been reminding this Treasurer since he brought in his budget that every dollar he takes out of the province in higher taxes is one more dollar that consumers don't have to help us get out of the recession. Statistics Canada is now reporting that for every new dollar individuals have earned during the recession, Ottawa and the provinces are taxing back 61.5 cents.

Until consumers, who are responsible for 60% of all spending, get a few more dollars into their hands so they can start spending, Ontario's jobless rate is going to continue to grow and businesses will continue to close.

I wonder then how the Treasurer can explain how he expects the budget, which today is being referred to as "the largest package of tax increases in Ontario since Confederation," will spur consumer spending and help get the economy back on track. Will his tax increases in fact not stop that recovery dead in its tracks?

Hon Mr Laughren: I hope not. Just to set the record straight, the tax increases in this budget on a full year for 1993, which is the year Mr Grady is talking about, are a little over $1 billion. The previous government in 1989 raised taxes by $1.33 billion, so I don't think it's fair to say this is the largest tax increase since Confederation when 1989 was indeed the appropriate year about which to make that kind of statement.

I did want to set the record straight, if you would allow me, Mr Speaker, on some of the numbers that were used in Mr Grady's report and to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. If $300 million were to be taken out of the economy and the impact on the average family is as Mr Grady says, I believe it would make you think twice about what he used as an average family.

According to our analysis since this report came out, Mr Grady's average family is a married, self-employed senior with 0.3 kids, paying Ontario surtax at the same time and receiving the Ontario tax reduction program. I don't know how you get the Ontario tax reduction, which is for low-income people, and at the same time pay the surtax. As well, this person drinks 145 bottles of wine a year, 290 bottles of spirits, 29 cases of beer, and pays $15,000 in property tax, and I really do not believe that bears much resemblance to the average family in the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the fact that the Treasurer wanted to answer the question that he had an answer to, but that was not my question. My question was about the impact of this Treasurer's tax policies, his tax grab, his tax measures on the economy, and the Treasurer says, "I hope not." Surely hope is not enough for this province to run on.

We have been consistently asking this Treasurer to tell us what impact his tax measures are going to have on our economic recovery, what studies he's done to tell us what kind of an impact his tax measures will have, and we never get an answer to that question. I wonder how the people of this province can have faith in a Treasurer who has to keep adding his figures up again and again in order to be able to defend them publicly.

If this Treasurer does find that indeed he has underestimated his revenues, if there is to be additional tax revenue from the tax measures that he has put in place, I wonder if the Treasurer would then consider rolling back some of those tax measures. If he would look at the impact on the economy and see if a certain rollback of taxes might have a benefit in the economy and in job creation, would he, for example, now look at rolling back the gas tax for the summer months?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't think that's really a supplementary to my answer, but we won't dwell on that.

The leader of the official opposition implies that we're revising our numbers. I haven't revised our numbers. Mr Grady has stated that he thinks our numbers are wrong, and he says we're on the low side.

I would remind you that within the last two years, using federal government projections largely -- which is what the Ontario government does because of the way the income tax is collected and analysed by the federal government -- the overestimation on PIT revenues has been $1 billion each year, so you'll forgive me if I'm just a little cautious and even sceptical about those forecasters who say we're underprojecting revenues from provincial income tax. If we are, we are, but no, I would not consider rolling back taxes if that's the case.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, we do wish the Treasurer had reason to be more optimistic about Ontario's economic future, but we can appreciate why he's concerned, and with that I'll address my second question to the Minister of Labour.

Today a new poll was released on the government's proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act, and there was probably no surprise in the results of that poll. Most Ontarians who were surveyed opposed the proposed changes. More than two thirds of those who were surveyed, including union members and New Democratic Party supporters, say these changes will cost jobs, which has been the essence of the concern that we have been consistently raising on our side of the House.

Mr Speaker, 78% of the people surveyed believe that the government must carry out a proper study of the economic impact of this legislation. We have been calling for this kind of impact study ever since the government introduced the legislation, but the minister has ignored our questions and has ignored the concerns that this kind of economic impact be studied.

I would ask whether or not the minister will continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of Ontarians who have voiced their concerns through this survey and who want this government to do a proper economic impact study. Will this minister undertake to conduct such a study before simply plowing ahead with his legislation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): As I've said on a good number of occasions, I don't know another issue that has been studied as much or had as much consultation as the Ontario Labour Relations Act reform, and I'm really wondering if the leader of the official opposition also accepts the recent survey she's talking about, where I think some 53% of the people said they were aware of the OLRA recommendations and 46% said they had no knowledge of them at all, yet they went on to ask the questions from that point of all of the people, including those who knew nothing about the OLRA changes.

Mrs McLeod: I wonder if the minister, having just told us, as he has claimed on so many occasions, that no issue has been more widely studied, has had a broader consultation, if that is indeed the case, does not find it a little bit strange that only 53% of Ontarians were aware of the legislative changes.

This Premier of this government created an independent committee that was composed of both business and labour representatives and it supposedly has the mandate to examine labour relations in this province. The minister could easily delay this bill and give his Premier's special committee the task of examining the legislation and undertaking that proper economic analysis of the impact of the legislative changes. It seemed to us when the Premier established the group that's what it was intended to do in the first place.

The Premier's committee has enough labour and business representatives to satisfy both sides that this would be a fair process, and it seems to us to be a reasonable option for everyone concerned. I would ask the minister if he would not drop the rhetoric and commit to making this very easy and very sensible move. Will he refer his legislative proposals to his own government's select committee to carry out the economic impact studies?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm sure the leader of the official opposition is aware that the Premier's committee was set up and both management and labour people agreed to serve on it to be able to provide advice to the government of Ontario in terms of how we improve and better labour relations in this province. It was not intended to deal with the subject we've already had on the table for better than a year and have gone through extensive consultations on.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Final supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I don't even know how to begin a supplementary in response to what the minister has just said. He said to us that this committee was established -- and I think I wrote it down as he said it -- to look at how we can improve and better labour relations in this province, yet that it had not been given the mandate to look at what he himself has described as the most significant piece of labour legislation intended to improve labour relations in this province. How is it possible that this same minister could make both those statements?

No wonder we are sceptical on this side of the House about his government's commitment to real and to open public consultations. We look at the consultation process which took place leading up to these changes, and what we see is an 11-day sham consultation across this province. This government has consistently ignored the concerns of both business and ordinary Ontarians about the effect the changes could have on our economic situation and therefore on jobs in this province.

According to the media, Gord Wilson knows the truth when he says, "We know we're going to get a substantial package of labour reforms," and to us it looks like a fait accompli. I would ask the minister whether this labour bill is not in fact already etched in stone, as Gord Wilson seems to suggest it is. Will his government permit substantial changes as a result of an honest and open consultation, and what assurances do we have that his government will in fact provide for open consultations with the people of Ontario? Will these hearings even be held at a time when concerned citizens can make their representations to the committee?

This is indeed major legislation affecting labour relations in this province and it deserves time and thoughtful consideration, not just a jammed-in, summertime, sham consultation.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Mr Speaker, you'll forgive me if I just don't accept the "jammed-in, summertime consultation." It seems to me that's the same kind of comment the leader of the official opposition was making after the original leaked documents. After we have now gone through almost one and a half years on this particular topic, if we did turn it around overnight, what would they be saying? "Why have you wasted a year and a half?" That's utterly ridiculous.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to go back to the Minister of Labour on the absence of any job impact studies done by you, your ministry and this government and see if we can get to the reason why you continue to ignore the most important thing on the minds of people today, and that is jobs.

When the discussion paper was originally released, Mr Minister, Ernst and Young did a study that said some 450,000 jobs were at risk. You pooh-poohed that study. You said: "No, that study's no good. That's based on the consultation paper. Wait till you see the legislation. Wait till you see the changes that come in." Ernst and Young have done another study based upon the changes you brought in and now say that at risk are 295,000 jobs and nearly $9 billion in investment over the next five years.

Minister, do you have one shred of evidence to suggest that this study is incorrect and that in fact some 295,000 jobs and $9 billion of investment are not at risk? Do you have one shred of study done by your own ministry, your own government, that disputes or refutes this evidence?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think some of the evidence is the fact that the original studies being used by some of the groups being referred to had us losing 480,000 jobs. Subsequent studies by these groups -- if you can call them studies; they really weren't studies -- had it down to 280,000 jobs. We dispute that entirely. What's happened in terms of job losses is without any changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We happen to think that if we can change the atmosphere between business and labour we can show a plus, not a negative.

Mr Harris: Minister, we hear your criticism, pulled out of the air, of studies that others are doing, but they are at least doing studies on the issue that is on most Ontarians' minds: jobs, the fear of losing the job they have, the desire to create new jobs, the desire to get this economy moving again. The only people doing studies seem to be those whom, when the results are released, you criticize.

Minister, we find out today in a survey done by the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, that 78% of Ontarians believe it is your job, the government's job, to do the impact studies on jobs, yet you've given us nothing; that 70% of NDP supporters think it's your job to do the economic impact studies; that 73% of union members say it is your job to do the economic impact studies. You flip-flopped on Sunday shopping when 65% came across in the polls, and you publicly said the reason was that the public has changed.

Now you've got over 70% of union members, NDP members, saying it is your job to do the job economic impact studies. Have you done that? If not, why not, and when can we see the results of those studies?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: When it comes to flip-flopping on a position, I can recall at least four different positions on Sunday shopping from the Conservative Party. But I also want to tell him very clearly that when he refers to the COCA study, the COCA figures he was using, that's one of the groups that first told us there would be 480,000 jobs lost. Then they said they made a mistake and reduced that to 295,000 jobs. This is the same group that has put up some of the most laughable billboards I've seen in the province of Ontario, and you now want me to accept this latest survey of theirs? I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

Mr Harris: All you do is slander other studies. Here, right in this House, you slander Environics. Why won't you do a study of your own? Are you afraid of the results? Do you not realize that, again according to the Environics survey, the impression you're leaving is exactly this: 60% of those aware of the legislation -- not the others who aren't -- believe that you, the Rae government, care more about union leaders than you do about workers' jobs?

Minister, do you not realize that every day you refuse to carry out job studies for the average worker, union worker or non-union worker, every day you refuse to do that, you leave the impression more and more entrenched with more and more people -- and quite frankly, it's the impression you leave with me -- that you care more about union leaders than you do about jobs in this province? Do you not realize that? Do you not realize that your legislation is doomed to failure, no matter what it is, as long as this is the motivation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Very briefly, I've been around this place long enough to know that you wouldn't rely on 500 or even 1,000 union leaders. So I think the question from the leader of the third party is absolutely ridiculous.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Harris: I guess it's silly to want to know the impact on jobs before you proceed. If that is silly, I'm guilty, because I do want to know how many jobs will be created or lost before we proceed with legislation.

TAXATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Treasurer, concerning the study that was talked about today by the Liberal Party. The Fraser Institute released a study which says you'll be getting an extra $300 million from Ontario taxpayers.

Minister, today in the House you've indicated you're not sure that study is accurate. You want to wait and see, perhaps, or you're analysing that study to see if it's correct or not. But I suggest to you, Minister, if that study is correct, and I appreciate you want some time to take a look at it, that's $300 million you hadn't counted on, $300 million you didn't budget on.

Treasurer, I suggest to you that if that study is correct, it's not your money; you didn't know you had it. What plans do you have for this $300 million, should in fact those figures be true? What plans do you have for any windfall revenues that may come your way as a result of your budget? Could you tell us that today?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): You'll forgive me, Mr Speaker, if --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: And we haven't even reached the dog days of summer yet, Mr Speaker. What I started to say was that you'll forgive me if I haven't put in place a lot of contingency plans that take into consideration windfalls in revenue, given what's happened to the province in the last couple of years.

Directly to the leader of the third party, I would remind him that Mr Grady's study deals with the taxation year 1993, so it really wouldn't have much of an impact on this fiscal year in which we now find ourselves, 1992-93, and as you know, there's a lag in collection of income tax from the federal government in its settlement with the province. So even if Mr Grady is correct -- and there really are some anomalies and some errors in Mr Grady's study, even from a superficial look at the report -- I don't think there's going to be the windfall Mr Grady seems to think there will be.

Mr Harris: To the Treasurer, I understand that the projections may not come true exactly, as is his suggestion. But the fact is that you and the Liberals have reached into the pockets of Ontario taxpayers 55 times. That doesn't include the hidden taxes and that doesn't include the levies; that's just the upfront taxes. Your budget tax hikes of $1.3 billion were bad enough without grabbing an extra $300 million, if that is the amount.

Treasurer, when the Liberals got the windfall revenues -- and I understand you haven't had them the last couple of years -- they spent them so lickety-fast they never even knew they had them. The money was gone, money that belonged to the taxpayers of Ontario. What I am asking of you is that you do something different from the Liberals. If this $300 million comes to fruition or other windfall revenues come to pass, will you agree with me that money belongs to the taxpayers and should be given back to the taxpayers through some form of tax cut or refund?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't want to be provocative but I did want to say to the leader of the third party that we're the government now; stop kicking the Liberals when they're down.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Treasurer.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Remember the summer of 1985, Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, I do.

If I could treat this serious question in a serious way, the leader of the third party asked a most legitimate question. If there is a windfall, what will we do with it? I hope you'll give me some time to reflect on that question before making a firm determination or commitment here in the Legislature, because I can tell you that the study by Mr Grady really does have some inaccuracies in it. I'm not casting aspersions on Mr Grady. I just think there are some inaccuracies and some very fundamental flaws in the model he's used and I wouldn't want to speculate on whether or not we'll achieve those revenues.

Mr Harris: I think I have the Treasurer saying he will reflect and would like to think about what to do with the windfall revenues. Might I, by way of final supplementary, give him a couple of suggestions, and first of all, that he not follow the path the Liberals followed, and that was to spend that windfall money into new programs or into new areas that weren't there at budget time. Would he look at New Directions, a document we released almost a year ago? We called at that time for cuts to the gasoline tax. Instead you increased them on January 1.

Might I suggest -- not just for the summer; I don't know what that does, quite frankly -- that if it's $300 million, as is suggested, the Treasurer look at a 3-cent-a-litre gas tax cut not just for the summer but permanently so we can create jobs, so we can get tourism back on track and so we can help the border communities compete with their US counterparts. Will he consider that direct gas tax cut as a way of giving back to the taxpayers that which belongs to them?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would reiterate that Mr Grady's numbers deal with 1993, so it would be really premature to make an assumption. I'm sure the leader of the third party wouldn't want us to make the assumption that we're going to get that $300 million, reduce the taxes and increase the deficit accordingly as a result of that action.

My final point is that if the leader of the third party does not want us to spend any potential windfall on new programs, I hope he'll reign in his cabinet colleagues who have made an enormous list of suggestions to us that would certainly wipe out any conceivable windfall as envisioned by Mr Grady.

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. My question concerns the minister's brave promises, but quite frankly barren performance with respect to the issue of establishing environmental rights for the citizens of this province. All we need to do is witness what's happening with Bill 143, which belies your previous promises, Minister.

Minister, on June 11 of this year you, along with your colleague in cabinet the Attorney General, made an announcement about your 30% increase in convictions with respect to environmental offences for the 1991 period. You took some credit for that. At the time you stated, "We hope that this report will act as a further deterrent to polluters and help promote an environmental consciousness in boardrooms across Ontario," yet, Minister, in the past you have spoken passionately about granting legal rights to Ontario citizens to sue these same polluters in court for the pollution they emit into Ontario's environment.

You, Minister, used to believe that the way to promote an environmental consciousness in many ways was to allow boardrooms in Ontario to look at the risk of suits being brought on by individuals to have those polluters brought to court. Obviously, in the absence of any clear leadership in terms of air and quality regulations, that kind of vehicle for the citizens of Ontario is certainly necessary.

Minister, I'm wondering if you're prepared to confirm that the announcement you will be making, probably tomorrow, in releasing your draft environmental bill of rights for Ontario will substantially, if not totally, abandon your earlier conviction in terms of the right to sue and will not include a right for the individual citizens and citizens groups in Ontario to sue polluters.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm very pleased to be able to say to the member that indeed the task force I appointed last October, comprised of environmentalists and business representatives, to establish and draft an environmental bill of rights has reached a consensus and that I will shortly be able to release its work. I'm not prepared at this point to announce to the Legislature precisely what that task force has concluded.

Mr McClelland: I can only draw from that answer that in all probability the right of the citizens of Ontario to sue, as you promised and spoke so passionately about in the past, will not be included in your announcement tomorrow.

Equally important in the past to you, Minister -- I notice, in so many of our questions as we talk about the past and the present, what a tremendous change there has been in you personally and your leadership in terms of the environment -- when you were a member of the opposition, you used to talk about and hold in some esteem the concept of the public trust doctrine. In essence, and very simplistically stated, that legal doctrine holds the government accountable in court for actions that any of its ministers, ministries, agencies, boards or commissions might take which cause damage to the environment.

The question is this, by way of supplementary: Can the minister confirm that her announcement tomorrow will not establish -- and I remind her, contrary to what she said previously in her private member's bill -- an obligation and a duty for the government to hold the natural resources of this province in trust for the benefit of present and future generations? Can you confirm that what you will introduce tomorrow will be a complete sellout to the citizens of this province who have waited so long to see the fulfilment of your promise for an environmental bill of rights that would hold up the doctrine of public trust and the right to sue?

Hon Mrs Grier: I have two disappointments for the member. First of all, I can't confirm that I will in fact be making an announcement and releasing the draft bill of rights tomorrow.

Second, I cannot indeed confirm the abrogation of principles that he describes. I'm very pleased to be able to tell him that the task force took the principles that I had outlined and that were part of earlier private member's bills of rights -- the principle that people have a right to a healthy environment, a right to improved access to the courts, a right to public participation, a right to government accountability and a right to blow the whistle if their employer is polluting the environment -- and has crafted a bill of rights in which I hope he will share the pride that I know I'm going to feel in it.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. It's hard to believe the Minister of the Environment has upset so many people. Residents in York, Durham and Peel are genuinely angry, and what has especially offended them is the way you have put them down. You have accused them of crying NIMBY -- not in my backyard. This is a massive put-down of the people with the serious problem of having a 40-million-tonne landfill site in their communities.

Why do you and your public utterances continue to say that they just don't want to have sites in their own backyard?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I'm not sure this is what I have ever said. What I have said is that waste has to be managed as close as possible to the source of its generation. That means that the greater Toronto area, as municipalities around the province are doing, has to have a plan that deals with its waste within its own boundaries.

What I have put in place is a process that is more open and more fair and that gives those people more opportunities to both determine the criteria upon which a landfill will be chosen and to participate in the selection and in the approval process before the Environmental Assessment Board. In fact, under this government, the people of the greater Toronto area have a far greater role to play in solving the waste management problems of the area than they had in any process outlined by previous governments.

Mr Cousens: I'd just remind the honourable minister that at a recent presentation she did make the statement, and it was taken very seriously by the people when she just said in very simple terms, "They don't want the landfills in their own backyards."

That in itself is a massive put-down to the very people whose property values have gone down since one of the 57 proposed sites is located near them. Properties now cannot be sold near the proposed landfill sites unless there's a conditional clause that allows people an escape in case it is near one of the proposed sites. Properties are not selling near the proposed sites. Land values are going down. People who own century-old farmsteads are genuinely worried. You have, with your 57 sites, jeopardized environmentally sensitive green spaces. You have disrupted community life.

Major concerns have arisen, and when you said in your statement that people just don't want it in their own backyards, that really was a banal accusation that has offended people. Why have you accused people, saying they just don't want it in their own backyards? Do you not care about the other issues that are at stake with regard to these proposed landfill sites?

Hon Ruth A. Grier: If I offended people, I certainly did not not intend to do that. But I was certainly under the impression, from the people with whom I've met and from the announcements and questions in this House by the honourable member, that it was the overwhelming preference of the people with whom he has been talking and with whom I've been talking that in fact the waste go to Boston township in Kirkland Lake's backyard. If what the member is saying today is that in fact there is an acceptance that the waste must be managed within the greater Toronto area, then that's good news and I'm very pleased about that.

With respect to the uncertainty, let me say to the member that I certainly recognize that that is a very unfortunate side-effect of any choice and selection process that is under way anywhere. It is for precisely that reason that the Interim Waste Authority has the direction and the authority to move far more quickly than previous waste management planning process from the announcement of the long list of sites, to the short list, to the preferred site. The powers that this member I think has said were far-reaching were designed to do precisely that: reduce the time frame in which people's property would be under a cloud. I indeed intend to see that that is what happens.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question; the member for Kitchener.

Interjections.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): My question is to the Minister of Education.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister will know that a number of teachers, not only in my riding but in other ridings as well, have expressed some concern over the whole question of destreaming. The concern I get in my constituency office, as well as from the telephone calls I've received from teachers, is not the question of destreaming itself but the process and the time lines that are currently being followed.

Some teachers out there, of course, are of the opinion that we don't have enough time in place at this point in order to positively effect the outcome of destreaming for September 1993. I wonder if the minister could outline, for the benefit of the teachers in my riding and the benefit of the members of the House, the time lines that are in place and give us assurance that in fact those time lines can be met.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I appreciate the question. As I think I've indicated on other occasions in the House, the question of destreaming is one we believe to be important and one we've therefore resolved to proceed on with respect to 1993. It's something we're quite happy to proceed with; it is an initiative that was begun even by the previous government.

First of all, I know the issue itself continues to generate a lot of discussion and interest and obviously is one that is particularly important among teachers. What we believe is that it's important to push at least one more year the decision point at which we begin to formally stream students into various levels of ability programs; at least to the end of grade 9. We recognize that there has to be a lot of work done to prepare teachers to teach adequately in that kind of program.

I have said that 1993, while it's the beginning of the implementation, is the beginning of a three-year process of implementation of the new policy. We are making available this fall curriculum documents that teachers will have. We will also be doing a lot of work on serious in-service programs for teachers so that they will in fact be prepared to teach properly in this new system.

Mr Ferguson: The teachers of course are concerned about in-service programs and training that would be provided. I'm wondering if the minister could tell the house, first, the amount of dollars that will be allocated to training and in-service training for teachers and, second, the amount of time school boards will be expected to devote to in-service training for educators in the field.

Hon Mr Silipo: We have allocated an initial amount of some $2.7 million that will be available to school boards to apply for in-service programs. In addition to that we are just now discussing with the Ontario Teachers' Federation a proposal it has submitted to us, which we have in fact approved in principle and are now having discussions with them for some additional programs.

We believe it's important for the teachers, through their federations and locally in their own schools, to be very much involved in designing the kind of in-service programs they will need, because they obviously are in the best position to tell us the kind of in-service work and support they will need. I think that will also result in some additional dollars we will be spending, and we will be happy to do that because it will go towards assisting teachers to teach properly in this new grade 9 system.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The subject matter is the wage protection fund, which as you know compensates workers for wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination pay when the company they have been working for goes bankrupt. The issue is that 50 people have been hired to administer the plan, yet continuing delay and indecision has the impact that decisions that should have been made in one month are taking at least six months. What are you doing about it?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the member for the official opposition is well aware that there's been a tremendous demand on the plan. I think he should also be aware that we've paid out more than $20 million, and I think we're responding to the demand as quickly as we can.

Mr Offer: There has not been a tremendous demand, because of the indecision and delay. The issue, as an example, is Pascal Furniture in my riding, bankrupt in February or March of this year; 100 employees, and there's been no compensation, there's been no decision. What do I tell those employees about your mismanagement of the plan?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: In the individual case he's raised, I will get back to the member and tell him what I can about that. But I repeat what I've been saying: We've had a tremendous demand on it. We have been sending out the cheques to people. It's one of the most successful programs we've undertaken, with a very good response to it, and I can also say that our approach is not to hire more bureaucrats.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. In your public statements regarding employment equity, you have maintained that you do not intend to establish a system in which the government will impose quotas on employers. If I understand you correctly, you have maintained that your bill will require employers to establish their own plans in conjunction with the Employment Equity Commission.

However, after carefully reviewing your bill, I find there is a clause which reads as follows: "A regulation governing the content of employment equity plans may require plans to contain numerical goals determined in a manner prescribed by the regulation. It may provide that the goals shall be determined with reference to percentages approved by the commission...." This clause gives the Employment Equity Commission the power to externally impose numerical goals into employment equity plans. Would you please tell us what the difference is between a numerical goal and a quota?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): I think you've asked three questions in one, but I will try in a short space of time to answer that question. If we talk about quotas that have happened in other jurisdictions similar to the United States, they mean that an external body tells an employer it must hire X number of people in a set time frame. What we're asking employers to do is to look at the region they're located in and then to apply employment equity practices within the time frame in which they are going to be hiring, whether it's through people being laid off or quitting and whether they're going to be expanding.

You talked about the employment equity commissioner going to be able to put in force a certain compliance. This is if an employer, after several times, has not come up with his own employment equity plan and if there has been a complaint against an employer; such that the employer, having had a complaint laid against him, the employment equity commissioner might then ask the employer to, in a certain time frame, come up with his employment equity plan. This is what they have to comply with.

Mrs Witmer: Well, Minister, I have to tell you there is concern out there. As I indicated last week, we have to make sure that we do allay the fears of people, and people are interpreting this as numerical goals that are going to be determined by the commission.

You know that the briefs you received during your consultation process stated that a numbers-driven quota system wouldn't work. It would reduce business flexibility and could lead to an ugly backlash and resentment among employees. Quotas obviously are going to make employees feel they're not being treated fairly. It's going to make it more difficult for people to work together in the workplace.

The clause in your bill which I'm speaking about is subsection 50(2). It clearly gives the government the power to create regulations which would impose quotas. You can call them numerical goals, you can call them whatever you want, but they are in reality quotas. I guess I ask you, Minister, do you support the imposition of quotas to achieve employment equity, and if not, can you explain to all of us why your bill gives you the power to do so?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I want first of all to thank the member opposite for saying that yes, there have been some fears raised and that we have to make sure that people feel comfortable with this bill. I'm glad you raised this particular question, because that is one of the reasons we set up a technical advisory group: to make sure that people from business, labour and the equity-seeking groups sat down with us as we went through the legislation.

However, as the very last resort -- as I would like to say -- when the Employment Equity Commission or the tribunal, after several methods of getting employers to come to the table to make sure they have their goals and timetables in place, have to have something the employer would have to comply with if it's broken the law several times. This is why that's put in: as a very last resort, not as a first objective.

What we hope is that with our technical advisory group staying in place as we develop our regulations and as we move into second reading, with our regulations in one hand and our bill in the other hand, we will have a package that does make sure employers are given the assistance they need. They don't have to go to outside consultants. The employment equity commissioner will be there --

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

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- to assist employers as we're moving through the whole process. I think this is extremely important, that we build that relationship between employer and employees and equity-seeking groups.

I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, but this is a very important issue and I think the member has raised a very important question.

The Speaker: I appreciate that. The member for Durham East.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr Mills: I'm on the floor.

My question, a very important question in my constituency, is to the Minister of Transportation. It concerns traffic lights at the intersection of Courtice and Prestonvale roads in Courtice. There have been a number of accidents there, Mr Minister. I sent you some clippings from the newspaper. Can you tell me when we can expect the traffic lights to be installed at the intersection of Prestonvale and Courtice roads?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): What we are doing as we speak at present is we are checking which properties need to be identified. Then we will proceed to expropriation and then we will widen Highway 2. It's a fairly massive project, but more important perhaps, the intent, the spirit, the decision has been made on what is a safety hazard. We recognize this. We are most cognizant and very anxious to get it addressed in short order.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in his capacity as the government House leader. Members may know that on the last Thursday extended evening sitting of the House I rose on a point of order. My point of order concerned the fact that the member for Guelph was showing total disrespect for this House by walking around the chamber without his shoes and socks.

The Speaker responded to my point of order in part by saying: "If the member's description is at all accurate, it certainly would be something that I think is not acceptable, but I caution that the Speaker has no particular authority in this matter as there is no dress code."

Mr Minister, as the government House leader, could you tell the House your opinion as to the appropriateness of the member for Guelph appearing in this Legislature in his bare feet?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I think the member might be more appropriately asking questions about lights in his riding than this type of question. I don't enforce any dress code in this place and I don't think the member would expect me to, so I'm not going to express a judgement. Any of those kinds of discussions that take place take place within our caucus, just as they would within yours.

Mr Kwinter: The minister will know that politicians, now more than ever, are viewed by some members of the community with cynicism and disfavour. If anything, members of this House should be acting in a manner that will enhance our reputations rather than diminish the perception of the role and dedication of elected members.

Can the minister tell us what actions he will take to ensure that his caucus members will not assume that, if it is permissible for the member for Guelph to walk around this Legislature in his bare feet, there is no limit to what other articles of clothing they may shed without drawing the wrath of the Speaker or you as the leader of the official government?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think there are many factors that contribute to why people are feeling cynical about the process and politicians in this province and elsewhere. I don't think it has much to do with the fact that the member for Guelph was walking around without his shoes on late at night because he had an infected foot. He might want to check with the member before he makes those kinds of criticisms.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat for a moment.

Mr Kwinter: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the leader of the government in the House has an obligation to tell the members what that infection was, because we were in here and he was walking around in his bare feet.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order.

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I have here his newsletter, News and Information from Ed Philip, MPP, Etobicoke-Rexdale. In it he says, "The economy in Ontario has taken a hammering." He says, "I'm trying to encourage new investment," and he goes on to say that he will be announcing a strategy later in the year. There is nothing else in here that talks about what you've been doing as Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology or what you will be doing in the future.

I have in my hand some recommendations from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and what they believe should be done to get investment back in the province of Ontario. Could you tell me specifically today what initiatives from those two groups will be implemented in your industrial strategy?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): I think the budget outlined some of the initiatives we are taking. In fact we have provided some new initiatives, as the Treasurer has done, to small business. We've provided initiatives for a sector partnership fund that for the first time will encourage groups of companies that have like interests to join together for research and development. The Treasurer has also announced a number of new initiatives that will encourage more investment. I'm happy to take the ideas of the various groups. I'm meeting with them on a regular basis and I think you'll find those ideas found their way into the sectoral policy we are announcing.

Mr Carr: Unfortunately, during the pre-budget hearings, one of the things that all the economists said would hurt the economy more than anything else is tax increases. And what did your Treasurer do? He introduced the most massive tax increases in this province's history. So unfortunately at the table you're losing the debate, I'm afraid.

I want to read what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said about your Bill 150 initiative. They said, "This program is not an appropriate vehicle for encouraging modernization, growth and restructuring in small and medium businesses." They said: "Thank you very much, but if you're going to spend $250 million" -- which your minister and the treasury officials said is going to be spent -- "we would rather have you reduce the employee health payroll tax. That would do more to help us, if you're going to spend the $250 million."

My question is this. Will you listen to some of the business groups that are saying if you're going to spend the money, do it by reducing some of the taxes and specifically, will you ask the Treasurer to reduce the employee health payroll tax for small and medium businesses in the province of Ontario?

You want to talk about what businesses are saying? I can tell you what businesses are saying. Bill Etherington, the president --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Breathe, Ed. Your head is inflating.

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

Hon Mr Philip: I'm sorry the member for Etobicoke West doesn't want to allow an answer to go through to his colleague, who has asked what seems to be a reasonable question.

Bill Etherington, the president and chief executive officer of IBM Canada, in announcing the largest new construction project in the greater Toronto area since the SkyDome said, and I quote, "I hope that the people will see the opening of this facility as a ringing vote of confidence in Ontario." That's what private enterprise is saying to this government, and we have been listening. It's reflected in the budget, it's reflected in the new initiatives and, as I go around the province talking to the various businesses, we're seeing it over and over and over again.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Housing, if I could ask her to stay for a moment. Mr Speaker, I don't know if I'll get an opportunity for a supplementary following the answer; I would hope you would grant that.

I've received some information from the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp, Minister, which, as you well know, is one of the finest housing corporations in the country, which is used as an example by the former government and I think by your ministry for other people around the province as to how they should administer and run non-profit housing.

They're quite upset in Peel, because with over 8,000 -- I think 8,300 -- individuals on their waiting list, they were simply bypassed when you announced allocations of some 6,500 allocations for non-profit housing corporations. Minister, how is it that you could totally ignore a housing corporation with over 8,000 people on a waiting list and how is it that you can simply tell it that it's not going to be able to build any houses this year?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): We have not told Peel non-profit or any other municipal non-profit that they're not going to be able to get allocations for further construction this year, far from it. But what we did do was take a look over the 40,000-plus units which have been allocated over the past four years and try to make sure that there was some balance among the allocations that went to municipal non-profit organizations, such as Peel non-profit, to private non-profit organizations with a community base and also to co-ops with a community base in the regions of Ontario.

In this last allocation we did indeed ask the regional offices to look at the list of projects that were being applied for and see which among them that were co-ops could get an allocation and move forward as good projects. That has meant that in the wrapup of 40,000-plus units over the last four to five years, organizations such as Peel non-profit, which have indeed been producing a lot of housing over the last several years, have received fewer allocations than they might have expected; that's true.

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

Mr Callahan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: When I asked unanimous consent of the House to do a supplementary, I was upstaged by the foot. I'd like to ask a supplementary on a very important issue. I'd like to ask for unanimous consent of the House.

The Speaker: Does the member have unanimous consent to ask a question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: No? I'm afraid there is not unanimous consent.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by members of the congregation of Grace Lutheran Church in my riding of Oakville South which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government intends to legalize casinos and is considering other forms of gambling in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas studies have been done which indicate that where casinos are found, they are inseparable from organized criminal activities; and

"Whereas most forms of gambling end up being a tax on those least able to pay; and

"Whereas gambling produces in many people a terrible addiction; and

"Whereas it would be more appropriate for the government to cut expenditures than attempt to increase revenues through expanded lotteries,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop looking to casinos as a 'quick-fix' solution to pay down the deficit."

PESTICIDES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition signed by several residents of Kitchener and Waterloo:

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

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

"We feel that the urban cosmetic use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers is unnecessary since viable alternatives exist. Pesticides are being registered, marketed and used with inadequate, incomplete, obsolete and invalid testing. No pesticide has been proven absolutely safe. Pesticides have been linked to a number of serious health problems in terms of both acute and chronic toxicity. Many people are vulnerable to these effects, including children, the elderly and the environmentally sensitive.

Pesticides and fertilizers contaminate surface water and groundwater and have been linked to a number of serious adverse effects on the environment. The manufacturing of some pesticides and fertilizers contributes to global warming. Pesticides adversely affect a wide variety of non-target beneficial organisms. Insects, fungi and weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to pesticides.

"Therefore, we request that the House eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides for cosmetic reasons in urban areas of Ontario immediately or by 1993 at the very latest."

COURT RULING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, in support of the mother of Debra Pauline Williams Ellul, draw to the attention of the House the following:

"That the right to appeal the decision made in Debra Williams Ellul murder acquitting Guy Ellul of all charges be granted based on the fact that the decision not to allow the appeal does not accurately reflect the public's abhorrence and unacceptability of the outcome of this trial."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

LAW AND ORDER

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition from Henry Freitag in Penetanguishene, Mr Speaker, and I'll leave it up to you to determine whether it's in order or not. It says:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"'Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law'....

"'The rule of law, a fundamental principle of our Constitution, must mean at least two things. First, that the law is supreme over the officials of the government as well as private individuals, and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power.... Second, the rule of law requires the creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order. Law and order are indispensable elements of civilized life.'

"I, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To forthwith remove the Premier from office and enforce the law as it is written, then permit a vote in the Legislature on the removal of the Sunday closing law and this outcome should be enforced as instructed by our Constitution.

"Signed, Henry Freitag, Penetanguishene."

TRAILER PARK RESIDENTS

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly and signed by 211 Middlesex constituents who live in Twin Elms mobile park. These residents of Twin Elms are concerned because their landlord has at times interfered with tenants who wish to utilize an outside agent to sell their mobile homes, may refuse park residence to prospective buyers, has established a non-profit co-op without consulting the tenants, is currently in violation of a park management agreement between the landlord and tenants and has closed the tenants' clubhouse, seized chattels belonging to the tenants' association and has removed park amenities like benches and lighting.

These tenants ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce legislation that will meet the specific needs of people who live in mobile home communities.

I have signed my name to this petition.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 35 residents of my community addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its intention to use $400,000 of taxpayers' money to increase the security at the private abortion clinic of Dr Henry Morgentaler and an additional $200,000 of taxpayers' money to help rebuild this for-profit clinic;

"Whereas the Ontario deficit has risen to astronomical proportions, creating serious hardship for Ontario taxpayers at the same time that programs and services are being withdrawn, including crucial health care and social service programs;

"Whereas all other private Ontario businesses are expected to provide their own security and obtain business insurance to cover fire, vandalism and other such calamities;

"We, the undersigned, while abhorring the violent act which destroyed Dr Morgentaler's clinic, do petition the Legislature of Ontario to immediately recant its intention to inappropriately utilize Ontario tax dollars on this private clinic."

I've affixed my signature to it as well.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition signed by approximately 50 people from Kent county. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations;

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

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

I've affixed my signature to this petition as well.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO LICENSING COMMISSION

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I have a petition signed by 84 people who are residents of a number of ridings, including my own. The people are concerned about certain legal irregularities that are alleged to have occurred within the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission resulting in unwarranted financial losses and deep personal embarrassment to many people. The irregularities and the losses are documented in a brief authored by Mr John Beck of my riding and by others.

They collectively request in the petition:

"That the Lieutenant Governor in Council invoke his authority under...the Public Inquiries Act and cause a commission of inquiry to inquire into the conduct of the affairs of the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission, in particular the handling of licence applications and related actions."

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have petitions which are signed by residents of north Toronto in my riding of Eglinton.

It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is arbitrary and demonstrably unfair to use market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas the implementation of such a measure would work undue hardship on the residents of north Toronto, on our long-term home owners, our senior citizens and our tenants; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by increases of up to 50% more;

"We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value assessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto and to consider another method of property tax reform for Metro Toronto."

I concur with this and have affixed my signature.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by approximately 650 people. It's addressed to the Lieutenant Governor. It's petitioning the Lieutenant Governor on behalf of Matthew, age 19, who died at York University because of a shard of glass that cut the brachial artery under his arm. The glass in the residents' door was not safety glass. The coroner of Metropolitan Toronto, despite letters and pleas, has refused an inquest. He stated that it was economically unsound to make universities replace the glass, despite the letter to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities recommending it consider replacing the glass.

The appeal is being made to this Legislature:

"We, the undersigned, believe an inquest into the death of Matthew Morten is necessary to save the lives of others."

I've signed it as well.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 9,867 people from across Ontario, who petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC (previously grade 13) history and science. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven nor disproven. In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking such as recognition of bias, awareness of society's influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view.

These skills should be incorporated into all textbooks, approved in circular 14, dealing with the question of origins."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition signed by 50 residents of Middlesex county petitioning:

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

I have affixed my signature.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here that's been signed by a number of people in the Sutton-By-The-Lake community up in my riding. I'll read it.

"We, the residents of land-leased communities, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues that surround land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set out by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on resale of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents in long-term leases where they fall under the rent review legislation,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report on land-leased communities and propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals living in land-leased communities."

I affix my name to this.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 31 residents of my community. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the tax as proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here signed by a dozen residents in Sutton-By-The-Lake community in the north part of my riding.

"We, the residents of land-leased communities petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and to take action to bring forward the legislation on the following issues surrounding land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which will result in loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about the property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set out by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on resale of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents in long-term leases where they fall under the rent review legislation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislation Assembly of Ontario to follow through with a report and release the committee's report on land-leased communities and propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals living in these land-leased communities."

It has been signed by the Dodds, the Leadbeaters, the Berrys, the Walkers. I have signed my name to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

Mr Mackenzie moved second reading of Bill 40,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wish to draw to the attention of members of the House a point of privilege. This debate will begin the utilization of the new rules in the Legislative Assembly which will severely restrict the members of this Legislature and the opposition to carry out their role and responsibility appropriately.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This is not a point of privilege. Minister.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): On June 4 I introduced legislation to bring positive reform and renewal to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The driving force behind this legislation, now known as Bill 40, is our government's commitment to promoting better workplaces through more involved workforces. Nothing less will do as we all work together to meet the economic challenges of the 1990s.

I think it's important to remember that Bill 40 is proceeding in tandem with several other significant economic and social initiatives the government has recently unveiled. These initiatives, such as the Jobs Ontario Training fund and Jobs Ontario Capital fund, extending pay equity, establishing the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and allowing for greater worker ownership, reaffirm our desire to give thousands of workers and their families a greater chance at prosperity and a more fulfilling working life and working environment. It's not an either/or situation.

Reform of the Labour Relations Act will help ensure that economic renewal takes place within a framework of social justice and I'd like to turn to that now.

The act sets out the rules under which employees can form unions, prohibits unfair practices by both unions and employers, establishes the rules for bargaining contracts and creates procedures for handling disagreements between unions and employers. This tremendously important piece of legislation has not been significantly updated in more than 15 years. In that time, the composition of Ontario's workforce and the workplace itself have changed dramatically. The need for labour and management to work together in a spirit of cooperation, involvement and trust is greater now than at any time in Ontario's history.

We are not alone in saying that. The Premier's council has concluded that meaningful worker involvement in their companies is the key to Ontario's economic renewal, productivity and competitiveness. Ontario has an educated, skilled and motivated workforce standing ready to take on this new role. These amendments are designed to promote real exchange between labour and management on any and all workplace issues.

Our reform package will also update the act to take account of the growing number of women, workers of ethnic diversity and part-time workers in our economy, whose numbers alone have doubled in the last 15 years in largely low-skill service sector jobs. Right now these workers face many obstacles to organizing and effective bargaining, because the act is designed for an earlier and now largely fading era of large smokestack industries employing predominantly male workforces.

Finally, with Bill 40, we hope to usher in a new era of peace and non-confrontation in labour disputes. We intend to introduce a number of measures to promote the smooth operation of the collective bargaining process and to offer protection for the jobs of workers involved in labour disputes.

Our proposals have been the subject of an unprecedented amount of consultation in the form of public and private meetings with representatives of business, labour and community groups. As a result of these consultations, a significant number of our original proposals, almost half, have been changed or withdrawn altogether.

Emerging from this process is, our government believes, a package of progressive and fair amendments that will create better workplaces by recognizing the new workforces and workplaces that define Ontario in the 1990s, encouraging more participation and cooperation between labour and management, reducing the level of industrial conflict and streamlining the process of collective bargaining.

The first of these categories deals with opening up the act by recognizing the new workforces and workplaces that define Ontario in the 1990s. For example, the type and amount of part-time work is increasing dramatically in our economy, and this is an area where the act has clearly failed to keep pace. As a result, built-in obstructions that served to discourage part-time workers from becoming unionized will be removed.

In addition, the board will be granted the discretion to combine bargaining units. This is particularly important for existing and future full or part-time units and for smaller bargaining units in the retail, service and financial sectors. However, in response to concerns raised by large manufacturers, the board's power in this area will be subject to specific criteria.

Security guards will also be allowed to join the union of their choice rather than be restricted to guards-only unions, as is the case now. In response to concerns raised during the consultation process, however, guards who monitor other employees will be placed in a separate unit in order to avoid conflicts of interest.

The second major category of amendments supports our desire for more participation and cooperation by management and labour on a range of workplace issues. Amendments have been drafted to increase labour-management cooperation and harmony in workplaces facing major changes in work organization, technology and skill requirements.

We are also proposing the creation of a new work organization and partnership development service to assist labour and management in workplaces facing major restructuring. New amendments would also extend the duty to bargain in good faith to the negotiation of a labour adjustment plan in cases of closures or mass layoffs of more than 50 employees.

Finally, all collective agreements in the province will be required to contain a provision obliging the parties to engage in regular and ongoing consultation on workplace issues. Our goal here is to promote more dialogue, discussion and problem-solving between labour and management above and beyond the traditional cycle of collective bargaining. Ontario will be very much in the vanguard of this sort of cooperation once these proposals become law.

The third major objective of these amendments is to reduce the level of industrial conflict in the province. We want to remove the flashpoints and obstacles that serve only to frustrate effective labour-management relations.

We intend to change an all-too-familiar pattern of confrontation during the certification period and replace it with procedures that quickly get to the real heart of the issue -- whether a union has the necessary support to be certified. As such, anti-union petitions submitted after application for certification and the $1 membership fee will be eliminated. The support required for a vote on unionization will be lowered to 40%, but the level of membership support required for certification will remain at 55%.

First-contract arbitration will become automatic 30 days after a legal strike or lockout date is past. This will eliminate a major roadblock for weak and vulnerable unions at that critical stage of the development of a stable collective bargaining relationship.

Similar objectives underlie the government's decision to introduce protection against the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout. The replacement worker provision is intended to make the right to strike meaningful and to encourage both parties to work harder for a negotiated settlement.

No one takes lightly the decision to go on strike, but this government believes that, once such a decision is made, workers deserve to know that their jobs will be protected. That sense of protection is imperilled by the use of some types of replacement workers during some labour disputes.

The Labour ministry's research also reveals that the most confrontational strikes last year in Ontario all involved situations where replacement workers were used. Earlier this month, the use of replacement workers at a gold mine in the Northwest Territories sparked violent confrontations. We have seen similar clashes on a lesser scale during the current labour dispute at the Toronto Star. These incidents are vivid illustrations of the kind of conflict and bitterness our labour relations system can no longer afford.

It is clear that the use of some replacement workers prolongs labour disputes, uses up costly police resources, creates an air of conflict and all too often leaves a legacy of bitterness. We are therefore proposing to prohibit the performance of work of striking and locked-out employees by everyone except managers and other non-bargaining unit employees working at the same location. A similar provision has had a significant role in the new era of industrial peace that Quebec is now enjoying.

Measures to protect our network of health, social services and correctional facilities and the essential services they provide and to meet concerns over serious property or environmental damage or deterioration in the event of strikes and lockouts have also been incorporated into the bill.

The fourth and final goal of this legislation is to streamline and simplify certain procedures before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and before arbitrators. New measures for both the board and arbitrators will allow for fairer, quicker and more effective settlement and resolution of disputes, which is something everyone has been asking for.

Bill 40 is the end result of a process stretching back almost to our earliest days in office. It will translate into better working conditions for hundreds of thousands of Ontario workers and more involved, committed workplaces, from which we will all benefit.

The people of Ontario have always placed a premium on preserving and extending basic human rights and freedoms. Surely the right to organize, bargain collectively and be involved in workplace decisions is central to that belief and basic to the spirit of the Labour Relations Act since its establishment in the 1940s.

The people of Ontario have also indicated their deep desire for business, labour and government to work towards a new era of prosperity, and that, Mr Speaker, is exactly the spirit in which these amendments are offered today for second reading. I urge all members to give them serious consideration and to join with us in recognizing that the strength of the workforce in the province of Ontario, its education, its commitment, is one of the most valuable resources that we have and one that we have most underutilized in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? The member for York Centre.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is tentatively to the opening comments of the Minister of Labour introducing the trade union bill, a very important piece of legislation, I assume, given that the rule changes and the muzzle order that were brought into Parliament on the same day that the minister introduced this bill bore some sort of relation to the government's desire to have this bill passed expeditiously.

I'm going to have an opportunity later on to say a word or two about Bill 40. I don't think the bill is all bad. The Legislature is going to have an opportunity, I would hope, particularly during committee hearings and clause-by-clause, to analyse both the strengths and the weaknesses of the bill.

I regretfully have to say to the minister, Mr Speaker, that I was rather disappointed that, with his long history of working for the trade union movement and being the critic on labour issues in this Legislature, he chose to read a speech prepared for him by an official in the Ministry of Labour rather than speaking openly and frankly from his own experience as to the contents of the bill.

What we've heard from him today is the regular fare, the production material, the PR work that has come out of the government in connection with the trade union bill, and he has not addressed some of the real issues that have arisen since the time this bill was introduced and indeed since the document was released, was leaked almost six or seven months ago.

What concerns me, sir, is the very close relationship between the trade union movement and the New Democratic Party; it leaves me with very serious cause for concern as to what has motivated this bill and I hope that will be addressed during the course of this debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Any further questions or comments? The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I just want to comment very briefly, because I know members want to have the opportunity to comment on this very important piece of legislation.

I just want to commend the minister because I think what most people would recognize is that this legislation has been a long, long time coming here in the province of Ontario, and I dare say also probably a long time coming in other areas as well. I truly believe that this legislation in the long term, as people begin to understand and come to grips with what the legislation does, will allow the employer and the employee to build those partnerships that are necessary within the workplace which allow us to make the transition that we're finding today in the economy much smoother, not only for the employee but I think also for the employer. I think --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think the central point is that it's extremely --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: He's pretty good anyway. In closing, Mr Speaker, I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to say that --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Cochrane South has the floor.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's very interesting in this Legislature as we allow the opposition to make their comments for two minutes and we listen attentively, we would only hope that they would offer the government members the same respect in giving us an opportunity to have our say as well.

I just want to say in closing, it is very important that this legislation be understood in the long term by the people of the province so that we can move on with the rest of the business of Ontario to make sure that we're better able to position ourselves with the recovery that's going to happen here in the province of Ontario.

I dare say that this piece of legislation probably offers more towards the economic renewal of the province in the long term than a lot of other things, because it's very important that we find ways of melding both the employees and the employers together in some fashion that they're better able to work together to take advantage of that recovery.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for York Mills.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm disappointed once again to note that the minister absolutely ignores, both in question period today and in his opening comments, the fact that there has been no impact study whatsoever done by the government as to how many jobs this legislation is going to cost the province -- none whatsoever. They absolutely pooh-pooh the findings of Ernst and Young and Environics, two companies considered to be the leading people in this province in doing such studies.

The government has changed its mind many, many times, but it won't change its mind on this. They won't do an impact study because they know the simple facts bear out what we have said, that is, that there will be job losses.

It's interesting that at the same time they're prepared to spend $160,000 of taxpayers' money on a study by Wally Majesky, an ex-union leader, and his son, on an untendered contract to do a study which the Ministry of Transportation said was not needed. They'll spend $160,000 on an unneeded study, yet they won't spend a single penny on a study of the impact of job losses with respect to this bill.

This is a government which will stick its head in the sands until it's no longer in office, and then the Conservative Party will get rid of this legislation and put in sensible legislation. The government is on notice. They know where we stand, but we're saying that you won't do it with any facts. When we act, we will do it with studies; not wastes of taxpayers' money, but money spent well. Only 1% of Ontarians think this is necessary; 5% of Ontarians think Elvis still lives.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? The member for Durham-York.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): It's a pleasure to stand here to comment on what --

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on the matter of rotations and questions and comments from speakers: My understanding in this House is that you move from party to party. I began the questions and comments. Thereafter the Conservatives did not take a turn. Thereafter my friend the member for Cochrane South spoke. Thereafter, sir, two members of our caucus stood and you chose to recognize the Conservative Party and then move to the government party as well. It seems to me that you should continue in the normal course and provide for the normal rotation, and after the last speaker you ought to have recognized a member from our party.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has made a decision. The member for Durham-York has the floor.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On June 4 of this year, the Minister o