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

July 21, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

TOURISM

WEST CARLETON MUNICIPAL BUILDING

BICYCLES

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HOME COUNTY FOLK FESTIVAL

LONG-TERM CARE

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

LANDFILL

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SOCIAL CONTRACT

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

WOMEN'S CENTRES

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

HEALTH CARE

NURSING HOMES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

GO BUS SERVICE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GO BUS SERVICE

HEALTH CARE

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

VIOLENT CRIME CARDS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES CARTES ILLUSTRANT DES CRIMES VIOLENTS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

TORONTO ISLANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA ZONE RÉSIDENTIELLE DES ÎLES DE TORONTO

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (SUNDAY SHOPPING), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL (OUVERTURE DES COMMERCES LE DIMANCHE)

FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOURISM

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Yesterday I told the House of an administrative problem plaguing the St Lawrence Parks Commission at a time when tourism is suffering in eastern Ontario as a result of this government's inability to appreciate the work of the private sector in promoting tourism.

Any member who has sailed in eastern Ontario during the past 30 years will remember the presence of the Stormont Yacht Club on the St Lawrence River at Long Sault. Commodore Bill Girard has spoken to me about the extensive delays in renewing the lease on the land. The government has assured the club that the lease would be approved in March, and then in July. The $200,000 project promises construction jobs in my riding, but the approval is needed so construction can start in September. The 160 members of the club, who bring many tourists from all over Ontario, are wondering what the holdup is.

There is more. Lynn MacDonell of Cornwall has been attempting to negotiate with the parks commission over her popular paddleboat concession lease, which expired some nine months ago. The parks commission dragged its feet until June, when they told her that after four years of successful operation, she now had to fulfil several new requirements. Questioning why it took so long to inform her of the new policy, she was told that the parks commission had many more important things to do.

I would ask the minister to negotiate the reopening of the park by considering every alternative and appreciating the work of the private sector in promoting tourism.

WEST CARLETON MUNICIPAL BUILDING

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): It is my great pleasure to inform the Ontario Legislature that the township of West Carleton will be holding the official opening of its new municipal offices and council chambers on Saturday, July 24, 1993.

The building is truly unique in its design and construction, in the democratic and consultative manner in which it was built, and with its prudent financing.

Mayor Roland Armitage and the councillors of West Carleton -- Sue Lebrun, Dan MacMillan, Egbert Reitsma, Dwight Eastman, Orville Kemp and John Caldwell -- together with clerk Bruce Leclaire, treasurer James Raycroft, engineering supervisor Brian Carry and secretary Janet Stanton, formed a building committee which also included volunteer residents Sheila Laughlin and Oliver Drerup.

They envisaged a building that would be sensitive to the unique history of eastern Ontario, that would reflect the rich heritage of overall buildings in the township, that would be state-of-the-art with respect to the building structure as well as the operating systems, and, most important, that would be a friendly building that encouraged open access to all.

Their success in conveying their dream and working with the architects, Barry J. Hobin and Associates, has resulted in a most distinctive building that looks as welcome as the old homestead, yet is as functional as any modern office tower. Members of this House will be impressed with the fact that the project was completed under budget.

I ask members of this assembly to join me in extending well-deserved congratulations to Mayor Roly Armitage and the people of West Carleton.

BICYCLES

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): It's gratifying to see more and more bicycles on our streets as a daily method of transportation. They are cost-effective and energy-efficient. Bicycle transportation is in keeping with low-impact, mixed-use urban design. Bicycles are a self-sufficient technology. They're easily and inexpensively repaired and maintained.

Jane Jacobs details in her book The Economy of Cities how the Japanese industrial economy developed from bicycle maintenance, producing import replacement.

Bicycles are economically viable. They require very little additional infrastructure and cost very little to buy, store and maintain relative to other modes of transportation. A particular benefit is the recycling of bicycles that would otherwise have been scrapped, thereby adding to our problems of solid waste.

Combining these benefits with a wish to encourage fitness and recreation has led to some community initiatives that I would like to recognize.

The Cabbagetown Bike Club in Regent Park has been an outstanding success in the past three years, helping youth, women and displaced workers refurbish and use bicycles. In my riding of Scarborough East, a project called Recycle Cycle has developed from modest beginnings in Metro Housing through the initiative of community residents David Hisson and O'bert Puck. It has now moved into an underutilized industrial area. Not only are they keeping local children occupied; they're also helping the police with bicycle maintenance.

These and other projects are linking to form a community bike network involving community centres and organizations across Metro. I would encourage the ministries of Environment and Energy, Transportation, and Culture, Tourism and Recreation to support this admirable grass-roots initiative. As an indication of the growing importance of the economic benefits, there is going to be a Bikes Mean Business conference in October which will further add to this important work.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): In May of this year, NDP minister Evelyn Gigantes promised Ottawa-Carleton elected officials that legislation reforming Ottawa-Carleton government was going to cabinet in May, to be introduced in the Legislature in June for first and second readings. She expressly acknowledged that we had a time problem. However, the Ottawa-Carleton legislation was not on the list disclosed today by NDP House leader Brian Charlton of legislation to be dealt with before the summer recess.

Anything short of introducing a bill for first and second reading is a broken commitment. It is clear that the NDP has cold feet and is not prepared to commit to legislation to date.

The government has left little time for local officials and the public to establish new ward boundaries before the January deadline. Delaying the legislation is grossly unfair to candidates for election, who will be forced to make last-minute decisions, because they have no ward boundaries, and won't for some time, no salary levels and indeed no redefined powers for the regional and local levels.

The NDP government has again created needless confusion. Simply providing Ottawa-Carleton with draft proposals, as is expected for tomorrow, represents another failure of leadership by the member for Ottawa Centre, Evelyn Gigantes.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Today in the media we see that the social contract agreements are falling into place, but only with last-minute chaos and the government abandoning several of its ill-conceived restrictions.

For example, it would appear that the government has finally recognized what municipalities have been saying and what the Progressive Conservatives have been saying: that you have to give municipalities the flexibility to make their own cuts.

We indicated that municipalities must be allowed to manage without having union participation legislated on to them. We indicated that municipal and provincial fiscal years are different and that the social contract must recognize this difference. We indicated that a $30,000 salary ceiling would not work, as the majority of small municipalities have employees who earn less than this amount and therefore there would be no salary concessions.

First, the government tried to spend its way out of a deficit problem. Too late, they realized this approach would not work. Finally, with virtually no consultation, they imposed the social contract process on municipalities and other partners. The end result is poor legislation.

Municipalities and other partners have suffered through a process that has been arbitrary, uncertain and unworkable, and ultimately the government will fail in its prime objective to receive $2 billion in cuts through the social contract to reduce the deficit.

HOME COUNTY FOLK FESTIVAL

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to recognize an event in London which enhances the cultural life of our province. I refer to London's Home County Folk Festival, which celebrated its 20th anniversary last weekend.

Folk artists who got their start at the Home County Folk Festival in London include Joni Mitchell, Valdy and the late Stan Rogers.

Run completely by volunteers, the festival is one of the few left in Canada that do not charge admission. It attracts more than 30,000 visitors from Canada and the United States each year.

In addition to the best in Canadian folk music, this year's festival featured 10 different dance groups, performing everything from Latin American rhythms to Scottish reels. There was a record number of performers, over 35, and more than 145 craft booths. The weekend began Thursday night and continued till Sunday to accommodate all the performances.

I congratulate the Home County Folk League, organizers of the festival, on the 20th birthday of this event. Deepest appreciation is extended to the league chair, Rob Brady, the festival publicist, Kathryn Hazel, booths coordinator Judy Morris, the monthly Hoot Night supporter Dennis Humble, over 180 volunteers and thousands of enthusiastic patrons for the ongoing success of London's Home County Folk Festival.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Married couples are sometimes faced with difficult decisions, especially when one of them is forced to live in a long-term care facility.

How the new fee increases in these facilities are calculated is influenced by how pensions and other income is calculated for each partner. This can have a dramatic impact on the increased fees the NDP is demanding as of July 1, 1993.

Some couples who have lived together for decades are now being forced to live apart, not by choice but of necessity in order to afford these increases. Some seniors are considering having their status changed to involuntarily separated.

The reality of asking government for a separation definition for financial reasons only is putting added stress on these couples. However, for couples who take this step there may be compelling financial reasons. The recent announced fee increases are based solely on the income of the single resident, and by asking the government to process the involuntary separation it may increase an individual's chances for supplement benefits, especially if they have no private income.

This means that the spouse in the facility will be judged on their income at the lowest level, below the arbitrary rate of $15,377 per annum that the Minister of Health has said will make you eligible for the lower fee increase.

At this point, we have been told by the Ministry of Health that the spouse's income will not be tested, only that of the spouse in the facility. This is a good news and bad news scenario: Separate from your spouse and you'll save money. For many seniors who have been married for decades, this is simply something they cannot do. Their marriage vows are too sacred a trust, something this NDP government has forgotten.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On July 14, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the Conservative Party in respect of the second reading debate of Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act.

As I listened to the debate, I began to wonder if suddenly I was living in a time warp of some 100 years ago. I was reminded of things in the past as I listened to the Conservative government suggesting that Bill 79 would shut out a generation or more of young people who have been told that they have no future in this province through the provisions of Bill 79.

This goofy assumption is nothing less than a colossal putdown of young people in this province and their future. My own 16-year-old granddaughter has told me that she found the comments made by the Conservatives offensive. I've also listened with interest to the Conservative member who stated that he was personally concerned about his own family's lack of opportunities in this province.

I say to you, look back to the 42 years of rule of that party over there. You could not get a job anywhere in this province. You couldn't get appointed to a licence bureau, you couldn't work for the beer stores, you couldn't work for the liquor stores, you couldn't work for the Ministry of Transport; you could do absolutely nothing unless you were anointed by that party that was the government at the day. As I stand in my place today, that is the God's truth.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): A week ago today, together with my leader, Lyn McLeod, and the member for York Centre, Greg Sorbara, we spent a good part of the day in the region of York visiting the --

The Speaker: Would the member for Durham East please come to order. Just relax.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order. We are making an effort to keep the temperature low. The honourable member for York North may wish to begin again. We will start the clock again.

Mr Beer: A week ago, as I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs McLeod, and the member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara, and I spent the day in York region visiting with a number of groups around the different dump sites. If the feeling which was just exhibited in this room is any measure, I can tell you that the feeling of those who are affected by the potential dump sites is even hotter, and those feelings of wanting to see a change in the government policy are as strong as ever.

It's now been over a full year since the government went forward with its very flawed process of the Interim Waste Authority and said that there shall be a dump in York region which is supposed to not only handle York region's garbage but also Metropolitan Toronto's.

Again, what the people of the region are saying is very simple. They want a full and fair environmental assessment which is going to look at all of the various sites and proposals. That has not happened. Bill 143 remains one of the worst pieces of legislation that has come forward to this Legislature, and it is directing that York region is going to have to take Metropolitan Toronto's garbage.

What people were still saying to us, as we toured the sites last week, is that we've got to continue to be vigilant, we've got to continue to fight. The commitment that we have made, not only to the people of York region but to Peel and to Durham, is that as a government we would not put them through the kind of miserable and botched process which this government has. We're going to ensure that those megadumps simply don't happen.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 9,

An Act to amend the Representation Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la représentation électorale

Bill 25,

An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor

Bill 87,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Firefighters / Loi modifiant le Code de la route relativement aux pompiers

Bill 96,

An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board / Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre

Bill 164,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to make a statement regarding the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, the new agency which our government has created to lead the reform of the labour force training and adjustment system in Ontario.

This is an historic day because it is the culmination of one of this government's most important undertakings. For the first time in North America, users of the training and adjustment system, the people who know it best, will manage the system. OTAB will bring Ontario to the forefront of labour market development by adapting proven models from western European training systems.

The launching of OTAB today is critical to the future prosperity of our province. The concept of cooperation and partnership in the way we develop our labour force will now become a fact of life.

I am pleased today to announce the names of the people who will lead this important initiative, the men and women who will comprise OTAB's board of directors. This leadership is very important to Ontario because OTAB will be charged with the significant responsibilities that are absolutely central to our economic future and the strength of our social fabric.

Let me quickly describe the job ahead for OTAB. Just yesterday in this House, we gave Bill 96 third reading. We stand now at the beginning of an exciting new process for training Ontario's workers and helping them adjust to economic and technological change. Our current array of programs and services will be gathered together from the various ministries where they are now scattered and transferred to OTAB. A single coordinated partnership of representatives of the labour market will organize and focus these programs and services.

The result of this focus will be a more efficient system because of the elimination of overlaps and duplication. It will be a more responsive system because it will be based directly on the needs of the people the system is intended to assist. OTAB will also make sure it is a straightforward and much simpler system so that employers, workers and potential workers can avail themselves of it more easily.

We are doing more than just fine-tuning; we are striving to foster a new training culture. We are sharing power with our labour market partners to ensure that an emphasis on our people and the working skills they possess is the foundation on which we build and sustain our economy.

OTAB will make Ontario attractive to investment and job creation with its highly skilled workforce, OTAB will strengthen our traditional industries by assisting their shift to higher value-added goods and services, and OTAB will ensure our competitiveness and success in a knowledge-based economy that depends on the ideas and innovation of its workforce.

It is with a tremendous sense of satisfaction, with real pride and with a very sincere belief that we are taking a historic step that I wish to inform the House that all our labour market partners have nominated an excellent team of people to lead OTAB.

The government has been presented with the names of eight representatives of business, eight representatives of labour, one representative from each for women, for racial minorities, for people with disabilities and for francophones, and two representatives for educators and trainers.

I'm pleased to advise the House that we have with us in the gallery today the two people who are proposed as co-chairs of OTAB's board of directors: Mr Don Gree, representing business, and Mr Glenn Pattinson, representing labour.

These nominations will of course be reviewed by the public appointments process, but I wish to emphasize that it is our labour market partners themselves who have made these selections. They are handpicked by their peers and not by government.

This careful selection process has been based on the government's request that our partners make sure that the composition of the OTAB board of directors would reflect the diversity of Ontario. We asked them to submit names of people from both genders as well as from various geographic regions, economic sectors, occupations, cultural backgrounds, with a wide variety of experience and physical capacities, and so on. That was our stipulation. We wanted a true cross-section of Ontario that could ensure fair treatment for all Ontarians.

This government fully supports the nomination of the 22 men and women. I would also like to offer my thanks to our partners for the effort they have made to get us to this landmark day for Ontario. I wish to thank the labour market partners' steering committees, who have engaged with us for a year and a half on this ambitious undertaking.

These committees worked with the government, they worked with each other and they worked within their own communities to build a consensus, to open up dialogue, to spell out what was important to them and to listen and learn about what others felt was important. They are the real leaders of OTAB and I hope that the way we enlisted their help to develop Bill 96 signals an evolution in the way we, as elected representatives, do our jobs.

I would especially like to acknowledge the effort of my colleague from Hamilton West, the Honourable Richard Allen, who really provided the leadership.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): He's not here.

Hon Mr Cooke: He was here. I think all labour market partners appreciate his vital contribution, for which we all thank him.

I also wish to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of my parliamentary assistant from Kingston and The Islands, Mr Gary Wilson, whose assistance has been of great help during the clause-by-clause review of the bill as well as during the committee of the whole.

I wish to conclude by returning to the labour market partner nominees, the human face of OTAB, because they are the ones we will look to in the coming years. They will face the challenge of fashioning a superb system of programs and services to ensure Ontario has a highly skilled workforce. In doing so, they will shape our continued prosperity, ensure opportunity and fair access to all Ontarians and support for our economic recovery. The new partnership will help us meet the challenges for the future.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'm very pleased to tell this House that I have designated five new agreements as sectoral frameworks under the Social Contract Act. In total, these frameworks and those already designated will allow local agreements to be worked out that will benefit roughly 350,000 of Ontario's public sector workers. We have tentative agreements that will create a framework for another 250,000 workers. In total, these agreements when fully accepted would cover two thirds of public sector workers in this province.

These historic agreements grew out of our fair and balanced approach to meeting Ontario's needs. These agreements save thousands of jobs in communities across Ontario, they protect the rights of the lowest-paid workers, they preserve the vital services that the people of this province value, they create new and better ways of providing these services and they bring a new openness and accountability into the public sector.

The agreements which I have just signed create frameworks for municipal workers, for police, for utilities, for the Ontario Provincial Police and for Ontario Hydro. Together these agreements go a long way towards helping us meet our target of $2 billion in savings this fiscal year. The agreements also benefit those who participate in them. By reaching agreement, as the Social Contract Act spells out, employers have their savings targets lowered.

Each of the sectors in the public service is unique and so each agreement also has unique features. The revised target for the broad municipal sector which includes municipal workers, police forces and utilities, totals $220 million a year over the three years of the Social Contract Act. Because municipalities are already more than halfway through their fiscal year, we have deferred $50 million of this target for 1993-94, but those funds will be recouped at the end of the three years of the agreement. There is no change in the total targets, except for an overall lowering to reflect the fact that this sector reached an agreement.

In this sector, we have also allowed for local bargaining agents to negotiate agreements under which workers who earn less than $30,000 a year would contribute to the cost savings. I stress that this would be the choice of local bargaining agents as a way of protecting the jobs of low-income workers who would otherwise be permanently laid off. The Social Contract Act expressly forbids employers from unilaterally imposing social contract measures on low-income workers. By allowing this negotiated participation, we are providing greater flexibility to meet targets without loss of jobs or services.

The agreement for the Ontario Provincial Police allows for meeting the full savings target of $14.4 million. At the request of negotiators, we will release details of this agreement once it is accepted locally.

Our agreement with Ontario Hydro, which employs almost 30,000 people, reflects the stringent cost-cutting measures which the utility has already taken as part of a major restructuring. The assigned target of $100 million for Hydro is currently being met by its existing program, which will benefit Hydro's ratepayers. Hydro itself will address further compensation questions in its discussions with workers' bargaining agents as part of its normal collective agreement process.

These social contract agreements, and others already reached, call for a contribution from public sector workers, just as we have already asked others in Ontario to contribute to the solution of our fiscal problems through our expenditure control plan and revenue increases.

Our three-pronged attack on our rising debt reflects our very real belief that everyone in Ontario can help in the solution. It is not up to teachers alone or nurses or business people or government workers or any one group; it is up to all of us. We all have something to contribute. The people in Ontario and the people who worked so hard to reach these agreements recognize the validity of this fair and balanced approach.

I would like to thank everyone involved in reaching agreements under the social contract and to express my hope that I will soon be able to report similar success in the sectors which are still at the table.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond first to the statement by the Minister of Education and Training, to say that there's no doubt in anyone's mind that this is a fundamentally important area.

I'm pleased that the board is here today to hear these comments, because I think the legislation is clear that our party has a problem with the board. We are concerned about ending and truncating the lifelong learning that we think should be going on by setting up an independent arm's-length agency. I appreciate that these 22 people are probably very talented. I don't know them at all, but I don't doubt that they're a very talented group. But we think it's fundamentally wrong to set this up as an independent arm's-length agency.

The minister's announcement today, in the background material, indicates why we're concerned. It says that all OTAB directors must bring their labour market views to the table. We think that's partially important, but we think they should be bringing more than just those views to the table. We think it's, as I say, a fundamental mistake to set this up as an independent arm's-length agency where the 22 delegates will be coming essentially to represent their interest groups.

I hope it will work. You have our concerns. You have our best wishes, because if there is an important area that we're trying to deal with, it's this one.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to now turn to the Minister of Finance's comments on the social contract, to say that I think he's outlined clearly for the House the concerns now fully before us that many of us have had with the legislation. We have two major concerns, one I'll talk about second, and that is that the $2-billion target seems to be sliding away very quickly. More importantly, we see in the minister's statement a complete reversal of many of the things we thought the government was proposing in this bill.

We now find that people earning less than $30,000 can be negatively impacted. You stood in the House and said this was a fundamental part of the bill. You promised the people of Ontario they would not be negatively impacted, and now you have personally signed sectoral agreements that negatively impact people earning less than $30,000.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): No, you are wrong.

Mr Phillips: I'm just saying you went back on what you said was in the legislation --

Hon Mr Laughren: You are wrong. You are dead wrong.

Mr Phillips: The minister says I'm wrong, but the agreements that you're indicating today can negatively impact people earning less than $30,000.

The second thing I would say is that several times we raised the question about how you're going to get the money out of Hydro. Now we find $100 million of your target you won't be getting, not just this year but next year and the year after, $300 million that you had promised you won't be getting from Hydro.

We also find now that of the $2-billion target, $100 million is gone from Hydro, we now see from the municipal sector $50 million gone, and following the same logic you have in here, there's no doubt that you will see another at least $100 million from the educational sector gone. So now we see clearly at least $250 million of the $2-billion target gone.

I'd also say that the Premier promised that we would see some confirmation of where the $500 million on the pensions was coming from. We've yet to see it. We've yet to see that confirmation. We passed the legislation without that confirmation, and an important ingredient of this was the $500 million.

I would say to the Minister of Finance that this statement today confirms that we have lost at least $250 million of your $2-billion target, gone completely, acknowledged in this statement, and we furthermore have some questions about the pension. We would ask the Minister of Finance and the Premier to come forward with the confirmation that in fact the $500 million that you are assuming will be saved will be saved. So I would say that what we have now in the statement is confirmation of the concerns that many of us raised.

Finally, the Minister of Finance has acknowledged that the municipalities and the school boards were well into the year and would have difficulty in funding the complete savings. He acknowledged that finally. The $30,000 cutoff for low-income earners has been thrown aside, so the protection that you promised those people is gone, and you have now signed two sectoral agreements that get rid of that. Now we find Hydro, where you had counted on $100 million of savings, won't be there.

This is exactly what we predicted would happen when you introduced the flawed social contract legislation. It's all coming true.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too want to comment on the Treasurer's statement today concerning a number of the agreements. You know, the Treasurer and the Premier have told us that $2 billion has to be cut: It's important, it's imperative, every nickel of that is significant for the financial integrity of the province. You told a million public sector workers and their families they had to pony up, they had to contribute or the province was going to go bankrupt. It was that critical; it was that important; it was that urgent. Then, as has been pointed out by the critic from the Liberal Party, we see exception after exception after exception after exception after exception.

The Treasurer talked about a three-pronged attack on the deficit. He said public sector workers are one of the prongs, $2 billion. We've now seen erosions of that of over a quarter of a billion dollars a year. Over $250 million a year has now been off that target. Plus, there is no question, if you're going to exempt the grid for health care workers, I'd like to see how you're going to explain the $100-million exemption with no exemption for teachers for their grid.

I'd like to be in that negotiating meeting when you explain to teachers: "Oh well, that was nurses. We'll give them the increments on the grid, but not teachers." So we're now closing in on a half a billion --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The teachers are not negotiating.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: Well, teachers don't want to sit down and negotiate this flawed --

Hon Mr Wildman: Don't you think they should negotiate?

Mr Harris: "We'll punish those guys. We'll punish them because of that." What absolute nonsense.

The $30,000 principle: I listened to the Treasurer interject and say: "We haven't violated the $30,000 principle. Well, maybe we've violated it, but only to save their jobs."

Interjection.

Mr Harris: Well, that's your statement. It says here "to save their jobs." "Those who earn less than $30,000 will contribute now as a means" -- he stresses -- "to save their jobs."

That's why we moved the amendment to Bill 48, to allow those making $30,000 a year to save their jobs. We told you that you had to do that, and you and the Liberals said, "No, we won't support that amendment." Now you're doing it anyway and you've got a flawed bill out there for those making less than $30,000.

Every time you stand up in the House, you say one thing one day, one thing the next day. In your first budget you said: "We want a big deficit. The bigger it is, the better it'll be, the more people will get back to work." Then all of a sudden you say, "No, no, we've got to get the deficit under control."

Your lack of consistency is what is scaring people out of this province. It's your lack of consistency that's scaring investment, that's scaring jobs, that's scaring hope, that's scaring opportunity out of this province. You never cease to amaze me with the new inconsistencies you come forward with.

The three-pronged attack started out with a $2-billion tax hike, $2 billion back from public sector workers and $2 billion in cutbacks in your own spending. We looked at your budget. You increased your own spending and you're making announcements every day of how you're going to spend new money.

Secondly, the social contract coming out of the wage package. We see exemption after exemption. You call it slippage. "Slippage" is the new word. Your slippage is showing, Treasurer. It's slippage. Now we're left with a one-pronged attack, the taxpayer. We're back to the taxpayer. That's the one thing we know: The taxpayer is in for $2 billion and the taxpayer will be in again to make up for your slippage.

You are a disgrace, your government, your cabinet, your Treasurer, your lack of consistency. You are a disgrace and you are hurting seriously the credibility of this province.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to comment on the OTAB statement here today. It's ironic that this government is standing up and saying "We need more training, we need more skills," and at the same time it's saying to nurses and teachers, "You're going to be cut back." The people who have already got the skills and the training, they're going to be cutting back on their salaries.

It's also interesting to note that in the very last sentence, this minister says, "They will shape our continued prosperity." I want to tell you, Mr Minister, the people of this province don't think there's prosperity, and quite frankly, it's a direct result of this NDP government that we don't have prosperity in the province of Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance presented a budget in this House two months ago in which he said that he needed and was fully counting on $2 billion worth of savings that would be achieved in this fiscal year, 1993-94, as a result of his much-talked-about social contract.

Yesterday and today, the Treasurer has admitted that he is experiencing some slippage in the $2-billion saving that he said he needed to keep this year's deficit at $9.2 billion. Will the Treasurer tell the people of Ontario today precisely how much slippage and how many millions of dollars he has lost on this $2-billion budgetary requirement for this fiscal year?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I will respond to the member for Renfrew North, who one day doesn't want us to engage in this process and achieve these savings and the next day is complaining because we're not achieving the savings. However, I will respond to the question that the member puts to me.

When we started the process, we indicated that we were breaking it up into sectors and, in total, we wanted to achieve $2 billion in public sector compensation. Since that process began, there is one major area where we will not achieve the target that we set out at the beginning; that is, with Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro, though, I should tell the member opposite, will achieve more than the $100 million in compensation per year for the next three years; so it's going to save more than was the target, and that will benefit ratepayers all across this province.

The other area, and I want to give a complete response to the member for Renfrew North, is the municipal sector, where we had a certain target for each year of the next three years, as with other sectors. Because of the municipalities being on a calendar basis versus the province being on a fiscal-year basis ending March 31, what we said to the municipalities was that we are not going to alter the target for their savings, but in recognition -- and I'm sure fairminded members of this assembly would want us to do this; I'm sure they would want us to do this -- for this year we will allow $50 million to be deferred. We still get it, but we don't get it until the first quarter of 1996.

The total slippage, as the member refers to it, not as I refer to it, totals $80 million, because we achieve $20 million coming to us from Ontario Hydro anyway, and the $50 million in the municipal sector, which is a deferral, will not be achieved this year.

Mr Conway: My supplementary concerns the Treasurer's budget, of which the social contract savings of $2 billion for this year were a central part. The May 19 budget makes no reference to what's going on at Hydro or on the moon. It talks about a first-order requirement, in this fiscal year, to get $2 billion worth of savings.

My Liberal colleagues and I have done an analysis of the deals that you people have made to date. Our conservative calculation is that in three deals and in three sectors alone -- Hydro, the municipal sector and the health sector -- you have already surrendered $200 million worth of savings this year; so your negotiators, by our very conservative accounting of what you have done to date, have already surrendered or abandoned 10% of the targeted requirement for this fiscal year.

My question to the Treasurer is, how and where do you intend, in this fiscal year, to make up that difference? Do you intend to run the $9.2-billion deficit higher or, God forbid, do you intend to add even more to the $2-billion tax increase which you imposed in this budget of May 19?

Hon Mr Laughren: I know that I'm supposed to answer the questions, not ask them, so I'll refrain from asking the member for Renfrew North how it is that one day he's saying we shouldn't be extracting money from Ontario Hydro and the next day he's flailing away at us because we recognize the contribution that Ontario Hydro has already made in the compensation package to its employees. There's a remarkable amount of inconsistency.

Also, I hope that the member for Renfrew North doesn't expect us to buy into Liberal accounting. We saw what that did during the 1980s.

Mr Conway: No answer to my questions about his government's policy. It's your budget, and your budget made plain that you had to have $2 billion worth of social contract savings in this fiscal year, 1993-94, if you were going to keep the ballooning deficit to $9.2 billion.

Your negotiators and your fellow social contractors, in their pathetic effort to "Let's make a deal" have clearly, in three sectors, in health and in Hydro and in the municipal sector have already surrendered, at the very least, $200 million worth of savings this year. You have already, by this account, given up 10% of the $2-billion social contract requirement that you said you needed to have this year.

My question to you remains, and the taxpayers of Ontario will want to know, since they would want me to believe you to be an honourable man, where and how do you intend, in this year, to make up the hundreds of millions of dollars that you have already lost in your effort to make deals at Hydro, in the health sector and in the municipal sector?

Hon Mr Laughren: This comes from the party that didn't even want a bill brought before this Legislature. They just wanted to negotiate and negotiate and negotiate for ever and ever and ever and be flexible, flexible, flexible. That's what the Liberal Party wanted.

I would say to the member for Renfrew North that I've already detailed the amount of money that will not be achieved through the social contract. One is the $80 million from Ontario Hydro, which, I might add, is being saved because that's going to be reflected in the freeze on rates, and I would ask the Liberals what they did with hydro rates when they were in office for five years. We have tackled a very serious problem. The other part of the social contract target that will not be achieved this year, but will be achieved, is the $50 million.

He keeps talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and I'm not surprised that the Liberals talk in those kinds of terms, because that's the way they talked when they were in government as well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Second question.

Mr Conway: The Liberal Party of Ontario said that your social contract policy was an unworkable, unachievable, muddled mess --

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

Mr Conway: -- and it is becoming more and more apparent with every passing day that it is that and probably worse.

The Speaker: Does the member have a second question?

Mr Conway: In my view, this social contract is a fat, pregnant Trojan Horse that is going to give birth in this place to calamity.

The Speaker: Will the member please take his seat.

Mr Conway: My second question, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member with his second question.

Mr Conway: My second question is to the Minister of Finance: I have in my hand the municipal agreement that I gather the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, has in recent moments authorized. Reading this municipal agreement, I can scarcely believe my eyes to read that in

section 2.7, it is very clear that Bob Rae's social contract policy is going to affect all public servants in that sector irrespective of whether or not they earn $20,000 a year or $90,000 a year.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): False.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Read it again.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: It couldn't be clearer from a reading of this particular agreement. I want to ask the Minister of Finance how this can be so.

Hon Floyd Laughren: I know that the member for Renfrew North is frustrated and angry that we are achieving these sectoral agreements, because he didn't think we would ever be able to do it. The fact is that we are reaching voluntary agreements.

If I could address specifically -- and I hope he'll give me the time to do this, Mr Speaker -- the municipal agreement that was signed voluntarily by representatives of employees, the municipalities themselves and the government negotiating team, that agreement allows people at the local level, if they voluntarily agree at the local level, that in order to prevent permanent layoffs of people who earn under $30,000, they can voluntarily agree to be part of the social contract savings in a municipality.

There is nothing -- nothing -- in the agreement that imposes anything on anybody earning under $30,000. If people at the local level do not want to be part of this sectoral agreement, they don't have to be part of it. They can resort to the fail-safe mechanism that begins on August 1.

Mr Conway: We now have two agreements, the municipal agreement and the community services agreement, where it is absolutely clear that workers, public servants, who are earning below $30,000 a year will be exposed to the impacts of this policy. It couldn't be clearer.

My supplementary question -- to St Bob Rae, who comes in here to object but won't answer questions -- my question to the Minister of Finance: Given those agreements and given the exposure that the under-$30,000 workers are going to face, how do you square that with your statement to this Legislature on June 14, when you introduced the legislation, that this legislation "exempts all public sector employees making less than $30,000 a year"?

How do you further explain that St Bob Rae, on June 19, spent $84,000 of the taxpayers' money --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member for Renfrew North please take his chair.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member please be seated. I realize that the honourable member has a very serious question which he's posing. I know also that the member is aware of the practice in our chamber of referring to other members of the assembly either by the name of their constituency or by the title they hold, and I know that the honourable member would want to maintain that historic tradition. Could he please pose his question.

Mr Conway: I appreciate the advice and I will withdraw the reference to the saintliness of the member for York South.

The Premier of this province spent $84,000 on June 19 to take out government advertising to tell the people of Ontario, and I quote one line, "I, Bob Rae, want to point out that this social contract law protects public workers who earn below $30,000 a year." That was a solemn promise that he made and that you repeated. It is clear from these two agreements that you have broken that promise and that you have broken faith with those public servants. Do you not agree?

Hon Mr Laughren: In response to the dyspeptic dilettante from Renfrew North, I would simply say that the ad to which he refers deals specifically with Bill 48, the Social Contract Act. The Social Contract Act does indeed completely protect people earning under $30,000 a year. What the member is referring to today is a voluntary sectoral agreement worked out between the municipalities, the employees of the municipalities and the government, which if people --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Do you hang them out to dry if you have an agreement?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- at the local level wish to have themselves -- who earn under $30,000 -- as part of the savings targeted for that municipality, they can do so if they voluntarily agree to do so. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has been changed with Bill 48.

The law referred to in that advertisement is strictly an agreement which allows people to voluntarily agree to do that rather than be subjected to permanent layoffs. If the member for Renfrew North would rather see people laid off than protected in this way, let him stand in his place and say so.

Mr Conway: Yesterday, it was bad-faith bargaining on the part of this government, and today it is clearly a case of, at the very least, misleading advertising. It's your policy, it's your legislation, it's your commitment, it's your advertisement, and it couldn't be clearer, and you have broken faith and you have misled these people for whatever reason. If you didn't know what you were doing two months ago, if you didn't figure this out, then that's your problem, not the problem of the opposition and not the problem of the working men and women of this province.

Does the Treasurer still not understand that these agreements that have come to light in the municipal sector and in the community services sector clearly expose people earning less than $30,000 a year to the impact of the social policy, and that this exposure is a complete and flagrant contradiction of the solemn promise that he made on June 14 and that the Premier has made and repeated across the province for the past number of weeks?

Hon Mr Laughren: We could get into a debate about who's misleading whom, but I can tell the member opposite that absolutely nothing has changed in regard to that advertisement or Bill 48. Absolutely nothing has changed.

I said right from the beginning of this exercise that the best agreements were ones that would be worked out voluntarily prior to August 1. No one is imposing anything on anyone earning under $30,000, and it will not affect anyone under $30,000 unless they voluntarily, through their bargaining agents, agree to this and say, "We would prefer this to permanent layoffs."

The member for Renfrew North hasn't yet replied to my challenge to stand in his place and say that he'd rather see people earning under $30,000 laid off than voluntarily be part of the social contract savings.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to come back to the Treasurer and follow up with just exactly how much your slippage is showing. Can you confirm for us today that you planned to get $100 million from Ontario Hydro and now you plan to get zero from Ontario Hydro; $100 million which you're going to spend on something else, which, as far as the deficit's concerned, is zero?

Let's talk about how much the deficit's getting here. One hundred million dollars was going to go on the deficit from Hydro; today it's zero. As well, $55 million has now been deferred beyond the three-year period to the municipal sector, well beyond your mandate and any prediction that any one of 10 million Ontarians think you'll be in government beyond that period of time. That's $155 million.

Then we have $50 million that's a little signing bonus for the municipal sector. Then we have $53 million that you're now saying can carry on in the grid with the health care workers.

That comes to over a quarter of a billion dollars of slippage that is showing. Can you confirm that what we are talking about to date in your agreements is over $250 million, or do you refute any one or any part of those numbers I've given you?

Hon Floyd Laughren: I said in response to the first question from the official opposition that Hydro was going to achieve its compensation savings separate from this social contract --

Mr Harris: Oh, so they're going to give you the money.

Hon Mr Laughren: Allow me to finish -- and pass on those savings to its ratepayers.

The purpose of the whole exercise is to reduce public sector compensation by $2 billion. That's going to be achieved not to the consolidated revenue fund, I acknowledge. I said that right at the beginning.

Secondly, in the municipal sector, the roughly $50 million that will be deferred will not be achieved this year as savings for the government. That's absolutely correct.

No other targets have been altered for the other sectors. As a matter of fact, the municipal sector target hasn't been altered either; it's simply that that has been deferred by one quarter and will not be achieved this fiscal year, but that'll still be a saving in public sector compensation. It just will be put off until the beginning of 1996 in order to be fair to the municipalities. The leader of the third party, I suspect, would agree that this was a more thoughtful and fair way of doing it than to simply demand that $50 million in this year, the part of the year that's left for the municipalities. I thought it was exercising good judgement and flexibility.

Mr Harris: I assume, in terms of the others you haven't commented on, that you agree that amount of slippage is showing.

I'd like to come back to Hydro. You say that the wage bill will be cut under a plan that Hydro has but that you will not get the money, which gets me to the fundamental reason for a social contract in the first place.

We were told it was for the financial integrity of the province. It was to get the deficit under control. It was to control the size and cost of government, and that cutting the size and cost of government and its agencies, that money would be returned to the Treasurer, to the province -- that's what I assume you're telling the Toronto public school board -- as their share of reducing the deficit.

But now you're saying that's not the reason in Hydro's case. You're only left with one rationale in Hydro's case. Your purpose was to take money away from public sector workers. As long as you accomplish that, you're happy.

My question to you is this: Is the purpose to reduce the deficit or is the purpose to punish public sector workers, and that as long as there's a plan, in the case of Hydro, to punish them, take 5% off their total wages, that's okay? Is that the purpose?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, at no point did we or anybody in this government say that there was going to be any effort or attempt to punish public sector workers. That's a ridiculous assumption the leader makes; that is downright silly. Why would we punish the very people who work in the public sector? The vast majority work extremely hard.

In terms of Ontario Hydro, Ontario Hydro is going through a very profound fundamental restructuring. The leader of the third party would understand that for the first time in living memory -- and I've been here only 22 years -- I can see real restraint being exercised in Ontario Hydro, something that his government didn't even encourage as it went on its nuclear spending spree during the 1970s and 1980s.

I would say to the leader of the third party that he's right in one sense: the purpose of the social contract was to lower the compensation bill of the Ontario government. To the extent that Ontario Hydro is going to pass on those savings to its ratepayers rather than to the consolidated revenue fund, he's correct. That does impact -- I said that right at the beginning -- on the social contract saving and is reduced from the $2 billion that we set out as a target at the beginning of this process.

I think, though, to have said to Hydro, given particularly its latest numbers on how much it's losing this year, "Now, we demand the $400 million back from you, on top of all the other problems you're going through," the leader of the third party would have been the first one on his feet to denounce us for being too hard on a utility that's going through a very difficult restructuring.

Mr Harris: There's absolutely nothing new today in this area, in Hydro's area, that wasn't known this spring, that wasn't known last fall, that hasn't been known, that we haven't been telling you day after day after day after day since you took office. You keep changing and you keep moving the target. Now it's no longer $2 billion for the integrity of the debt. You've already admitted $200 million is gone already of that amount of money.

I want to talk as well about one of these sacred principles that was raised by the Liberal Party: the $30,000. You have said that the $30,000 is only in the bill. If you rely on the fail-safe provision of the bill, your $30,000 is protected.

However, you have also acknowledged that the bill, if you're relying on it, is unworkable, because the choice then facing the employee is a cut from their wage, if they're under $30,000, of 5%, or they can have zero. You've just acknowledged that; you said in your statement that the reason they can voluntarily take the 5% cut is so they don't lose their job.

You tell me, in the bill and in the amendment you refused to accept, do you think it's fair to say to those people under $30,000, "Pick door A, 5% off your wages, or door B, everything off your wages; you've lost your job." Those are the two choices you have left for those under $30,000 in many of the areas in your bill. Do you think that's a fair choice, "Pick this, nothing, or this, a 5% cut"?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the third party is somewhat confused, but let me first deal with the beginning part of his question. In the beginning part of his question, he wasn't talking about the under-$30,000; he was talking about Ontario Hydro in the beginning part of his final supplementary. He said that nothing has changed. Well, what has changed -- and maybe the leader of the third party was elsewhere when this was being discussed in this chamber -- is that Ontario Hydro's projected revenues have changed to the tune of $200 million.

He may not think that's important, but I think it's important and I think it was important to take that into consideration as we went about the social contract exercise. I think that's significant.

On the $30,000 low-income cutoff, I would simply say to the leader of the third party that under the legislation, Bill 48, the Social Contract Act, if that takes place and there's no agreement at the local level and the municipality must achieve its target and that municipality decides at some point in time to close down the department, then of course those people would lose their jobs, if that was the only way in which that municipality could reach its savings target. What this does is say to the employees, "If you wish, only if you wish, you can, rather than do that" --

Mr Harris: Rather than lose your job.

Hon Mr Laughren: Which they would lose anyway.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party seems to think that, even though he wants $2 billion in savings, wants it desperately, he wants more --

Mr Harris: More.

Hon Mr Laughren: More, he says, more. He thinks that can be done without anybody in the province losing a job, that the municipalities can reduce their expenditures with nobody losing their job. The leader of the third party is falling over his own contradictions.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I haven't said all these things. You're the ones who have said it. You said $30,000 is sacred. You said $2 billion or the province is down the tube. You said we had to do all these things.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a second question?

Mr Harris: I do, and it's to the Premier, because it's becoming increasingly clear that the reason for the social contract, the reason for the $2 billion in wage cuts, is all over the map, and I would like to give the Premier an opportunity today to explain exactly why we are saying to employees, "We're going to reduce your standard of living by a minimum of 5%," why we're going to have to downsize the cost and size of government, why we need the $2 billion. We heard lots of reasons earlier on: It was because of the deficit; we heard it was for the financial integrity of the province.

I would like to give the Premier an opportunity today, in view of all that we've heard and all the different rationales we've heard, to explain to this House exactly why we are going through this turmoil and this exercise called social contract. Could you give us the why?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): If there's been a lot of different reasons offered and comments made, they haven't been made by members on this side or by the Minister of Finance or by any of us who have been trying to explain to people and going over the ground over many, many months why this kind of step is required.

It's required because Ontario has a significant deficit problem, and it's required because all our public sector institutions have to, in our view, make a contribution that will match the reality that's been under way for some time in the private sector, and that includes Ontario Hydro; it includes all of our public sector institutions. They will and they are making a contribution, as have people in the private sector made a very dramatic contribution because of what's taken place in the economy.

We decided as a province that we simply cannot afford to borrow in order to protect, if you will, the overall public sector from the reality of the extraordinary downturn that took place starting in 1989. It would be irresponsible of the province to continue to borrow to do that, and that is why a reduction in the size of the public sector is required and that's why a reduction in the size of public sector compensation is required.

If we pass on the saving to ratepayers in Hydro or if it's reflected in terms of the changes that are effected, the efficiencies that are effected in municipalities, in our health care system and elsewhere, well, that's all to the good.

I don't expect there to be an outflowing of gratitude from among public sector workers when we are in fact asking them to take a reduction in order to help the province through an exceptionally difficult time. I don't expect them to be happy about that.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: But I dearly wish the opposition would come clean and tell us consistently, what is their position? Where do they stand with respect to this issue? I hear far more understanding from the general public, much more appreciation from the general public, than I do from members opposite, who have nothing but criticism.

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

Hon Mr Rae: If we negotiate, we're criticized. If we insist on legislation, we're criticized. All you want on this side is for the whole exercise to fail, and I can tell you --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please resume his seat. Supplementary?

Mr Harris: I merely ask the Premier, why? Why all this turmoil? We support the original principle, and we still do: Downsize the size and cost of government; get the deficit under control. We still support that. But surely, Premier, you can understand the confusion of one million public sector workers and their families. First of all, $2 billion is sacrosanct; then we don't know. Then the slippage comes.

Now, Premier, according to a statement you made -- not the opposition, not even the Liberals, who were the biggest spenders until you came along -- July 7 at the McMichael gallery, the purpose of the social contract, in the speech you gave to the nurses -- they had to cut back -- was so you could fund the building of a new theatre. Members of the Ontario Nurses' Association who were present on July 7 tell us you said that a $7-million IMAX movie theatre at the Ontario Science Centre was made possible by social contract savings.

Can you explain to the nurses, can you explain to the public sector workers, can you explain to one million public servants and their families the difference between what they are perfectly willing to do -- you said you didn't expect any credit. They want to help. They want their children to have an opportunity in this province. They want to see the deficit tackled. But their worst fears were confirmed when you told them the reason for it was so you could fund your pet NDP projects. Can you explain that to them, that that's the reason for the social contract talks?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member, if I may say so, is relying on thirdhand accounts of comments I made, that I have, again, made consistently in this House and that the Treasurer has made consistently in the budget. It's quite true. The Minister of Finance has stated it. I've stated clearly that we want to maintain the integrity of capital budgets. We want to maintain the ability of the province and the public sector and the private sector to invest. We've said that time and time again.

Yes, I think the first investment in 25 years made by a government in the Ontario Science Centre is a good idea. What would you do to the science centre, tear it down? It's going to attract new investments. It's going to attract new visitors. Those are good things to do. The fact of the matter is that some of the savings we are able to effect because of the reductions in public sector compensation are allowing the government and are allowing the public sector to make investments. We stand by those investments.

Over $3.5 billion in Jobs Ontario capital, in capital formation in the public sector. What did you do in the early 1980s? You stopped the school-building. You stopped the house-building. You stopped the road-building. You cut back on capital investment. We're not going to do that. We're going to maintain capital investment. That has nothing to do with anybody's pet projects. That has to do with sound public policy, the creation of jobs in the face of what we've been through in the last few years. I'm proud of that.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm proud of the social contract and the fact that we're asking everyone to make a contribution at a time when we're going through such significant change.

Mr Harris: With all due respect, Premier, I say to you in this House, listening to your statements, listening to you today, listening to the original purpose, that you're losing it. You are becoming so irrational that nothing you say makes sense. You, quite frankly, are losing it.

By way of final supplementary, the Premier says I relied on unsubstantiated accounts of nurses who happened to be at the McMichael gallery when he gave the speech there. I wouldn't rely on that alone. I got many phone calls; so I phoned your office to confirm. They confirmed that, yes, that is indeed what you said. You have confirmed in this House that you want capital spending, you want projects, you want to build this, you want to build that.

The very, very worst fears of taxpayers, who are prepared to contribute to save this province, and the very, very worst fears of a million public servants and their families are coming true, that you do plan to take their $2 billion, or $1.8 billion -- we've seen the slippage today -- but when you get that money, you plan to fritter it all away on new government housing, new government day care, new capital projects --

The Speaker: Would the leader place a question, please.

Mr Harris: -- and that you do not intend to use that money to solve the deficit problem, to save the province, to provide a future and hope and opportunity for their children, as was done for 42 years of Progressive Conservative government in this province. Their worst fears are being confirmed.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a question?

Mr Harris: I would ask you, Premier, to reflect on what you've said today and reassure us that every cent of the wages you're asking them to give up will in fact be used to solve the deficit problem, not to spend on your favourite NDP patronage, whatever it is, special projects.

Hon Mr Rae: History will determine which one of us, the leader of the third party or I, has either lost or regained or recaptured some, all or part of our marbles. But I would say to the honourable member with great respect, as they say in political life, that my understanding of the future includes child care, my understanding of the future includes roads, my understanding of the future includes housing, my understanding of the future includes science centres. It includes projects which have traditionally had the non-partisan support of all members of the House. There's nothing that's been said in these --

Mr Harnick: This sounds like Bob Rae telling the electorate to vote for him. I heard all that in the last election. Remember the Agenda for People?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My agenda includes people injured in automobile accidents being able to sue. Your Ontario included lots of things in the summer of 1990 it doesn't include now.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I listen to what I hear opposite. I ask you, who's really losing it, Mr Speaker?

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question. The honourable member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There's a lot of noise in the House.

The Speaker: Order.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. I heard the Premier make reference to history, and I would like to deal a bit with the history of the views of the Premier of Ontario on certain important issues. One of those issues is wasteful government spending.

I asked the Premier some time ago whether he was going to quit polling, spending his money on the polls. He's trying to get Mr Charlton back to palm this question off on him, but I don't think the Premier today will palm the question off on someone else.

In the context of a time of restraint and austerity and in view of the fact that the Premier in the past has been one of the strongest advocates of removing government advertising of a self-serving nature from the expenditure list of government -- certainly he and I in opposition fought side by side on this issue -- I ask the Premier how he can possibly justify full-page ads -- and the information in them seems to be changing a bit -- which are nothing more than NDP propaganda paid for by the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

How can he possibly justify putting those kinds of ads in newspapers when, as the government, he already has the same access as everyone else to the news media?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The ads may be a little on the dull side, but they certainly do reflect, I think, factually the situation. They're an effort to convey information to the public, and I think a government has a responsibility, as all people have a responsibility, to convey information to the public.

I would assume that your caucus conveys information with respect to your activities. Our government conveys information with respect to something which is a matter of public record and public policy. It would be irresponsible not to communicate with the public.

Mr Bradley: When the Premier and his government are out in the press conferences that they have access to, when they're issuing their press releases, when they're speaking in the Legislature, they have the opportunity to put their message out. But the Premier recognized, in his years gone by in this Legislature and the federal House of Commons, and he has certainly been critical of the federal government for this particular practice, that this is nothing more than the purveying of NDP propaganda.

We're not talking about a health ad which says the list of drugs that you are removing from seniors or an ad which might say that people who might have a problem with blood transfusions should report to certain centres. They're factual ads that everyone would agree with. We have here ads which are just government propaganda.

I ask the Premier, in conscience, and in the context of the policy of restraint which he's enunciating, will he discontinue this particular practice and set a good example for the people in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I find it interesting when we convey information. For example, I recall the questions that were raised during the budget. I'm proud of the fact that we did put out a four-page publication on the budget. The Liberal Party doesn't mind spending money issuing a 30-, 40-, 50-page briefing to the chartered accountants community or to the Canadian Bankers' Association or those people. No, no, that's fine, but if you try to present information in a way that's readable to the average person, to the average family in a form that's accessible, in a way in which it can be read, I think that's part of the responsibility of government.

Government has that responsibility, because I believe that information doesn't just belong to the bankers, doesn't just belong to the lawyers and doesn't just belong to all those people who have a vested interest in a situation. Information belongs to the public.

The public has a right to know and the public has a right to know what its government is doing and the public has a right to make their choices. We'll let the public make its choices rather than see it all tied up the way the Liberals used to do with all the vested interests. That's where you want it tied up.

WOMEN'S CENTRES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): In the absence of the Solicitor General, I'm going to refer this question to the Premier. He may want to refer it to someone else as well, I'm not sure, but it has to do with the wise and judicious use of taxpayers' dollars, a rather modest amount in terms of the total provincial budget but a significant one in terms of the fact that it's supposed to be directed towards victims of crime, specifically vulnerable women who are victims of sexual abuse.

We've heard recently of two investigations conducted by the Provincial Auditor into sexual assault centres in the province. We don't have access to those; they're secret reports, apparently. But we do have access to an independent review of the sexual assault centre in the Hamilton area, which is partially funded by the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

I'm just going to deal with one aspect of this in my initial question. One element of this independent review talks about the centre's image as a radical lesbian organization where victims have reported that counsellors disclose their own sexual orientation, that victims are complaining about the fact that the counsellors have prepared a list of individuals they can speak to who are also put on this list because of their sexual orientation.

The final comment in this report indicates that there has been virtually no monitoring and evaluation by the funder and no follow-up if performance of a centre in its various capacities is inadequate.

Premier, certainly the Solicitor General has had this report in his hands for some time now. How do you respond to these charges by victims of crime, victims of very serious sexual assaults and the way your money is being spent to supposedly assist these individuals?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): In the absence of the Solicitor General, I would refer it to the Attorney General and minister responsible for women's issues.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): We too take the allegations very seriously, and I know the Solicitor General takes them very seriously. Not only the concerns that the auditor has expressed, but obviously any time a service that's funded by government gets that kind of criticism from those it is supposed to serve, it has to be a concern to all of us.

I understand from the Solicitor General that there are a whole series of new mechanisms that have been put into place in terms of monitoring the sexual assault centres. It is quite right to say that these centres were funded through a ministry that had not previously had the experience of dealing with community-based agencies to the extent that some of the other ministries have and that it has taken some time to set up procedures.

I understand from my colleague and from colleagues on the interministerial committee that oversees the sexual assault prevention program that these allegations are being taken very seriously and are being investigated and that the process by which services are delivered is being monitored very carefully.

Mr Runciman: This report was dated June 7. Now the minister says that the operations of various centres are being monitored very carefully, and this is dated less than five weeks ago.

She's not responsible for this particular portfolio, but she's standing up in the House today and saying they're being monitored very carefully. One has to question that and talk about the whole matter of victims in essence being revictimized. She's the minister responsible for women's issues, and this is a rather pat answer coming from her, I believe, and not responsible.

There's another element of this which I think is frightening and perhaps even horrific, and that deals with the complaints by clients of this centre in respect to the anti-police attitude on the part of counsellors. This has been reported by victims.

I'll just give the perspective of the police. They believe that the centre is deliberately persuading women not to report, that they tell women not to undergo the physical examination involved in the use of the rape kit because they will no longer be able to chose whether or not to report once this examination has been completed.

I've described this as a rather horrific, frightening document, and I'm asking the minister to get up, the minister responsible for women's issues, and condemn this sort of approach on the part of counsellors, people who are out there dealing with very vulnerable women in the province, people she's supposed to be advocating for in this House. Let's hear you condemn that sort of approach in sexual assault centres funded by your government.

Hon Mrs Boyd: For at least two days last week in this House we talked about the presumption of innocence when people made accusations against other people. These are allegations. They are being looked into. We take them very seriously, as we take any complaint of this issue, but we, unlike the member, do not make an assumption that those allegations can be borne out in fact. We make a presumption of innocence until that investigation is completed.

In answer to the

preamble to the question, in which the member wondered how we could be monitoring, he knows very well how auditor's reports go. The auditor informed the Ministry of the Solicitor General some months ago that he had concerns, and the Minister of the Solicitor General at that time, the member for Oshawa, met with me, as Minister of Community and Social Services and minister responsible for women's issues, to set up a process whereby we could begin to ensure that the monitoring was complete.

I know for a fact that over the last few months there have been a number of changes put into place in terms of the administration and the management of those programs to deal not only with the financial issues but with the kind of program issues that have been raised by the member today.

I want to assure him that I will speak with the Solicitor General and he will be happy to let you know more detail about what that monitoring process is.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I too have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues.

The publication Words That Count Women In, was released by your office earlier this year. I found it a simple and easy-to-use guide to gender-inclusive language. It has a lot of ideas that make language clear, bias-free and removes distortion. It's been very popular in Middlesex. Can you tell me how this publication has been received by the general public?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Thank you to the member for the question. You're quite right. In general, it has been received very positively.

Of course, we produced the document in response to requests from the general public. There is a desire on the part of the public I think to be sure that language that's used is inoffensive and that it is inclusive.

We have had a real influx of requests. In fact, our first run of the document was sold out. There were 20,000 copies printed and it was sold out.

We know it has generally been received very well by all sorts of community service groups, businesses, the media itself. We're very pleased that the general public takes this matter seriously because language is our way of expressing what we think of one another. So inclusiveness is very important.

Mrs Mathyssen: I'm glad to hear that it has been positively received. I understand by the reaction opposite that they too have been busy reading this book. My problem is that I've run out of copies. I need more. When can I expect to have those available?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is not the only one who ran out of copies. The directors ran out of copies as well. We had to do another run. We had 24,000 copies on back order while we did this. We've made a few adjustments in the new edition of this because there was some feedback from the public that led us to believe we needed to adjust it.

Forty thousand copies have been ordered. I believe they've been received in the last couple of weeks. I would advise the member to order her copies early if she really wants to get them.

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. That's you, Frances.

Back in June, the Premier complained loud and long about how Prime Minister Kim Campbell had left Ontario and Metro without any representation in an economic portfolio in her cabinet. He said it was unfair to ignore Canada's largest city and its economic heartland this way. I want to quote. He said, "This cabinet represents the most serious blow to Ontario, to our economic position in Confederation, since the origin of cabinet-making."

Now I find that the shoe is on the other foot. It seems that you will be shutting the Willowdale office of the Ontario Development Corp. This means that there will be no ODC office in Metro Toronto, an office that not only serves Metro but serves York and Durham regions as well. The closest office of this important economic agency to this city will be located in Peel.

Given your government's criticism of Kim Campbell's neglect of Metro Toronto, how can your government close down the only ODC office in the Metro Toronto area servicing Metro Toronto, the region of York and the region of Durham?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm sorry, I didn't hear the beginning when the member was addressing the question to me just because of the general noise, but I heard the full question. I appreciate the opportunity to answer it.

As part of our attempt in terms of setting up a budget with strong fiscal controls in it, we were doing a number of exercises within the ministry of streamlining operations. The Ontario Development Corp is one of them; so are our domestic offices in the trade division as well as, the member well knows, our international offices.

With respect to the Ontario Development Corp, we have had the opportunity to take a look at the operations there and to determine that we can effectively serve people from a smaller number of offices in the Metro area. Of course we do have a head office down here in the Queen's Park area and the branch office in terms of the Willowdale office. Those facilities and services will be combined both back down to the head office and to the Peel area, as you have indicated.

I think one of the things that's really important to understand about the changes we are making is, yes, we are closing bricks and mortar operations and we will be saving money from that, but we will be maintaining the same level of service. I think in fact in the way we're reorganizing our ministry and the way we do business to bring about client account management we will be providing better service, both on our domestic side and on the ODC side.

I had the opportunity to recently meet with the new president of the ODC. I'm quite confident that she will do a tremendous job in ensuring that the streamlining is done in a way that will maintain a high level of services to the corporations and the industry in Ontario and in the Metro area.

Mr Kwinter: We are talking about consistency. On the one hand the government gripes about how Ottawa is ignoring Toronto and Ontario, but on the other hand this government is doing the same thing by closing down the ODC office in Willowdale. In fact, the person responsible for Metro Toronto will now be located in the London ODC office, about 200 kilometres away. The only group that is going to benefit from this move is the telephone company.

What the government's closing has done is to make it harder for Metro Toronto companies to access the assistance the ODC offers, such things as loan guarantees and the other services that come out of that. In the middle of Metro Toronto's already fragile recovery, does it serve the purpose of what this particular area needs to close the only office that is really servicing that group and also servicing the key areas of Durham and York region?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, I have to say that I disagree with the premise of the member's question, that this action is discriminatory towards Metro Toronto. We are streamlining our offices across the province, both ODC offices and our domestic offices, and we are working on this with other ministries. There are other ministries with regional offices where we can combine into the same office location and still continue to provide high level of services but at a lower cost to government.

I think that's smart in terms of a way of doing business, and I think we can take advantage of -- the member makes a joke about the telephone, but with telecommunications, computers, travel, we can be places and meet with people and be out there in the field without having the bricks and mortar in an expensive rental location.

I would also say that in the work we have done with Metro Toronto through our Jobs Ontario training program, the community economic development initiative, the work we've been doing with respect to the development of the west downtown lands --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please?

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes, I will. Thank you, Mr Speaker -- a major area of development in which we are putting together a leadership framework from the province, our commitment to Metro Toronto is one in which I stand proud of the record.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I understand the member for Parry Sound's concern, but the clock tells me that the time for oral questions has expired.

Petitions. The member for York Centre -- York North.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Thank you, Mr Speaker, but you're ahead of me, because it is my pleasure to stand today for the member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara, and present a petition from some 445 persons in his riding. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the residents of Ontario, disagree with the government's radical cuts in health care spending. We fear that the quality and access to health care will continue to deteriorate as a result of your proposed cuts."

I have signed that petition for myself and for Mr Sorbara.

NURSING HOMES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"As a resident of the Hamilton area, I have become aware of the application made to your ministry by the Christian Home Association of Mount Hamilton to develop and operate 150 nursing home beds in the city of Hamilton. I understand this home will be open to all on a non-sectarian and non-denominational basis. I further understand that there have been no nursing home beds made available in Hamilton for some time and there are several hundred individuals in the Hamilton placement services list awaiting placement in existing nursing homes. Clearly these beds are very urgently needed in our community."

"The undersigned wholeheartedly supports the application by the Christian Home Association and highly recommends it to your consideration. I sincerely hope that you will be able to decide in favour of this application.

"As residents of the Hamilton area, we are acutely aware of the urgent need for additional nursing home beds in our community. We believe the Christian Home Association proposal has merit and accordingly recommend it most highly for your kind consideration."

There are hundreds of signatures on these. I know the government House leader will be particularly interested in this petition and I'm very happy to support it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here that has about 800 signatures from people from Wallaceburg, Chatham, Dover and Dresden, dealing with the Sunday shopping bill, Bill 38. It says:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of our society in Ontario and cause increasing hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendments under the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I hereby affix my signature in support.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, demand that the government honour the existing contract with the Ontario Medical Association. The government should look to the medical experts for cost-cutting measures in medicare."

The petition is signed by several hundreds of residents of Burlington, Oakville, Stoney Creek and Hamilton and I affix my name to this petition.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

This petition is signed by about 1,000 residents concerned about health care in North Bay.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I have, again, hundreds of signatures from the city of Windsor and other places against casino gambling. They say:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted with the citizens of this province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I'm very glad to affix my signature to this very important petition.

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to object to the proposed cuts to the GO Transit bus service to Markham, Stouffville and Uxbridge.

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers and will substantially increase time for travellers and all users;

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at all times, and all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and to encourage public transportation systems;

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto for individuals working with flexible work arrangements and child care commitments (the earliest train departs from downtown at 5:20)" -- and there is no train that goes to Uxbridge.

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy;

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers to incur expenses, finding and using alternative forms of transportation;

"That the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and continue the GO bus transit service to Markham, Stouffville and Uxbridge."

I met with the council yesterday in Uxbridge and tomorrow night I'll meet with the residents in Uxbridge about this very important issue. I have signed my name to this petition.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I remind all members that interjections are out of order and that the honourable members have the floor very legitimately.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have a petition signed by over 250 people from my riding of Ottawa West and surrounding ridings.

"To the honourable Lieutenant Governor and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I've signed the petition.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I remind members that shouting across the floor will accomplish nothing.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a petition from the North Bay Golden Age Club. The North Bay Golden Age Club petitions the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We object strenuously to the province's proposed user fees on select drugs."

It's signed by several hundred members of the North Bay Golden Age Club.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I have here hundreds of signatures where it says:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

Under the standing orders, I affix my signature.

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

"To the members of provincial Parliament:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for quality of life, religious freedom and family time. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardships on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I present that petition to you.

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"To object to the proposed cuts to GO Transit bus services to Markham, Stouffville and Uxbridge.

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers and will substantially increase the travelling time for all users;

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and encourage public transport systems;

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto for individuals with flexible work arrangements and child care commitments, with the earliest train departing from downtown at 5:20 pm;

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy;

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers to incur extra expenses in finding and using alternate forms of transportation;

"That the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and continue the GO transit bus services to Markham, Stouffville and Uxbridge."

I submit this petition with my name affixed to it, with the hopes the government will do something.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition which I'm presenting on behalf of my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea. As you know, as Minister of Citizenship, she cannot present petitions in the House.

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has decided to close Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services laboratory diagnostic laboratory at the college as of May 1, 1994,

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

"To reverse the decision to close the Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services laboratory located on Centralia's campus."

I have attached my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I've got a whole whack of petitions here. Some are phrased in different ways, but they all deal with Bill 38, Sunday shopping. Rather than take up the time of the Legislature in reading the full text of them, suffice it to say that there are about 1,000 people in North Bay who are opposed to Bill 38 because they believe it leads to wide-open Sunday business and shopping in the province of Ontario, and they would like that expressed to the Legislature.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition here that was forwarded to me by a local psychiatrist by the name of Pramil Tahlan. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and they want the government to withdraw proposed measures and recommit to the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement.

GAMBLING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

HEALTH CARE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Again, on behalf of my colleague from York Centre, I have the pleasure to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by several hundred representatives from York Centre:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VIOLENT CRIME CARDS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES CARTES ILLUSTRANT DES CRIMES VIOLENTS

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

Bill 76,

An Act to restrict the trade of Violent Crime Cards / Loi visant à restreindre le commerce de cartes de crimes violents.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Eglinton has some opening remarks.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): In view of my difficulties in speaking today, I wonder if I could have unanimous consent for the member for York North to make a few comments on my remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? The honourable member for Eglinton does have a problem with her voice. Agreed.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I'm pleased to be able to assist my colleague today. Ms Poole has brought forward this bill because she is extremely concerned that serial killer trading cards imported from California are now available for sale in Ontario. These cards depict colour sketches of convicted serial killers, mass murderers and organized crime figures.

Ms Poole is very concerned that these cards are sending the wrong message to our children. Trading cards have traditionally been used to glorify sports heroes. Are we telling our children that their new heroes are serial killers?

Our children must be protected. It is her hope that the government will take up her private member's bill, which would restrict the trade of these serial killer cards to young people under the age of 18, and make it government legislation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable government House leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The fourth order.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The fourth order, third reading of Bill 103,

An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs, Mr Christopherson.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that the order for third reading of Bill 103,

An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs, be discharged and the bill be referred to committee of the whole House.

This is simply a motion to get the bill back into committee of the whole so we can move a couple of amendments that correct some errors or discrepancies in the French version of the bill so we can then pass it this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: The ninth order, committee of the whole House.

The Acting Speaker: I do now leave the Speaker's chair and go into committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

Consideration of Bill 4,

An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'éducation.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments or amendments to Bill 4 as it now stands? We are dealing with Bill 4, as was ordered by the government House leader. Last call for amendments or changes to the bill as it now stands.

Seeing none, shall sections 1 through 60 of Bill 4 stand as part of that bill? Agreed.

Shall the title carry? Agreed.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

Consideration of Bill 103,

An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs / Loi visant à accorder l'immunité aux pompiers et à les indemniser de leurs frais de justice.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the member for Durham East, as parliamentary assistant, have some opening remarks?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My colleague the member for Sudbury is going to move the amendments.

I move that the French version of

section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out the

definitions «équipe de protection contre les incendies» and «pompier» and substituting the following:

«équipe de protection contre les incendies» Équipe de protection contre les incendies mise sur pied en vertu de la

Loi sur les commissaires des incendies pour assurer des services de prévention des incendies et de protection contre les incendies dans les territoires non érigés en municipalité. («fire protection team»)

«pompier» Employé à plein temps ou à temps partiel d'un service des pompiers, membre volontaire d'un service des pompiers (qu'il reçoive ou non une rétribution modique pour ses services) ou membre d'une équipe de protection contre les incendies. («firefighter»)

The Second Deputy Chair: We will deal with the first amendment. Ms Murdock has moved an amendment to

section 1 -- dispense? Agreed.

Debate on Ms Murdock's amendment: Does Ms Murdock have some further explanation? Debate?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I realize that these are technical amendments and that we're going to proceed today with third reading, I believe, with the consent of the House. Once again, I know the critics from both the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party rose to correct the record of the parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham East, who very erroneously reported to the House in his comments on this legislation alluding that the opposition parties were not entirely enthusiastic or supportive of this legislation.

I also recognize that the parliamentary assistant, after he was straightened out by members of his own caucus, I believe, made some comments to correct the record.

Let me say how much I regret that that partisan cheap-shot attitude exists within the member for Durham East in the first place on a piece of legislation that is the rarity around here, where the minister and the critics from both opposition parties worked so positively and cooperatively together. Any slight when we finally do -- we've talked about new rules. We've talked about new ways of coming together, of government and opposition working together. The public is crying out and demanding that we begin to change the way we operate in the Legislature and in our legislatures across the country and in the House of Commons as well.

I just wanted to congratulate the critics. It's very difficult in opposition when that attitude exists within the government and obviously is on the top of the mind of the parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham East; in fact, one of the attitudes that is preventing this Legislature from assisting and facilitating this type of legislation and other types of legislation.

Let me also say congratulations to the firefighters and the association for the effective job they did in making sure that all members on all sides of the House understood the purpose and the intention of the legislation and the importance of it, and how pleased we have been, as an opposition party and as a caucus, to facilitate that.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further comments to Ms Murdock's amendments?

Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Murdock's amendment to

section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall

section 1, as amended, carry? Agreed.

We have further amendments.

Ms Murdock: Subsection 2(2): I move that the French version of subsection 2(2) of the bill be amended by striking out «La Couronne et les municipalités sont responsables d'un tel délit comme si le paragraphe (1) n'avait pas été adopté» in the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th lines.

The Second Deputy Chair: Ms Murdock has moved -- dispense? Agreed.

Comments on the amendment? Further comments on the amendment?

Shall the amendment, as suggested by Ms Murdock, to subsection 2(2) carry? Agreed.

Shall

section 2, as amended, carry? Agreed.

Shall sections 3 through 5 of Bill 103 carry as presented? Agreed.

Shall the title carry? Agreed.

Shall the bill, as amended, be reported to the House? Agreed.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Charlton moves that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

I do now leave the committee of the whole to resume the Speaker's chair.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and one bill with amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Shall the reports be received and adopted? Agreed.

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

Mr Mills, on behalf of Mr Christopherson, moves third reading of Bill 103,

An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs / Loi visant à accorder l'immunité aux pompiers et à leur indemniser de leurs frais de justice.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Opening comments, parliamentary assistant.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm going to be very brief, and I feel somewhat obligated to respond to the leader --

Interjection.

Mr Mills: No, I'm not going to say anything. Okay.

This bill is very important to firefighters across Ontario, and I want to take a brief moment to introduce some of the fire chiefs from Ontario who are here in the members' gallery this afternoon to be a party and a witness to this third reading of very important legislation.

I'd like to recognize Chief Ramsay from Etobicoke; Deputy Chief Colhoun, from Etobicoke too; Chief Anderson from my colleague's riding of Chatham; Chief Beckett from Markham; the fire chief from Scarborough, Tom Powell; the fire chief from East York, John Miller; and the fire chief from Port Colborne, Douglas Lockyer.

Finally, I'd just like to thank my colleague the member for Sudbury, who ably provided the French translations I was unable to do at this moment.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I just want to place on the record once more the fact that the PC caucus is very supportive of Bill 103. We are indeed happy that we are at third reading of this bill,

An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs. It goes without saying that obviously this bill has been a long time coming and probably should have been passed many, many years ago.

It's hard to realize that this kind of legislation was even required. It should have been a foregone conclusion that firefighters would have been protected at all times from personal liability or the risk of legal costs.

How ironic that those people in our public service, not only in this province but across this nation, who, as I referred to yesterday, take tremendous personal risks to protect us, the public, and at all times there's never any hesitancy on the part of firefighters in this province to execute their duties, which often involve tremendous bravery. We are all truly indebted to those people who are willing to serve as firefighters in Ontario, and I too welcome the fire chiefs who are here today and know many of the others who are not here who would have liked to have been here to witness this third reading. We are most happy about it in the Progressive Conservative caucus.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I too want to place on the record our party's definite support of this bill. We too believe that the firefighters across Ontario give so much to the safety and also personally of their own time and energies for so many. I want to say that certainly I was extremely happy when I had all-party support for my bill, Bill 87, and now again we are showing our support for this particular bill, which will provide peace of mind, I think, more so, for the firefighters. I'm happy to have been able to meet with some of the chiefs, and I just wanted to definitely say that our party supports this 100%.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Just very briefly, Mr Speaker, on behalf of our caucus I certainly want to share in welcoming the firefighters to the gallery here today, and without going into a lot of detail certainly refer to the comments that we made yesterday, which are recorded in Hansard, on second reading.

The firefighters in the execution of their responsibilities face tremendous pressures and risks in the performance of their jobs, and the last thing that they should have to worry about, is the risk of civil suits and being dragged into the courts in the performance of their responsibilities in good faith.

We're certainly pleased to support this legislation and we're certainly pleased to have seen all three parties get together and support this and get it through as quickly as possible.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate? It appears that there is no further debate. Would the parliamentary assistant have some closing remarks?

Mr Mills: I think enough has been said, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Mills has moved third reading of Bill 103. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

TORONTO ISLANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA ZONE RÉSIDENTIELLE DES ÎLES DE TORONTO

Mr Philip moved third reading of Bill 61,

An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands / Loi concernant les îles Algonquin et Ward's et concernant l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs have some opening remarks?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): It certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure as the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to present this bill for third reading.

First of all, let me say that I think a great deal of congratulations go to the islanders, who for many years have been frustrated by a very awkward situation that they lived under but who kept on appearing before government after government and presenting their concerns and acted in so reasonable a manner.

Secondly, a lot of credit has to go, I think, to my predecessor, the member for Windsor-Riverside, Mr David Cooke. He has certainly impressed me that, as a minister, he is not afraid to tackle complicated issues and to deal with issues that are often controversial. That stamina and that sense of responsibility, I think, are shown in the work that he did on this bill.

Gordon Mills, who is the member for Durham East, presided over the hearings and I think became quite loved by the residents of the community, as well as respected by them, for the work that he did in piloting and in steering that committee and in dealing with many of the issues that arose in those hearings. I know that he's planning on attending the celebration, as I am, on August 1, and as a singer of some renown he will no doubt entertain all of us with The Good Ship Lollipop and other appropriate songs.

An awful lot of credit goes, of course, to Richard Johnston, my former colleague, and I'll say a few words about that in a minute.

I think the other person who deserves to be recognized in this long battle, of course, is the MPP for Fort York, Rosario Marchese. Rosario initially was able to impress our cabinet that this issue, among so many important issues, deserved priority for this government. He worked closely at every step of the way on the legislation. He was in constant communication with the island community, with my ministry, with the various stakeholders to ensure that a successful solution would come to the many problems we faced. Today, I think it's important that we recognize him for his important contribution.

Last, but not least, I've had to be impressed by the quality of the staff that I have, both in the ministry of the greater Toronto area and in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs since I became minister. They've acted in a professional way, they've acted in a flexible way, they've acted in a creative way, and both the political side of my ministry and the ministry side have won, I know, not only my respect but the respect of ev