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

July 14, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

UNEMPLOYMENT

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

DON WEST

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS PICNIC

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

MASSASAUGA PROVINCIAL PARK

GLENFIELD SPORTS CLUB

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

SOCIAL CONTRACT

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

SOCIAL CONTRACT

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

SECURITY AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

AGRICULTURAL LAND

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

COURT REPORTERS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CASINO GAMBLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CASINO GAMBLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (DIMENSIONS ET POIDS)

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to focus my comments today on the challenges we face in this province on unemployment.

I think everyone's aware now that we're approaching three years of Bob Rae government. I would say that at the end of the Bob Rae era, the biggest failure of this government will be in the whole area of what's happened to our unemployed and our job situation.

If you look back at the 1960s, the unemployment rate in the province was around 3%, in the 1970s it was around 6%, in the 1980s it was around 7%, and it now looks like we are going to, certainly for the first half of the 1990s, according to the government's own projections, see unemployment above 10% for the entire first half of the 1990s. According to the budget, the real rate of unemployment right now is around 14%. We have over 725,000 people out of work right now in the province. As we saw, the number of part-time jobs is growing while the number of full-time jobs has declined dramatically.

I would say that while Premier Rae is fighting the deficit, I would urge him to get on with putting an even higher priority on what I think is more important, and that is creating a climate where we will see substantial new jobs created in this province.

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): As the PC small business advocate, I am today speaking against the 26-cent-a-litre tax announced in the spring budget on beer and wine made in produce-your-own beer and wine establishments, which comes into effect on August 1.

Produce-your-own beer and wine establishments, or you-brew stores, as they're also known, provide the ingredients and the equipment for customers who come into their premises to make their own beer and wine. Customers enjoy the hobby aspect of making beer and wine for their own consumption.

I have received many dozens of letters from people across Wellington county who are customers of brew-your-own establishments and object to the 26-cent-a-litre tax. I'm sure other members have also received mail from their constituents on this subject.

The popularity of this small but growing industry is probably partially attributable to the high taxes on store-bought beer. Brew-your-own beer and wine establishments are growing because there is significant consumer demand.

There is a fundamental restructuring of the economy taking place. It has been recognized by this government and by most economists that most new job growth, if there's any at all in the near term, will take place in the small business sector. Brew-your-own businesses have found a niche and are satisfying a consumer demand.

Then along comes the provincial government and squelches entrepreneurial spirit and small business growth by imposing excessive taxes on the beer produced in these establishments. Instead of facilitating small business growth, the government is making it difficult for brew-your-own businesses to survive.

The Brew-On-Premise Association of Ontario estimates that the tax imposed on on-premise operators will result in about a 40% closure and bankruptcy rate, significant loss of jobs and loss of revenue for the provincial government.

I urge the Minister of Finance to review the tax with a view to ensuring the survival of brew-your-own establishments.

DON WEST

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I wish to bring to the attention of this House the death of a popular television and radio personality in the city of Windsor.

Former television and radio performer Don West died at the age of 56, after a brief illness. He passed away recently, leaving behind a media legacy in the city of Windsor.

Don West was born in Windsor and worked most of his career in the city. After leaving high school, he began his radio career at CFCO in Chatham in 1955. Don West was also vice-president of programming at channel 9 before the CBC took over that TV station. He also worked in Calgary until 1981, then returned to Windsor to work at CKLW Radio.

But many will remember his involvement at CKLW. It was here that I met him for the second time; the first was as a teenager, when invited to view an evening broadcast at CBC when he was an anchor, and the second time was as a co-worker at CKLW Radio. He was news director at that radio station, television anchor at the CBC on Riverside Drive and later a marketing representative for a computer design company in the United States.

I had only known Don for a short period, but Neil Addison, former television colleague at channel 9 in Windsor said, "West's involvement and influence in the community ran deep." Neil went on to say, "He was my oldest and dearest friend."

My condolences to his wife, Linda, family and friends, and I shall always remember that studio visit at CBC Windsor on Riverside Drive in the late 1960s.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise to report to the House on the work of the Liberal task force on northern priorities.

Last week the member for Timiskaming, the member for Kenora and I travelled to a number of communities in northeastern Ontario, including Kapuskasing, Hearst, Hornepayne, Wawa, Sault Ste Marie, Bruce Mines and Sudbury. As we talked and listened to the people in these communities, a number of issues were raised. I will highlight but one of them.

The people in these communities are losing their jobs, their livelihoods, because of the outright attack on forest workers by the Rae government. Reforestation efforts have been sharply curtailed, with 30 million fewer trees being planted in the crown forests of Ontario. Tending of the forest has decreased by 50% since Lyn McLeod was the Minister of Natural Resources. Jobs have been lost, people are not working, and now we have a new tax on northern jobs.

Lyn McLeod has been leading the fight against the 43% increase in stumpage fees and the doubling of area charges. These taxes on northern jobs are unacceptable. Northern jobs are becoming an endangered species with this government.

On behalf of the northern people and the northern communities, Lyn McLeod and the Liberal caucus demand a rescinding of this tax on northern jobs, northern workers and the northern environment.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The Minister of Transportation issued a press release this morning indicating that legislation would be introduced today permitting the use of longer trucks in Ontario. We have been informed that no statement would be made in the House, thus depriving me of the opportunity to respond.

It's about time that the Ontario trucking industry was given this kind of relief.

The Liberals feigned interest in this subject by introducing legislation in their last session immediately before their calling an unnecessary election. Longer truck lengths could and should have been adopted before that election was called. At that time the PC party supported the longer truck legislation, although the NDP was vociferous in its opposition.

In December 1990, the then Minister of Transportation said that the NDP would not be prepared to proceed with the lengthening of trucks.

This Minister of Transportation has credited the work done by me and my caucus colleagues in articulating the benefits of longer trucks with having caused him to reconsider the issue. I'm delighted that he has seen the light and is bringing legislation forward today.

The Ontario trucking industry is an industry in crisis, and this government has done little for it. The diesel fuel tax hurt the industry, and so has this government's procrastination on longer truck lengths.

Finally there will be a level playing field for Ontario truckers. Ontario will no longer be an island of uncompetitiveness.

CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS PICNIC

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Along with my colleagues Mr O'Connor, Mr Mills and Mr Pilkey, I had the opportunity last Saturday of attending the 47th annual CAW picnic in Oshawa.

This was the first one to be held on the grounds of their new union hall, which overlooks Lake Ontario and sits on the border between Whitby and Oshawa. It was a remarkable success despite problems with parking and the inevitable bugs that emerge the first time you stage a major event.

The CAW picnic features a huge number of rides, family activities, many balloons, soft drinks and refreshments, a huge and humming activity centre.

Unlike my friend and colleague Larry O'Connor, I'm not a member of the CAW, yet I've been a guest on many occasions over the last 20 years. For example, I recall that the first time I attended, it was as a worker with the developmentally challenged, who were included in their festivities. Through their generosity, the CAW brings in the local community.

This was the first opportunity I had to congratulate John Kovacs, the newly elected president of the local.

I met many of my constituents who work at General Motors and some of the other plants that 222 has organized.

The CAW has a long and proud history in our community and in our country, and it started in my community in Oshawa and in my riding in north Oshawa. For example, right now the CAW is entering into negotiations with General Motors, and they promise to be long and hard ones.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With the focus of attention riveted on the issue of crime and the ability of our justice system to deal adequately with it, the question of profits derived from crime has once again come to the forefront.

People in our society are naturally and justifiably revolted by the thought of those who commit a crime making a profit either directly or indirectly from such an action. The possibility that the perpetrator of a crime may gain wealth and fortune from selling a personal story to a publication or an electronic media outlet provokes anger and outrage in the hearts and minds of the population, particularly when victims and their loved ones have been subjected to heartbreak and sorrow.

I call upon the Attorney General to enact legislation to prohibit the making of a profit from the sale of information about a crime committed by the informant. Such a law would receive speedy and, I am confident, unanimous support from all members of this House or any other parliamentary body.

Legislators who are in tune with the wishes of their constituents will be eager to address this genuine concern on the part of the overwhelming majority of the public.

The justice system must reflect a general consensus of the citizens of our province to inspire the kind of confidence and support it requires to serve us well. The enactment of such legislation will be a step in the right direction in the restoration of this confidence and support.

MASSASAUGA PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I think we all recognize that these are recessionary times. As part of the social contract negotiations, the Premier has asked municipalities to reduce their expenditures. These cutbacks will result in salary rollbacks and layoffs in many cases. It is difficult, therefore, to understand why the government would proceed with its plans to establish Massasauga Provincial Park, also known as Blackstone Park, in the township of the Archipelago.

The cost of staffing and maintaining the park, as well as building a proposed new park office, could cost the Ontario taxpayers, for certain, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. This is money the taxpayers just do not have.

I am particularly concerned about the lack of cooperation with the municipality that has been displayed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Apparently, a policy paper released by the ministry late last autumn states that parks within the jurisdiction of a municipality are not subject to the bylaws and policies of that municipality. During the recent renovations of Calhoun Lodge, which is located in the park, the Archipelago's bylaw inspector was not allowed to examine the site, despite his numerous health, safety and building concerns.

The municipality is responsible for increased maintenance costs of Healey Lake Road due to the increased traffic. The Archipelago is 100% responsible for the operation of the waste transfer statement.

The ministry does appear to have the money, however, to plan a fireworks extravaganza on the opening of the park this Saturday. The ministry doesn't appear to have either the money or the staff to proceed properly, so my question is, why proceed at all?

GLENFIELD SPORTS CLUB

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Again, I rise to talk about a positive that has come out of the Yorkview community, a positive that, in my opinion, marks a very historical year for us as well: the 25th anniversary of the Glenfield Sports Club.

Growing up in Yorkview all my life, I know baseball has always been a way of life for us, a way of life for me. At seven years old I joined my first team, 25 years ago, and played second base for that team. I'll never forget it. This year marks the 25th anniversary.

I want everybody in this place to please honour all of the coaches and the volunteers who give their time to this organization. Priority has always been for the children, and it hasn't stopped for 25 years.

If I may, I'd like to honour Pat Scenna, Laura Scott, Kathy McMillan, Laurie Langhorst, Ed Bobbitt, Danny Clyke, Graig Martia, Frank Carbone, Steve Lucas, Joe Cosentino, Gary Coleman, Danny Malkos, Sil Miniali, Norm Moore, Joe Santoli, Kirk Hancock and, of course, the president and the chair of Glenfield Sports Club, who joins us with his sons, David and Michael, Mr Doug McMillan, who's doing a marvellous job.

I want to thank them for coming down and I want to thank you for listening to me.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's of interest to all of us on this side of the House that a controversy has been developing over the last several months and over the last several years about the introduction of 53-foot trailers on the highways of Ontario. It was announced by way of press release today. Our member from Nepean has continually asked the Minister of Transportation to come into the House and make the announcement. They have chosen not to come to the people's chamber to tell us about a new policy change.

We would ask, Mr Speaker, that you look into that as a point of order, bearing in mind that there have been non-replies to questions in the House on a daily basis from the member for Nepean. If we hadn't been asking for something to be done we could understand it, but the Minister of Transportation is here, could have made a statement and could have given due credit to the member for Nepean for his work on this issue.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, he will know that personal understanding or even sympathy on the part of the Speaker does not replace the standing orders. He does not have a point of order. It is, however, time for oral questions. A point of order, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member opposite becomes at times, if not insatiable, very impatient. I just glanced at the proceedings, orders of the day, and I see that ample opportunity is given under introduction of bills. Mr Speaker, you are the master of this House and very cognizant of each and every rule and I only wish that your expertise and wisdom would rub off on the member of the opposition. All he has to do is wait a few hours.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In this case, there is a point of order inasmuch as we have no opportunity to reply to the introduction of a bill on first reading. You know that; I know that. He will be making a statement of government policy around the introduction of this bill in this House, even if it is today, and the opposition has no opportunity to reply.

We wouldn't feel quite so slighted by this process if the Minister of Transportation was going to give due credit to the member for Nepean for his hard work on this and, indeed, even the members of the third party on this, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, from our experience the New Democrats give no credit -- they take a bunch of it, you know; their budget really speaks of it, but I think that he, already acknowledging he's going to bring this in, should make a statement so we can all have a chance to reply to this important public policy change.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: It would appear that the minister has indeed somewhat misled us, suggesting that at the time of introduction of bills we have an opportunity to respond --

The Speaker: No, the member does not want to suggest that another member is misleading anyone in here.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement so we could respond.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the Minister of Transportation to make a statement? No. Rather than the introduction of bills, perhaps we'll start with oral questions, and it's the member for Ottawa East.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My question today would have been directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but in his absence I will go to the Premier. Your social contract has received another setback yesterday: the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the regional chairs of this province rejected the terms of the draft sectoral agreement dictated by your government under Bill 48.

I want to remind the Premier that our caucus has opposed Bill 48 from day one. Like the municipalities, we felt it was flawed and unworkable and yesterday's results from AMO and the regional chairs are of no surprise and, as our leader pointed out repeatedly, one size fits all doesn't always work in the province of Ontario, especially at the municipal level.

I want to remind the Premier that municipalities in this province are willing to work with your government to find a solution to our problem. I say "our problem" because we are all responsible people, I hope.

What is the province planning to do to respond to the municipalities' concern, and are you willing to sit down with AMO and regional chairs to find a solution?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): My answer to my good friend from Ottawa East -- and I hope partisanship hasn't reached a point where I can't speak those words in the House, because he is a good friend to all of us -- and say to him -- and I would say the same thing to my colleague from Bruce --

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): What have you got against Ben?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Parry Sound is heckling me. He and I are going to be together on Friday, so I'm not sure why he'd be ashamed of that association.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I can hear him now: "Me and the Premier brung you this cheque."

Hon Mr Rae: No, I think it will be, "Me and the Premier brung you this demonstration."

The simple answer to the member for Ottawa East is that I think the truth about the situation in terms of the positions that have been taken by the board of directors at AMO and by the regional chairs is that if you look at the actual resolution that was passed, the resolution states very clearly, as opposed to some of the headlines and the various editorial judgements that have been made with respect to the statements, that they are willing and eager to work within the framework and the context of the social contract legislation to reach a sectoral agreement with the government with respect to municipalities.

We have indicated very clearly this morning to them and to the regional chairs that we are ready, willing and able to meet any time. I hope that meetings can be started under way today. I see no reason for a delay. We're very eager to reach a settlement, and I believe that should be possible. So when you ask the question, am I willing to meet --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- the answer to that is, "Absolutely." I'm not sure that's going to be necessary at this point because there are negotiations that are well under way. The negotiators have a clear mandate from the government and from the cabinet, and we look forward very much to an amicable and successful resolution of these discussions.

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Premier, your offer of friendship -- I've just been reminded that I'm going to lose 36 friends on this side of the House if I accept your friendship. But now to my supplementary.

Mr Premier, I don't have to remind you that today is July 14, and your August 1 deadline is fast approaching. We are within two weeks, and many local municipalities are still meeting with local unions, trying to meet your deadline.

They are very concerned about the deferral cost. They can live with the three-year salary freeze, but the 36 days that some municipal employees will accumulate over three years will cost my regional municipality some $10 million, so where is the economy?

Even if local municipalities succeed in finding cuts, they won't be eligible for the reduced targets. As you know, under Bill 48, a local employer is only eligible for the 20% reduction in transfer payment cuts if a sectoral agreement is reached.

Given that AMO and the regional chairs have now rejected your proposal, Mr Premier, if local municipalities do meet their target, their cuts, will you give them the extra 20% for having done a good job?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me start with what I still believe is the reality. The reality underlying all the furore and so on is that the municipalities and so on come back with a set of concerns about what they would like in the agreement, which I think is perfectly understandable, is part of the bargaining process. We're ready, willing and able to do that under the sectoral process.

If there is a successful sectoral agreement, obviously any local agreements that are reached will meet the 20% target. I think the member knows full well the purpose of having the 20% reduction there; it's very clear. The purpose of it is to encourage people to reach agreements and to encourage that they be reached within a sectoral context and with a sectoral understanding that provides for the adequate protection of employees.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): The terms of friendship I'd be pleased to discuss only if the Premier will come to Dunnville to discuss some unmet promises back there.

Bill 48 is not working. Mr Premier, will you not admit this to be true? Bring in something that works and give municipalities the options and flexibility they need to make local cuts.

Hon Mr Rae: I think that what we're finding in fact again, despite all the rhetoric and the position that has been taken by the official opposition, as I understand it, you're opposed to the restraint legislation. You seem to be opposed to people meeting targets. You're opposed to this happening. That's the Liberal position.

The member who has just spoken, I know what the people in his riding are feeling and thinking with regard to this issue. The Liberals' position has been no to the restraint legislation, no to the kinds of positions that we've had to take, no to this, no to that, no to any realistic attempts to deal with it.

The flexibility that needs to be shown will be shown at the bargaining table. That's what we're demonstrating. We're sitting down with our own employees. It's not easy. There are going to be differences. Sometimes you have to be firm; sometimes you have to be flexible. We're trying as hard as we can to reach agreements in a very difficult circumstance.

But I would have thought that the honourable member who has just spoken from Brant county would say very clearly and would understand as keenly as anyone that it is in the interests of the public that there be settlements and that there be negotiations and that there be agreements.

I would have thought what the member for Brant would be standing up and saying is, "Premier, we might have had some differences in the past, but whatever those differences are, we're all agreed on the need to encourage people to talk, to encourage negotiation, to encourage flexibility and to discourage the kind of rhetoric which makes it harder to reach agreements," instead of which the Liberal opposition seems to be promoting the kind of rhetoric which makes it harder to reach settlements.

I am truly surprised by the positions that have been taken by the Liberal Party --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- which put partisanship clearly ahead of the public interest. We put the public interest ahead of partisanship.

Mr Eddy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wish to advise the House that I represent the riding of Brant-Haldimand.

The Speaker: The member indeed has a point of order.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It should be very clear by now that Lyn McLeod had basically suggested what AMO has been asking for for some time, and she's done it for several months. We put the option for these people to use, and they've rejected our option.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): In the absence of Mrs Ziemba, who is the Minister of Citizenship, I'd like to put the question to the Attorney General. Well reported is a report that comes out of the Ontario Human Rights Commission which suggests that the people will reverse the presumption of innocence in regard to certain legal proceedings being taken in the province of Ontario. This is something that is a major departure. Even thinking about convicting people prior to any kind of investigation or otherwise is a major change in the direction of justice in this province.

I want the Attorney General to advise the House today that her government will not stand for this, and I want to understand what action she has taken and the Minister of Citizenship has taken to make sure that justice not only is done but is seen to be done.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm grateful to the member opposite for the question because we are deeply concerned by this report this morning as well. I've spoken with the Minister of Citizenship who, like me, has not seen the report herself. We understand this report was commissioned by the Human Rights Commission as an advisory report on where to go.

It certainly in no way reflects the position of this government or the province of Ontario, where the presumption of innocence is absolutely the foundation of our legal system. We are both looking at the issue and waiting to see the report before we make any further comment.

Mr Elston: It seems really unusual for us in this House that a minister of the crown who is charged with responsibility for a major portfolio, including human rights, and the justice minister in this government, which came into power, I might say, uttering words about fairness and justice for all, would not be aware after several months that a report of this nature is haunting the halls of power in this place.

I want to understand how it is that the Young report has gone undetected when in fact there have been major discussions about the activities at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. There have been wholesale discussions about the activities that it will be undertaking.

I want the Attorney General, if she is unable to do it herself, to refer the question and ask the Minister of Citizenship how she could be unaware of this sort of report that presumes people to be guilty before investigation or before a proceeding in front of the Human Rights Commission. Why was she unaware that this is even being talked about?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member opposite is well aware that I cannot refer the question to my colleague once I have answered. He is quite aware of that.

The second thing that he is also well aware of, as everyone in this House is, is that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a quasi-judicial body that operates at arm's length from the government. This government did not commission this report. This government does not own this report. In no way do we condone the kind of conclusions reached by the author of this report.

Mr Elston: It's very interesting, the damage control that is being undertaken by this administration today. The report has been around since October. It has been unavailable, at least in its form, to the minister. Maybe it has been in her office. Maybe it has been someplace. Somebody knows about it.

But today we are told that a covering memo, undated, was released to the staff and to others that talks about not only the Young report but also Arnold Minors's report and others so as to construct a tale that they are looking for creative recommendations out of all the reports.

There is a plethora of reporting going on at that place, studies and other things which the Minister of Citizenship not only should know about but, if she were interested, should in fact be involved in, because of the issues raised about human rights in this province.

I want to know why these memos are being used to cover up and to construct a story around these types of reports. Will the minister tell us when she will investigate this type of reconstructive history being carried on by this administration when it is trying to change the onus or the presumption of innocence of people in this province?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We have already begun an investigation to find out exactly what has transpired here. But I would remind the member that he would probably be the first one to be very disturbed if he felt that there were any political influence or pressure being brought to bear on a quasi-judicial body like the Human Rights Commission.

Mr Elston: This is public policy. You are changing the justice system.

Hon Mrs Boyd: It is not public policy in Ontario.

Mr Elston: You didn't put a stop to it. Put a stop to it.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member opposite is well aware that the necessity for the Minister of Citizenship to maintain an arm's-length distance from this commission is very important. It's very important to us all. We have, however, both of us as ministers who are concerned about the kind of publicity that would surround a suggestion like this initiated an inquiry to find out exactly what is going on. I would repeat that we share the concern that the member has. This is not appropriate on behalf of the authors.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I want to follow up with the same question that has been raised concerning the story this morning in the Toronto Sun, that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has recommended that a person accused of racism should be guilty until proven innocent.

This is pretty straightforward, you know what I mean? I've got the report here. I don't know why you haven't read it, considering how long it has been around and you're responsible, Madam Attorney General, for justice in this province, and your colleague is responsible, or at least you say you're supposed to be responsible.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: The Premier interjects, "We're not doing anything." That's exactly the problem. You're not doing anything. There's no leadership. There's no direction. A lot of these agencies and boards and commissions are totally out of control, spending taxpayers' money, running amok, commissioning reports that presumably the taxpayers are going to pay for.

I want to ask the Attorney General this, and I don't want to hear that it's not your responsibility or that it belongs to the Minister of Citizenship. I don't want to hear about the commission being at arm's length. I don't want to hear the proposals are at the discussion stage.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Tell us what you want.

Mr Harris: What I want to hear and what the people of this province want to hear, from the Attorney General, the minister responsible for justice in this province, is that this is totally unacceptable, you reject it, quit wasting your time studying it, no way in Ontario while you're the Attorney General. Will you say that today?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Yes, much less histrionically I already did in answer to the first question.

Mr Harris: We had 20 minutes today for statements by the ministers where a statement could have been made. All day we've had this report being carried on radio stations, being read in the newspapers. We've not heard a peep, not a peep from the Premier, from the Attorney General or from the Minister of Citizenship. "I want to read the report," they've said.

What we want you to do is disavow any hint or scent or anything that has to do with allowing this kind of statement to be any way affiliated with any justice system here in the province of Ontario. Will you leave this chamber, will you now go public, will you issue a statement, will you say, "No way will we have anything to do with it," because you still haven't said that.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm so delighted that the member opposite has so much energy as a result of his recent absence from the House that he can use all this energy in this histrionic way.

Of course this is not the policy of this government. It is not the policy in Ontario. It is a report that was commissioned by a commission, and many opinions get expressed in the course of various groups asking for opinions. I must say that if we were to look at social assistance or child care or any of the other policy matters, we see many groups and many individuals expressing views on many social policy issues that governments don't accept and do not put into any play.

The Minister of Citizenship this morning quite clearly denied in a media scrum --

Mr Harris: No, she didn't.

Hon Mrs Boyd: She did indeed. She said that the presumption of guilt was in no way part of the policy of this government.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: Why would we take seriously an idea like this when we haven't read it, we are only taking the word of the media and it's really impossible for us to comment any further than to say this is not government policy and will not be?

Mr Harris: I'd like to ask the Attorney General why we had no statement at any time today until question period started from the minister responsible for justice, and can you tell me how much this report cost, who commissioned it and why?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I can't tell him how much it cost, but I'm sure the Minister of Citizenship would be happy to report that to him. It was commissioned by the commission itself, which is responsible for its own budget. It is not our responsibility to report on the way in which it deals with it. It is our responsibility --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You're damn right it's your responsibility; it's taxpayers' money.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Has the minister completed her response?

Hon Mrs Boyd: It would be improper for us to intervene at that close level, as political people, in the operation of an organization that is quasi-judicial. If we did so, you would be the first to criticize us.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: If it's not the government's and the cabinet's responsibility, I don't know whose responsibility it is. You're in charge. You're supposed to be running this province. Obviously, everything is running amok because you say, "It's not our responsibility."

The Speaker: And your second question?

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My next question is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell this House and everyone watching today if he's acquired any new appliances recently?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I don't know what the member is talking about.

Mr Harris: I think it's pretty straightforward. I asked if you had acquired any new appliances. Just yes or no would have answered that, or you could have told us.

According to Ontario Hydro, this is a very important question. They spent $1.3 million on a poll to find out if people tell their neighbours when they get a new appliance. They also asked clients, for $1.3 million worth of poll and information, how strongly they agreed with statements such as, "It is important to be in love and have a love relationship that lasts." Then this question, for $1.3 million: "Do you agree or disagree that often people get ahead just by being lucky?"

Our freedom of information request says Hydro spent $1.3 million for this survey, and if you complete it right away you're eligible for a trip for two to Hawaii or a big-screen TV, at a time when Ontario Hydro is expecting a $1.6-billion loss. We all know what's wrong at Ontario Hydro. How can you justify $1.3 million worth of expense for a poll, a survey, that's asking these kinds of questions?

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps the honourable member would like to share the whole survey with us. Obviously, I haven't seen it. I don't know what he's talking about. I don't know where he gets his information from. I don't know what it's based on.

Mr Harris: Premier, I get it from freedom -- this is what's wrong. The Attorney General doesn't know: "Oh, we're arm's length. We're not responsible." You are responsible for Ontario Hydro.

Despite the embarrassing nature of this $1.3-million survey and the ridiculousness of the questions, it's really indicative of a very serious problem. Ontario Hydro has a $34-billion debt. It's laying off 6,000 employees. It says it wants the province to forgive its $100-million social contract payment.

They didn't need a survey of any kind to tell them what the public thinks of Ontario Hydro. Hydro costs too much. It's out of control. It's run amok. Time and time again in this Legislature, I've raised the ridiculous examples of waste, of poor tendering practices, and it seems to me as if nothing has changed since the Liberals said they were in charge and Hydro had run amok and was out of control.

Can you tell me when you're going to be able to stand in this place and say: "We're responsible. We, the cabinet, are responsible. We're in charge here and we are answerable"? When are you going to get Ontario Hydro under control?

Hon Mr Rae: Whenever I hear from a Tory on the subject of Ontario Hydro and they talk about the cost of Ontario Hydro -- let me tell the honourable member something that perhaps he doesn't realize and perhaps he doesn't know. Ontario Hydro has been awash in debt. That debt started in the mid-1970s. It was caused by the decisions that were made by the Tory government, by the Tory party, of which he was the most loyal supporter. It was continued by the Liberal Party -- of which the members who've been today taking questions about Hydro.

The issues about Hydro are not about a poll. The issues about Hydro are about a nuclear project which was supposed to cost $3.5 billion under his government, and under the previous government rose to nearly $14 billion. That's the issue at Ontario Hydro. The issue at Ontario Hydro is a utility that was out of control and has been brought under control by a chairman who deserves the support.

I say to the honourable member, you tell me when, under the Tory government, there was a rate freeze at Ontario Hydro. You tell me when, under a Tory government, there was a chairman who had the courage and the straightforwardness to say there are going to have to be changes. Instead of the kinds of trivial questions you're asking, why don't you ask something important which relates to public policy and which truly matters? You should be embarrassed by your approach today, embarrassed by what you've just said.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I haven't had that much applause in a long time. That response by the Premier reminds me of C.D. Howe, "So what's a million?" That's Bob Rae, "What's a million bucks?" He says it's a trivial question.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I want to go back to the Attorney --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. It may be a novelty, but I thought we'd try one question at a time. The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: To the Attorney General, there has been a considerable amount of tension recently around a criminal court case in this province, and there is considerable outrage at the prospect that criminals can make money from the proceeds of selling their stories to the media, wherever those people are. I want the Attorney General to tell us today that she will be moving expeditiously to introduce legislation to prevent criminals from making money from the results of their crimes.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm not prepared to make that commitment today, but I certainly told the standing committee on administration of justice and the subcommittee that was looking into victims' rights that it is an idea I am prepared to study in all its ramifications. I am not closed to it at all, but I also need to be very clear about what the ramifications would be of interfering with the rights of someone who has been a perpetrator of a crime and has been convicted of that crime. But I'm not closed to the idea. I certainly know this is something that incenses a large number of citizens in the province and certainly is something that we're prepared to look at seriously.

Mr Elston: I don't understand and the people don't understand why it is that this Attorney General can't stand in her place and say that presuming somebody is guilty until they prove themselves innocent is wrong, and I don't understand why this Attorney General won't stand up and say that she will introduce legislation, which this caucus will support straightaway, that will prevent criminals from taking advantage and making money from their crimes.

We expect you would want to have the legislation say that any money even offered that was accepted and that was discovered by the crown would be taken for the purposes of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Why can't you just make one decision, which the public is crying out in this province to have taken? It's simple and it's necessary. Why will she not give us that undertaking, and the undertaking to the public, that she will be acting expeditiously?

Hon Mrs Boyd: In answer to the

preamble, I have said very clearly in this House that this government and this province do not in any way accept any kind of change in policy that would presume people guilty, not innocent, so his statement that I had not made that commitment is wrong. I have been very clear about that.

Number two, the member opposite probably knows also that one of our former members, the late Jim Renwick, brought into this Legislature some 15 years ago a very comprehensive bill which would have had the same effect as he is suggesting. It was not passed by the Conservative government of the day. In the five years that this Liberal Party was in power, it made no move to do this. I am a responsible enough Attorney General that I would want to look at all the implications of this, because I assume that my colleagues on the other side of the House had some reason for not leaping with alacrity to pass such

an act.

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

Mr Harris: I think Leslie Frost tried to do it and you guys blocked it. I'm not sure, though. That would be a good excuse. How about the member for Burlington's victims' rights bill? How long are you going to let that sit on the back burner?

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. On Monday, the member for Don Mills asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs about your government's social contract proposals for municipalities. I would have asked him, except this morning the minister said, "I didn't know municipalities had a problem," so obviously there's no point in asking him, and this social contract is yours.

The proposal, of which I have a draft copy, looks more like it's designed to increase the clout of unions in running our municipalities than it is to cut costs.

What I simply want to know is this: If the goal is to cut 5% from the cost, if that's what it's all about, why is it that you fill up your proposals with union management rights, all the other rhetoric, giving more power to unions, putting barriers in the way of municipalities that truly want to help you, that want to comply, that want to cut costs 5%? The only reason they can't is because of all the barriers you put in the way. Can you explain that?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The spirit of the social contract clearly is to forge new partnerships. We need a new way of doing business in the province. We need a new way in which both municipalities and the provincial government can work with unions, can work with business, and that's the whole thrust of the social contract. I'm sorry that the honourable member is still in the dinosaur age of management and doesn't see that this is the way in which you do business.

Mr Harris: I think, Minister, if you were present when the Premier showed you the W5 show -- I know he showed it to everybody about five times -- the goal wasn't about giving unions more power; the goal was to cut the size and cost of government, to cut the payroll of the civil service. It was too big, it was unaffordable and taxpayers couldn't sustain that level. The municipalities said, "We agree," and we said, "We agree."

They tried to help you, and every time they give you a proposal for how they can cut their share by 5%, you put the $30,000 barrier in the road. In many municipalities, the majority of their employees are under $30,000. You put the barrier in the road with all this other rhetoric of allowing non-elected union heads to run the municipality, to make the decisions that should be made by the elected representatives.

Minister, just because you're at arm's length from every decision you don't like, municipalities want to be hands-on, accountable, responsible. I would ask you again, why do you keep putting these barriers in front of municipalities and the transfer partners, preventing them from saving the 5%?

Hon Mr Philip: There is nothing in the social contract proposal that in any way negates that the bottom line is that the elected representative, be it at the provincial level or at the municipal level, makes the final policy decisions; there's absolutely nothing in those contract proposals. For the honourable leader of the third party to suggest otherwise is just being outright mischievous and is not adding to the ability of our reaching an agreement.

I realize that the policy of his government is to cut in a mindless way without consultation. That's not the policy of this government. We don't think it's worked elsewhere and we think we have a better solution to dealing with people through cooperation rather than bang, bang, bang.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. In my riding of Wentworth North, we have three community information centres; There's one in Dundas, one in Ancaster and one in Flamborough. All across the province, community information centres are in touch with the needs of their communities.

Like many other institutions, they are concerned about the impact of the government's spending restraints. They are worried about their ability to continue to do their valuable work. They're also concerned about the impact of the social contract on their ability to deliver the services they provide.

Minister, what can I tell the CICs in my riding about their future? What will you do to ensure that they can continue to operate and that my constituents will continue to have access to CIC services?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): Like the member for Wentworth North, I've long recognized the important value of community information centres in our communities. In fact, I used to teach working people, through union counsellor courses around this province, about the value of them.

I was very proud when my colleague the Honourable Karen Haslam announced in this House in December 1992 the first-ever provincial stable ongoing funding for community information centres in the amount of $1.1 million. Since that time, our ministry has developed distribution criteria for that money in order to distribute it fairly to CICs to support their on-line Ontario network throughout this province and to develop the automated database that they need to work.

The social contract implications to the community information centres amount to a reduction of 0.76% decrease in transfer payments to them overall. This is not seen as having any major staff impact on them.

The last thing I should point out is that there are also project grants that go to community information centres from my ministry. The overall pool for that is $100,000, and like the funding I referred to of the $1.1 million stable funding, both of those figures we've managed to protect, in spite of the fiscal climate in the province this year --

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- because of the important role the community information centres play.

Mr Abel: Thank you, Madam Minister. In your response, you had mentioned that there was $100,000 for project grants that was to be directed towards automating centres that are currently not part of the on-line Ontario network. Will the social contract affect this budget?

Interjections.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I could not hear that.

The Speaker: Could the member just read the question part, the interrogative?

Mr Abel: I had asked, as to the $100,000 for project grants that was to be directed towards automating centres that are currently not part of the on-line Ontario network, will the social contract affect this budget?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: No, it will not affect project grants. The purpose of those project grants is to help automate centres that are not now a part of the on-line Ontario information network, so it's more a capital expenditure that those dollars go for.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I've asked you some questions in the past about the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, and I'd like to refer you to what I consider to be really a crisis in that health and safety agency.

In an attempt, since we last discussed this, to understand the many complaints I've received about the operation of this agency, I've met with the agency's two vice-chairs and researched their activities. I have no choice but to arrive at the conclusion that misinformation, mismanagement and misdirection are the order of the day at this agency. By way of example:

(1) The neutral chair, Vic Pathe, quit and has never been replaced.

(2) Thirteen high-level staff have quit or been fired in less than two years under unusual circumstances.

(3) Five employer board reps have resigned from the agency.

(4) A small business advisory council has been set up, as promised, but has yet to meet.

(5) Recently, Shelley Schleuter, the chair of the management advisory committee, has quit in complete frustration with the activities.

Minister, what in the world is going on at this agency, and how do you plan to bring it under control?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The agency went through some initial growing pains. It's a major operation; it is responsible for health and safety right across the province. It has just finished the certification program. It has a full board, management and labour, an equal number, which is working at the present time and working very effectively.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: My colleague says, is he talking about the same agency? I have to wonder that.

Let me read from this letter dated June 23, from the chair of the advisory committee from management, Ms Shelley Schleuter. She says with regard to her decision to resign as chair:

"I have come to this decision out of frustration and a growing sense of futility. I'm frustrated that the efforts of the past year and a half have still not produced a process that is open, direct and free from manipulation by agency staff and the vice-chairs.

"The continued absence of a neutral chair and misinformation in official agency newsletters are just two examples of repeated concerns that have not been adequately addressed.

"The two vice-chairs say that they have reached consensus on the merger of the safety delivery organizations, but if this is so, the question is, why doesn't Dennis Timbrell at the OHA or Irene Krahn at the COSHA know about this consensus? Why are the majority of training sites for the certification programs in union halls around this province instead of on the job sites or in the universities or colleges where they were originally planned to be?

"This is simply just furthering labour's agenda at the expense of management in the delivery of proper health and safety information in this province."

In light of all of these allegations, backed up I might add by letters from Mr Timbrell, Ms Krahn and from others very upset with the function of this agency, will the minister appoint a neutral chair to replace Mr Pathe immediately to rein in these two vice-chairs and restore some confidence in the business community and in this program?

Minister, it takes two to tango. You're on a one-way street. We've got to get management and labour working together. Will you appoint that neutral chair immediately to take charge of this agency before it self-destructs?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think some of the concern of the member across the way surfaced in the middle of his question, that is, with the mergers of some of the health delivery agencies. We had 12 of them in the province of Ontario, and there is no justification in tough times for that duplication of effort.

The board itself at the agency is trying to cut that down to four. They're working on that, successfully, I might say, and they are doing it as a joint board with an equal number of labour and management people on that board. I think they have been successful, and I think it's now working very well.

SECURITY AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Twice in recent months I've asked the minister about cell bars, locks and security systems that are defective in several correctional facilities, courthouses and OPP stations. The defects include jail bars that are soft rather than tool-resisting steel and security systems which show a cell to be secure when in fact the door is unlocked.

When I asked about this serious situation on May 10, the minister said: "Actions are being taken with the contractor responsible.... We're proceeding to investigate other installations."

Sources tell me that so far the investigation has discovered deviations at every site that has been inspected. However, apparently the same contractor continues to bid on Ontario government projects. Minister, surely allowing this firm to bid on jails is like letting the fox design the hen-house. Will you take action to prevent this contractor from bidding on government projects?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): As has been said by myself and I believe my colleague the Minister of Correctional Services on a number of occasions in response to this issue, the matter has been investigated by the government. As I understand it, the OPP is looking at aspects of this issue, so I can't comment any further on the specific investigation. The results of those investigations, though, I think will speak very clearly to the issues that the member raises.

Mrs Marland: I don't think the minister heard my question. You said you would take action with the contractor responsible for these serious security problems. It is not enough to require that the contractor fix the defective work and pay for the replacement costs; the contractor should also be required to pay the full costs of having to defer the opening of the new Mimico corrections facility until the locks on 96 doors have been replaced.

What I would like to know is: Will this contractor be required to pay for the delays at Mimico? You had already hired the staff and they're sitting doing nothing because they're unable to work in a facility that won't open. And why in heaven's name would you allow this contractor, who, by your own admission a few minutes ago, is under investigation, to continue to bid on government work?

Hon Mr Charlton: It seems to me we had a discussion here in this House less than an hour ago with the leader of the third party raising a question about presumption of innocence. There is an ongoing investigation, but this minister and his colleagues aren't going to convict anybody until we've seen the results of those investigations.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In today's paper, there's an

article on page A12 that has some rather --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Which paper, Wiseman?

Mr Wiseman: The Toronto Star. I wouldn't want to leave you -- as if you know how to read, anyway.

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization has reported some alarming statistics having to do with the disappearance of agricultural land. It says, "If things continue as they are, the rising population and the shrinking land base are going to meet each other -- let us say in 30 years' time."

It also says, "Analysis of man-made land degradation raises a fundamental question: Are we going to have enough good land to feed the extra 2.6 billion people who will be on this planet by the year 2025?"

I rise to ask this question because all around the city of Toronto there are classes 1, 2 and 3 farm land, the best farm land in the world, and yet it is being taken out of production by man's use. Developers on a continuous basis are taking this land and are making development out of it and it's being lost to agricultural potential. I would like to ask the minister what we are doing in terms of preservation of this agricultural land.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): In terms of the

article that the honourable member refers to, it talks about the loss of topsoil, and he's also talking about the loss of farm land. There are two issues here.

One is the preservation of topsoil. Farmers are changing their way of doing things. There are groups out there across the province, soil and crop improvement associations and other groups, that are concerned with preserving topsoil and are changing the way they farm in this province, significantly over the last four or five years, in fact. Farmers are adjusting their practices so they don't lose the topsoil through erosion.

In terms of the second part of his comment about preserving agricultural land, I'm sure the member may recall and other people will remember the Sewell commission report, the final report that came out some two weeks ago, which recommended to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that we preserve all classes 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land, I believe it is. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and the government will be looking at the recommendations in that report, and I certainly hope we can implement some policies and guidelines that in fact will protect the good agricultural land that surrounds the urban centres in this province.

Mr Wiseman: I'm pleased to hear that, but while we sit here in this building, there is a building down the road in Durham called the Durham regional council, where that council is just passing carte blanche almost 22,000 acres of good land into an official plan. This land will be lost over the next 20 years. This land's equivalent size is the size of the city of Toronto, yet nobody is even interested in worrying about the preservation of this agricultural land in Durham region.

I think we need to act, and I would like to know how it is that the Sewell commission or any other policies will prevent this kind of irresponsible rezoning and official plan amendment creation?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Official plan amendments and the official plans themselves are approved and sanctioned by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs; also, my ministry usually comments on those official plan amendments when they involve agricultural land. The area that the member refers to I understand is good agricultural land and I would, in response to his question, hope that the two ministries would make the appropriate and correct response when it comes to preserving farm land in his riding.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. On May 17, the Premier told this House that although the municipalities of the province did not support the disentanglement reforms, the government was planning to move ahead with disentanglement.

The Premier said, and I quote, "Of course, we'd much prefer to do it on a cooperative basis with the municipalities, but the reality of social assistance and reform and the need to make those reforms is very, very clear."

Will the Minister of Community and Social Services indicate how the reforms announced will affect municipal costs and how the government intends to proceed in light of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's rejection of the disentanglement package for many, many reasons?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): The member raises a very useful question. I thank him for the opportunity to be able to say in this House, as I have been saying publicly in other forums and indeed as I had the occasion to say to AMO representatives with whom I met recently, that we remain intent on proceeding with the social assistance reform and on having to deal, within that reform, with the question of the delivery of the social assistance system as we move towards one unified system. We have said that consistently to the municipalities through the disentanglement discussions and since the disentanglement discussions have ended.

I know that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs is continuing in his discussions with municipalities around the disentanglement issues and the resulting effect of AMO turning down that agreement. We have undertaken, and I've stated this publicly as well to AMO, that before we make any decisions around the question of the delivery of social assistance under the new system we would need to have a number of significant discussions with the municipalities and we intend to do that.

Mr Eddy: Again to the minister, the matter of costs, of course, is paramount. Does the government intend to unilaterally implement disentanglement, and how much will this cost municipalities? Given the costs already implemented under the expenditure control plan and procedures under the social contract, will the minister guarantee that social assistance reforms will not create additional costs or a tax increase for ratepayers?

Hon Mr Silipo: It is not the intent of the social assistance reform to push any of the burden of additional costs on to property taxpayers, if that's the question the honourable member is asking.

Certainly he will know, from the discussions and from the agreement that had been arrived at with AMO on the disentanglement, that there was to be a tradeoff of dollars. In exchange for the province picking up the costs of general welfare, there would be an exchange of an equivalent amount of dollars in terms of unconditional grants and road grants that the municipalities would be picking up.

Exactly what will happen under the new delivery system and under the question of costs is certainly still to be sorted out, but certainly I can say it is not our intent unilaterally to shift costs to the municipalities. There has to be a sorting out of that issue and clearly, both in discussions that we are going to have through the Ministry of Community and Social Services and I know in discussions that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is continuing to have with the municipalities, we hope to be able to sort that out.

COURT REPORTERS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. You recently announced that your ministry would be automating the court reporting system in Ontario. This will effectively put 700 people, mostly women, out of work. Can you guarantee for the people of Ontario that this system will never break down?

Interjections.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member's question is not at all humorous, because this is exactly the fear that members who are working in the court system are most concerned about. There have been problems in many jurisdictions around recording, and we share his concern that the phasing in of this be done in a very careful way, that we use the appropriate kind of technology to ensure the accuracy and the completeness of the court record. That is absolutely essential.

I can assure the member that the phasing in of this will take account, as it must, of the needs of our staff. These people have only recently become part of the regular civil service as the result of an arbitration hearing, and we are working very, very hard to ensure that their rights under our agreements are fulfilled.

There will still be a need for people in this area. When transcripts need to be done, when special work needs to be done, there will obviously be a need for many of those, particularly those who are experienced in the field, to continue their work.

Mr Harnick: What concerns me is that these are 700 people, mostly women, professional people, who are going to lose their jobs for a system that the Attorney General will not guarantee.

Let me tell you, Attorney General, that when the transcript isn't there, justice hasn't been served. Access to justice disappears. Not only does access to justice disappear, but the ability to appeal a conviction is lost.

What I want to know from you is whether you'll guarantee that this will not happen and whether you will personally -- I say this and I don't mean to be funny, as your colleagues might think I mean to be, and I appreciate the fact that you told them it wasn't a funny question. But the fact is, what's going to happen to somebody who is in a situation where he or she can't appeal because the system has failed? What are you going to do about that? I want your personal guarantee, and so do the 700 people you are putting out of work, because they are the foolproof system, not your system.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is quite right. It is the responsibility of the Attorney General to ensure the integrity of the system, and that includes the availability of transcripts, and the ability of persons to appeal is very much ours. I accept that responsibility.

We will certainly not be putting into effect systems that do not have fail-safes, any more than we have now. The member is quite aware that even with personal recording now, there have been instances in which, because of fire or water damage and so on, that has happened, and because of the unavailability of a reporter. So that is a real concern. To the extent that it's ever possible, of course I would guarantee to the member that any system we would put in place, we would want to be very sure would work.

When the member talks about putting people out of work, we are indeed moving in a direction that's quite different. These folks used to be itinerant people working on a fee-for-service basis. They never knew from one year to the next how much work they would get. What we have done is bring them into the civil service, where they have the protections of the contract, and we will be ensuring, through the protections of the contract, that as much security as possible is available to these people.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item number 25.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under 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 psychotherapy; and

"Whereas these proposals will enable government to unilaterally and arbitrarily restrict payments for psychotherapy; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality mental 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 the proposal to restrict payments for psychotherapy and withdraw the proposal to allow the cabinet to make decisions with respect to the number of times patients may receive particular insured services and set maximums with respect thereto.

"The government of Ontario must reaffirm its commitment to the process of joint management and rational reform of the delivery of medical services in the province as specified under the Ontario Medical Association-government framework agreement."

I agree with this petition and have affixed my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here from many residents in my riding, residents like Anna Cook, John and Dorine McHardy, Gloria and Larry Ostrom, John Weir and Ron Flintoff, and they, the undersigned, register their opposition in the strongest terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sundays from the definition of "legal holiday" in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

They believe in the need for 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 from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my signature thereto.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to present a petition signed by scores of constituents throughout Renfrew county which reads in part:

"That the Ontario government immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it and not scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty."

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition is signed by 296 members of my riding of Sarnia and surrounding area. The petition calls on the government to reset its course to build a society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it and not to scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty.

It further calls on the government to respect the fundamental principles of free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services.

In order to comply with

section 36(

e) of our standing orders, which requires that members affix their signature to petitions, I have done so.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment,

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation, to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

That's signed by 248 people, and I affix my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to members of the provincial Parliament re amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need to keep 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 and will cause increased hardship on 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."

That's signed by 222 constituents, and I've also signed my name.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 32 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel from Orangeville, Shelburne, Caledon and Grand Valley. It's addressed to the Legislature of this province:

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

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for quality of life, religious freedom and for family time. 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 have affixed my signature to this petition.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to read this petition into the record. It says:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my 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.

"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 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."

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition signed by absolutely hundreds of residents of London North, in fact all of London. It is with regard to the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my 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.

"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 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 have signed the petitions and I support them.

GAMBLING

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition 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."

This is signed by 62 members of Murray Street Baptist Church, which is in my riding.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition for the members of the provincial Parliament re the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my 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, or Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

This petition is signed by literally hundreds of people from Algoma-Manitoulin.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to members of provincial Parliament and it reads as follows:

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

"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 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."

Mr Speaker, I support this petition. I voted against Bill 38. I would like to file it with you.

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I have a petition here with over 3,000 signatures and we're still counting. I haven't brought them all over here yet today. This was collected by the economic development agency in Niagara Falls from many different businesses within our city. It reads:

"We believe that the New Democratic government considered legalized gambling in Ontario to revitalize our recession-battered tourism industry and to provide employment.

"Each year, over 12 million visitors regularly visit our fine city. Of these 12 million visitors, it is estimated that over 70% of our tourists stay for only one day.

"We feel that one government-regulated casino would be an excellent attraction to retain tourists for longer periods.

"Increasing the percentage of overnight tourists would have a significant positive impact on the economy of Niagara Falls and the region, which would also contribute to the provincial government's increased revenue requirements.

"In

summary, we believe one regulated gambling casino will provide much-needed employment, increase tourism for our existing hospitality industry, provide an immediate and lasting improvement of our local economy and provide much-needed revenue for the provincial government.

"We therefore strongly urge you to support the establishment of one government-regulated casino in Niagara Falls."

I urge the government to respond.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly. This indeed is another positive petition requesting Sunday be maintained as a legal holiday.

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38.

"We believe that this bill defies God's laws, violates the principles of religious freedom, reduces the quality of life, removes all legal protection to workers regarding when they must work and will reduce rather than improve the prosperity of our province.

"The observance of Sunday as a non-working day was not invented by man but dates from God's creation and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people, both physically and spiritually.

"We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

Signed by 111 residents from across Ontario, I affix my signature.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have another petition signed by literally hundreds of residents in the city of London and a few residents of the county of Middlesex. It reads:

"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 the province 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."

I have signed this petition and support fully the concerns of the citizens who put their names on it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (DIMENSIONS ET POIDS)

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

Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Monsieur le Ministre, vous avez des commentaires ?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Quelques commentaires. Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Président.

This bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to bring maximum allowable dimensions of vehicles and combinations of vehicles into conformity with most North American jurisdictions.

This initiative, as you know, is indeed vital to Ontario's economic recovery. The benefits are significant. Ontario industries will save $100 million annually in transportation costs. The competitiveness of our manufacturers, shippers and truckers will indeed improve and new industry will look more favourably at locating here in Ontario.

The Ministry of Transportation will begin issuing permits allowing 16.2-metre semitrailers and 25-metre double trailer combination vehicles immediately, right now.

As I have indicated --

The Deputy Speaker: Just a brief statement. Not a speech, a brief statement.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- this is primarily an economic initiative.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: For the introduction of bills, it is very clear there is to be a very brief description of the bill, not a ministerial statement. We ask --

The Deputy Speaker: Take your chair, please. You're totally correct and had you listened, you would have heard that I told the minister not to make a speech but to make a brief statement.

Minister, please make a brief statement.

Hon Mr Pouliot: In keeping with decorum and good manners, and by way of conclusion, as I have indicated, this is primarily an economic initiative. It will make our industries more competitive, it will make consumer goods cheaper, it will of course not compromise safety in any way and of course it will not cost taxpayers one penny more.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can I ask the minister -- the critics, I don't think, and I could be corrected, have received the compendium notes for this piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: This is introduction of bills. I will verify if the compendium has been deposited. Has it been deposited?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Minister, has the compendium been deposited?

Hon Mr Pouliot: It's my understanding that all the courtesy and the rules have been adhered to meticulously. Everything has been mailed and has been mailed on time and I suspect, and I don't wish to impute motives -- let's get on with it -- you're just playing games.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I say this with all due respect. I'm not meaning to --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Trucking firms are going out of business in the province and you go through all this.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I'm certainly not looking to usurp the business of this province, but in the standing orders it says very clearly that compendium notes will be delivered previous to the announcement and we haven't received them. The only thing we've received from this ministry --

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Check your mailbox, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: We did just check the mailbox of the critic's office and the only thing we've received is the press release. The orders are very clear.

The Deputy Speaker: Just wait for a minute. Let me check it out.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, I will read something here and I'd like a reply from you. I'm referring to 38(c):

"On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics. If it is an amending bill, an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts to be amended shall be delivered to the opposition critics unless the bill amends

an act amended previously in the session."

Have you complied with this rule?

Hon Mr Pouliot: It is my understanding, with respect, Mr Speaker, that everything has been meticulously, if not religiously adhered to, one more time.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Please take your chair. I accept the statement.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I accept what the minister tells me. That's the end of it.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am the Transportation critic. I checked with my office immediately before coming here. The only thing we have had delivered is the press release. There can be no other

interpretation of this. We have only had the press release.

Mr Stockwell: Why do you say that when you know it is not true? This is the second time you have done it.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We will make you sign every piece of paper.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister, order, please. I accept what the minister has told me. I have no power of investigation whatsoever.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: A point of order -- if it's on this point of order, I will not accept it. I accept the word of the minister. I have no power of investigation. That is the decision of the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: Can I just ask for a clarification, Mr Speaker? I understand that you took the word of the minister. As far as I understood what the minister said, it was very clear, as far as he understood. Now, I don't think that would give me --

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Remember, he's an honourable member.

Mr Stockwell: And I say he's an honourable member, but all I would ask you as the Speaker to do is, considering the fact that he qualified his statement, could you ask the minister to simply check to see if in fact it's been done, because as our best information gives us, it has not been completed; it has not been done. Clearly the minister doesn't seem to know one way or the other by his qualification to the answer to the question that you put.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. A point of order has been made. You can rest assured that if a mistake was made, the minister will recognize it and he will tell me so.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member opposite -- this is the first reading of a bill -- brings a very interesting subject matter to the front. I will assure you, Mr Speaker, briefly, that not a document will reach the members opposite without an affidavit to accompany it so we have certification, for it is the second time that this kind of travesty has been allowed to take place in this House.

Mr Turnbull: Point of order.

Mr O'Connor: Causing red tape.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, take your chair.

Mr Stockwell: We don't have them.

Mr Turnbull: We just got the press release. You know it. Maybe you don't know it because you are asleep.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The ruling of the Chair has been made. I accept the word of the minister. I will not entertain any other point of order on that issue. Orders of the day.

On a point of order, the member for Sudbury.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister, you have a question, you have a point of order?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I was going to call the order of the day. Perhaps before I do that, I've been checking with the House leader's staff and the minister's staff. My understanding is that the compendiums were delivered. They were brought into the House. There was no staff available from the opposition parties to pick it up. The information is available from our members who have been holding it in the back, behind the Speaker's dais. Perhaps we can --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Chair has ruled. There's no point in coming up and debating it again. I have ruled and as far as I'm concerned, that is the end of the question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

Consideration of 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.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before we proceed, I would like to read the following:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House, in relation to Bill 96,

An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, the period of time following routine proceedings when Bill 96 is called as the first order of business until 5 pm on that same sessional day, shall be allotted to further consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 4 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House.

Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5 pm on this sessional day. At 5 pm on this sessional day those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House.

Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Chair, if I might, I would request that the parliamentary assistant be allowed to sit at the front and also that staff be permitted on the floor to help him during this debate.

The Chair: Yes, we will wait for a few minutes.

Are there any questions, comments or amendments? If so, to which sections of the bill?

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I move that clauses 1(

a) and (

b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(

a) to facilitate development of a more knowledgeable, skilled and competitive labour force that would form the basis for wealth and job creation" --

The Chair: Just indicate the sections which you are planning to amend.

Mr Ramsay: Fine. My sections I propose to amend would be clauses 1(

a) and (b), subsections 9(2), (3) and (4) and

section 18.

The Chair: Do you have any amendments?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Yes, I do, Mr Chair. I have a number of amendments, if you can bear with me here. I'm going to be moving an amendment to subsection 9(2) with regard to the board of directors.

The Chair: Just the section.

Mrs Cunningham: Just the section? Subsection 9(4.1). Subsection 12(3). We have an additional amendment to

section

Section 21. Clauses 30(1)(

a) and (b), with the regulations. Clause 30(1)(k), regulations; subsection 30(2), again the regulations, and 31, standing committee review.

The Chair: We will now entertain questions or comments to clauses 1(

a) and (b).

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Chair. I take it you'd like me to move the amendment then on the record.

I move that clauses 1(

a) and (

b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(

a) to facilitate the development of a more knowledgeable, skilled and competitive labour force that would form the basis for wealth and job creation;

"(

b) to enable business and labour, together with educators, trainers and representatives of underrepresented or disadvantaged groups, to play a significant role in the design and delivery of appropriate labour force development programs and services;

"(

i) to give Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers access to publicly funded labour force development programs and services that will, in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economies and in the context of a fair and just society, lead to the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals."

This is really the heart of this bill. Clauses 1(

a) and (

b) are really the purpose clauses of this bill that start to lay out the purpose of the establishment of OTAB and why the government wants to embark down this path.

I'm very, very concerned about the establishment of these purposes because I think everybody in the province would agree that the establishment of some sort of mechanism that would bring the different labour force partners together is a very good idea. In fact, it was Premier David Peterson's Premier's Council that brought together for the very first time in Ontario representatives of labour and business, academia and government to see how we could solve these skill-training problems of the future. This was quite a few years ago now, about five years ago, and it's taken this government a while to start to bring this together.

What concerns me very much when you look at these purposes is that this government, in writing out these purpose clauses, has really started to confuse values with purposes, because what we have here is a bunch of mush, in fact. It's very loose. It isn't very succinct and it isn't very direct. What's really missing in this bill is a vision of why we would want to bring all the labour force partners together in order to work towards developing the Ontario economy.

That's why in my amendment I've made, on the first part, on (a), the relatively small change but I think very significant change that it's not just to facilitate the development of a more knowledgeable and skilled and competitive labour force but that also, and I go on, it would form the basis of wealth creation and job creation. I think we have to put right up front in this bill what the bill is about and why we're really embarking on redesigning a whole new bureaucracy in order to bring all the players in the labour force together and to be partners.

That's not there, and I don't know why the parliamentary assistant in this case and the minister whose name is attached to this bill would not make that certainly simple change to say that, yes, it's to facilitate the development of a more knowledgeable and skilled and competitive labour force, as he has in this bill, but that the reason we're doing this is that we are trying to form a base for wealth and job creation, because that's really what we're about here.

What we're trying to do is, in this very rough transition of the Ontario economy that we see ourselves in now, where really we're seeing a province of workers who, with the new work of the future, are a little bit underskilled, if you will, is that we want to bring everybody together. That's a good idea and I compliment the government on doing that, but for what purpose? What's the vision? I think that needs to be there. I'd be happy to hear the comments of the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased to begin the debate on the amendments that are being brought forward in this committee of the whole. As the critic from the opposition party has pointed out, the purpose clause does set out why this legislation exists. I think we presented it in a very balanced way to highlight what it is we're trying to achieve in it. I would say it is visionary in the best sense of that word, that it does aim to include the labour market partners in designing and developing the training programs they will be benefiting from.

I think that is where the underlying or the main focus is for this legislation, that it will include employers and workers and potential workers in coming together to decide on the kinds of training programs they will need.

Certainly, there's been a lot of work in the province already done in the training field, and what we're doing by bringing the programs together under the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is to build on that experience in a way that we think will improve it. The improvement comes from including the labour market partners in more of the decision-making. As you know, it will be a consumer-led focus, and we think it's very important to bring them around the table to come up with the programs that are needed.

So while the critic from the opposition has suggested what he sees as a sharper focus, I think when you look at the four parts of the purpose

section together, you'll find that they do speak very directly to the ability to get the province back to work. Again, when you look at it in context, you'll see that the way it's done is the important thing that's being highlighted; that is, by bringing the labour market partners together to make sure that the programs that are designed, that they will be designing, that they will be evaluating and working on, will meet their needs.

Mr Ramsay: I really have to disagree with the parliamentary assistant, because in all four of the purposes that are laid out in the purpose clauses,

section 1 of this bill, there really isn't that sort of hard vision of what this bill's about: that it should be about redeveloping the economy, creating highly skilled workers so that we can get job creation and the generation of wealth so that we could support the social programs that we all care for very much.

We look at clause 1(

a) in the bill. Again, it's confusing values with purposes. They're good values, and they should be put elsewhere in the bill, maybe in a

preamble, to talk about the values that we all believe in. It's not that I don't believe in these values; I think the values are sound. But you need to go one step more, one more step forward, to say why the imposition of these values is important and what we're going to get out of it.

The first purpose of this bill is "to enable business and labour, together with educators, trainers and representatives of underrepresented or disadvantaged groups, to play a significant role in the design and delivery of labour force development programs and services." If that's the number one purpose of this bill, then I think we're wasting our time. That's a laudable value and it should be there, but number one, right up front should be "to facilitate the development of a more knowledgeable, skilled and competitive labour force that would form the basis of wealth and job creation."

Let's put that number one. Let's put the reason we're here: that what we're trying to do is to bring all the partners together so we create something strong and with direction and with vision, to make sure we get all Ontarians who are able to work working, and working at work of high value and high pay, because that's what we all want. That's your number one goal there, just to make sure everybody's represented. A good goal, a good value, but that shouldn't be number one up there.

Then, number two you have "to give Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers access to publicly funded labour force development programs and services that will, in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economies and in the context of a fair and just society, lead to the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness and the improvement of lives of workers and potential workers."

Again, it's great stuff, but we don't get to the point, I say to the parliamentary assistant, of why we want to accomplish that. Where does this lead us to? Sure, we want to make sure everybody has the input, to make sure we raise the school levels of all Ontarians so that we can become innovative and productive, and obviously we want to improve the lives of workers and potential workers, but let's get to the point: We want to create jobs. Why do we want to do this? We want to do this so we can create jobs in Ontario, so that people are productive and are happy about what they do and can be productive workers, paying taxes that help support the social programs we all want.

The other change I have in this amendment, which is really an addition to what we have here in the legislation, is under subclause 1(b)(i). In my last two lines, I bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant, is that why we want to be doing this is a little more realistic. We want to make sure that, in the improvement of lives of workers and potential workers, we do that by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals.

There's no point in giving any false expectation that this bill is going to improve the lives of workers and potential workers.

That's certainly a goal, we'd like to do that, but I think also we need to be making sure that we're realistic in our assessment of what we're trying to do here, realistic in what we want the partners to do; that is, to sit down with workers -- and as you know, half of this is not just training but adjustment -- and in that adjustment for workers who probably find themselves out of work, to make sure we give counsel in a realistic way, so we don't raise the expectations of people that they're going to be able to accomplish work or accomplish goals and training and skills beyond their level.

What I'm talking about is helping people to identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals so that we keep the world of realism attached to this legislation.

Mr Gary Wilson: I think in the critic's description of the benefits of the changes he's suggesting, he included much of what I would say are the benefits or the qualities that exist in our legislation. He quoted one

section in particular, under clause 1(b). We see these programs developing in a way that will "lead to the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers." Those qualities I think speak very directly to the wealth creation that would follow from those skills and abilities that workers would have.

Again, we see the purpose of the bill very clearly setting out what it is that we're trying to achieve through OTAB in a very balanced and inclusive way.

Secondly, I would like to say, as far as his second amendment about "realistic" personal development is concerned, that we have to be careful, in using that word, that it doesn't become a bit patronizing, as though somebody knows what is realistic for somebody else. One of the chief values or benefits of the way OTAB has been developed is that it very much includes the people to immediately recognize what is realistic and what isn't.

After all, if you're unemployed because you don't have certain skills or if your job disappears and you realize that you have to take adjustment programs, clearly realism is very immediate and forceful. So I think that adds nothing to the way the legislation is set out. By including the labour market partners in the decisions, in the design of the program, a great element of realism will be brought to the programs.

Mrs Cunningham: I think what's happening here is that the government is coming up with excuses not to accept some of the thoughtful recommendations that were put forward by members of the public who took the time to come before the committee. In the words of the government, this has been one of the most broad consultative processes that anyone has experienced in the province of Ontario. I think there are people who consult and listen and act, there are those who consult and don't listen, and there are those who, at worst, consult, don't listen and don't act. What we've got here is the worst scenario.

We have brought forth 20-some-odd recommendations, and I think my colleague from the Liberal caucus brought forth maybe 10 or more during the clause-by-clause in committee. The government chose to accept one Liberal recommendation for change -- it was its own; it just changed the number on it -- and two of its own, which were housekeeping, so I don't think I have to speak to this process right now, as I begin this debate, and say it was meaningless. I said it from the beginning.

It's too bad. I think we could have made up for a process where people spent hours and weeks preparing briefs to present to the government committee when they were not listened to in their local hearings. I think they at least were listened to by the committee in the public hearings here at Queen's Park, in the standing committee, but if no one takes any action as a result of good recommendations, what's the purpose? Quite frankly, I think the government hasn't spent the time on this, and I think the arguments that I've heard so far with regard to this recommendation are meaningless.

I'd like to speak in favour of my colleague's recommendation for change in this amendment, to say that the OTAB business steering committee was formed I don't know how many months ago, but perhaps a couple of years now when we take a look at the time it's taken to get to this point in the legislation. The government, by the way, likes to blame the opposition members for this, and I'd like to say that nothing's happened since the very first public consultation some two years ago. Nothing has changed as a result of it. So don't blame us, blame yourselves.

Some 13 months ago -- I suppose this would have been now almost 20 months ago -- a business steering committee was formed in order to input into the consultation process and to coordinate the activities of the business community, basically so that it could have some kind of consensus over the areas of the legislation it wanted to put its amendments to. As today we are not putting forward all of our amendments, I can tell you the business community didn't either.

It was made up of some 12 major business organizations, including the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto and the Retail Council of Canada. These are groups within their own group that have to have some kind of consensus when they're coming before committees and making presentations to any level of government.

They argued that in its present form Bill 96 fails to recognize that wealth creation is needed to achieve the bill's objectives and that it tries to be all things to all people. I think I can clearly state that when we first started to talk about the concept of an Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, it was as a result of the Premier's Council report, People and Skills in the New Global Economy. That's where it started; this government didn't start it. I think it's probably been a matter of public discussion for over seven years.

A tremendous amount of thoughtful work went into the preparation, I think, of the recommendations of this Premier's Council report. You should know that there was a very focused concept for OTAB in the beginning, but over time I think this focus has enlarged to the point that right now OTAB unrealistically is trying to be all things to all people.

What they've really missed, I believe, in both the purpose part of the bill, which we're talking about now in

section 1, and later on where we made amendments before -- but we won't bother now because we don't think the government will listen -- in

section 4, which is the objects part, is that right now they're trying to do too many things.

If you need a focus, I have to tell you that the focus of training people for work must be recognized as the end result to create wealth and provide jobs and provide workers who can in turn pay taxes so that in fact we can support the system of government we have here and now in Ontario. In order to do it fairly and so that we don't have an unrealistic burden on the next generation, we have to do two things: We have to spend what we have and not go into debt, and we have to, secondly, make sure that people have jobs, so to recognize that wealth creation is needed to achieve the objectives of Bill 96 is extremely important.

Clause 1(

a) recognizes that in order to prosper in the future, Ontario will need a competitive Ontario workforce that will form the basis for wealth and job creation. I can't imagine the government objecting to that, and yet it just did. Clause 1(

b) very simply adds the term "appropriate" immediately preceding the phrase "labour force development programs." What's wrong with that? One word: "appropriate labour force development programs."

It's been made clear, and we certainly have a track record in Ontario, that no one is interested in training for the sake of training. People are interested in training that leads to employability and active participation in society. A very simple amendment; you could stand up today and agree with it, say, "Yes, we agree with the word 'appropriate.'" We heard it from more than one presenter in the committee hearings. If you believe in committee hearings, let's for heaven's sake listen to them.

Subclause 1(b)(

i) deals with the most unrealistic aspect of the bill as outlined in the purposes clauses, and in its current form Bill 96 is expected to improve the lives of workers and potential workers. The criticism has been from some of the members of the government in the debate as well that they are very concerned that instead of focusing on training and jobs and competitiveness this bill is trying to do all things for all people.

In our opinion, as this business steering committee says, and I'm quoting them, "This is too broad a mandate for a bill which is established strictly to address publicly funded training for workers and potential workers who are interested in training in order to be able to participate in and contribute to the competitive economy in a meaningful way." They go on to state that although access to OTAB-funded programs and services will lead to improving the lives of some workers and/or potential workers, it will certainly not improve the lives of all workers and/or potential workers.

And so the new wording that has been put forward qualifies "improve the lives of workers and potential workers" by adding the phrase "helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals," so that we can tell them exactly how we're going to do it so that there is no misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that I have people in my office all the time, as do other colleagues in this House, telling me that they thought just because they were in a training program they were going to improve their quality of life and get a job.

Some of them are now signing contracts with our colleges and they actually think they're all going to get a job and their life will improve. We cannot lead them to believe that by not clarifying this purpose in this bill.

We've given you an opportunity to do it. It isn't just my colleague in the Liberal Party's idea; it was put forward by a number of persons who came before the committee. It's very discouraging for me to participate in this process where, one by one, our amendments that are put forward on behalf of the public we serve are just ignored by the government with no true debate or reason that can be acceptable or understood by anybody.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this amendment. I'm very disappointed that no one is listening to the public.

Mr Gary Wilson: I'm sorry. I'm very disappointed that the critic from the third party suggests we're not listening and, as she said herself and as we have said in the past -- she didn't seem to disagree -- there has been a large consultation on this. We have had our own paper, Skills to Meet the Challenge, which, as you remember, was put out many months ago and elicited a lot of comment and in fact forms the basis along with the work that was done, and which I mentioned in my first submission, that we are building on the training process that has existed in Ontario in the past.

But what we're trying to achieve here is a training culture where people will feel easy about taking programs, even while they're working, before they lose a job for whatever reason, that they will feel comfortable in entering a training program so that they will foresee or take the step that will be necessary to find a job that will be more suitable to them.

It is this training culture that we're trying to get, and I'm worried that we're going to place too much emphasis on or see OTAB as a job creation program in itself. It is not that. We have other programs, other Jobs Ontario programs that will lead to the creation of jobs, but what we are expecting from OTAB, again, by bringing together the labour market partners will be to design the training and adjustment programs that will suit workers.

The thing about what has been done through the Premier's Council report, we think that we've built on that but modified it to include more people. I think it is important that we try to include everybody in Ontario, give everybody a voice, and that has been one of the challenges that I think we've met successfully, that if you look at groups in isolation, sure, there are things in there that they're not going to like or changes they would like to see that would suit them perhaps more directly, but when you look at the other groups and see what the change would mean to them, they're not so supportive of it.

We've ironed a lot of this out through the consultation that went on before the legislation was drafted and we think the drafting of the legislation captures that consultation and the essence of what the consultation arrived at as far as accommodating the various groups that will benefit from OTAB.

I think that is the important thing to see. The committee hearings certainly, I would say, taken as a whole, supported that approach that when you had people come to you outlining their point of view -- and it wasn't only business; labour too had its concerns and the other labour partners had concerns about specific parts of the bill -- when it was explained to them why it was written the way it was, to include the views of others, they had to acknowledge there was a different point of view.

Again what we're trying to achieve here is to bring the people who are most affected by the training and adjustment needs to design the programs that will benefit them. We think that that is the clearest and the most beneficial way of arriving at the programs that we'll need.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm not going to dwell on this except to say that it's the parliamentary assistant who mentioned the November 1991 release -- I'm not sure he gave the date but I'll give it to him -- of the discussion paper Skills to Meet the Challenge: A Training Partnership for Ontario, which underlined