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

June 21, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

GO BUS SERVICE

BLOOMFIELD AND AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

FOREST INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FOR AIDS PATIENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

SOCIAL CONTRACT

VICTIMS OF CRIME

PETERBOROUGH GREEN-UP

BRIAN LAND

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

LAND USE PLANNING

FIRST NATIONS SOLIDARITY DAY

LAND USE PLANNING

FIRST NATIONS SOLIDARITY DAY

LAND USE PLANNING

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

HEALTH SERVICES

HOUSING POLICY

UNEMPLOYMENT

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

LIBEL AND SLANDER LAWS

LONDON OFFICIAL PLAN

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

WASTE DISPOSAL

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

GAMBLING

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

KIRBRYN HOLDINGS INC ACT, 1993

PARAGON FINANCIAL CORP ACT, 1993

PHILMANSER INVESTMENTS LTD, 1993

VILLAGE OF MERRICKVILLE ACT, 1993

APHASIA CENTRE -- NORTH YORK ACT, 1993

PARAGON FINANCIAL CORP ACT, 1993

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I want to highlight for this government the need for action on the issue of AIDS.

This past weekend a permanent AIDS memorial was unveiled in Cawthra Square Park in my riding. It was opened with a poem by Michael Lynch, whose idea the memorial was, engraved on the first pillar. Michael Lynch died before he could see the opening.

The central idea of the AIDS memorial is the naming of names. The devastation of the epidemic gets lost when it becomes a score sheet of anonymous body counts and statistics, but the listing of names has an irreplaceable impact in the fight against AIDS, particularly within the communities hardest hit.

I hope the memorial will be a place to celebrate as well the day when the last death ever from AIDS is listed.

I'm also wearing this red ribbon with respect to those haemophiliacs and HIV-T people who were infected by tainted blood or blood products and who participated in a demonstration on the steps of the Legislature today.

Our party has called on the government to act on the issue of compensation for these victims of a misplaced trust in the health care system. The government needs to act now. If need be, it should act, like Nova Scotia and Quebec before it, on its own to provide compensation.

That compensation should come after consultation with those individuals who have the most knowledge about how it could best be made; that is, the victims themselves.

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the House today to ask the Minister of Transportation to stop ignoring the people of Dufferin county and the town of Caledon when it comes to GO Transit.

This past week, while Palgrave and Bolton learned their GO bus service was being cut, the people in Dufferin and north Caledon had a private operator stop their commuter service to the Brampton GO Transit line. I have received many calls and faxes from people who rely on both services to get to and from their jobs and services within the greater Toronto area. In today's slowly recovering economy, people are faced with pay cuts and layoffs.

For some people, these bus transit lines are the only form of transportation they can afford, and no one wants to lose their job or be saddled with an unexpected and large expense of having to purchase a vehicle in today's economically trying times. In protest of these senseless cuts, the residents have reacted with action.

Everyone who is concerned, and not in favour of the loss of GO bus services, has distributed and signed a petition to show this government we disagree with the elimination of GO bus services. I have made a commitment to present these petitions in the Legislature to encourage this government to reconsider its decision. The stark reality of the situation is that not everyone can or wants to live in Metropolitan Toronto.

People should have the right to choose how they live and where they work. To make these cuts now, when jobs are scarce and money even scarcer, is a real blow to many people in Dufferin county and the town of Caledon who have been trying to rely on buses to go to work, to go to school or to go for medical services in Toronto.

BLOOMFIELD AND AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise today before the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to talk about an organization from the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings that has been very active in promoting tourism and economic development in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. That organization is the Bloomfield and Area Business Association.

This group is exceptional because it organizes events that bring visitors not only to Bloomfield but to the entire area. Last week they hosted a very successful event called the Loyalist Parkway Flag and Flower Festival, which is held every year on a Saturday in the middle of June. This is a celebration of the United Empire Loyalist heritage of Prince Edward county.

Bloomfield, I might add, is doing a beautiful job of restoring its town hall, which serves as a municipal office and a community centre and is used by diverse local groups. This excellent facility was the object of much admiration and is truly reflective of the kind of work that is being done all along the parkway to maintain a sense of the history of our region.

As well, this Bloomfield group also organizes the Loyalist Parkway antique and classic bicycle rally, which takes place September 25-26. This event will bring cyclists to the entire length of the Loyalist Parkway, from Trenton to Kingston. There was a modest provincial grant to promote this rally, and I know this will be put to good use in drawing attention to the Loyalist Parkway as a great area for cyclists.

This is an example of how the good work of the Bloomfield and Area Business Association benefits our entire region. I am very pleased to have Dick and Doreen Piller here today from Prince Edward county, representing this group. In rural Ontario, there are many small communities like Bloomfield that rely on volunteers like Dick and Doreen for the kinds of events that take place. These events only happen because of the hard work and dedication of community members who take some initiative. I'd like to congratulate them on their hard work and thank them for visiting the Legislative Assembly today.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): In its continued attempt to shut down northern Ontario, the NDP government is dealing a death blow to the forest industry. In the May budget, Treasurer Laughren mentioned that the government will double its crown dues, its stumpage fees charged to forestry companies.

Up till this winter, the sawmill industry has been struggling to survive the past four years. Thanks to climatic events such as Hurricane Andrew and increased housing starts in the United States, lumber prices shot up this winter, but since that time have stabilized. But the NDP northern cabinet ministers figured this was a good time to hit the struggling industry with a doubling of the dues, starting on July 1.

While northerners are going to be celebrating Canada Day, they're also going to be seeing the shutting down of the small independent sawmills, and that means that sawmillers, loggers and truckers are going to be out of work, not because of declining prices or declining demand, but because the NDP government doesn't understand the fragile nature of the forest industry and, in their ignorance, have decided to tax it to death.

This is a plea from one northerner who cares about northern Ontario to the government to stop this tax increase now, immediately, before it's too late. The government should stop killing the northern jobs and allow us to work in northern Ontario and raise our families like anyone else.

COMPENSATION FOR AIDS PATIENTS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Earlier this afternoon, I and my colleague Cam Jackson participated in a demonstration in which several HIV-infected haemophiliacs pleaded with the NDP government to do the right thing and provide them with injury compensation benefits.

In the gallery sit Mark and Colleen Bulbrook and Ron and Laurie Mitchell, with their sons, Nick and Josh. The only mistake that Mark and Ron made was to place their faith in the integrity of Ontario's health care system. Regrettably, their faith proved to be misplaced as each contracted HIV through the Canadian blood supply.

For many years, infected haemophiliacs have begged the Ontario government to follow the path blazed by the federal government when it announced a compensation package to haemophiliacs in 1989. In doing so, the federal government asked the provinces to do the same. Yet haemophiliacs have been systematically denied injury compensation benefits by the four previous Liberal and NDP Health ministers.

Because the government participated in a conspiracy of denial and refused my urgings for it to take a lead on this issue, it now finds itself faced with over 60 court challenges. This could result in the government being forced to pay millions of dollars in court-ordered compensation.

By neglect and delay, the government has already inflicted enough punishment on infected haemophiliacs. While the government delays, people are dying.

This is not an issue about money; it's a question of fundamental justice. If the government continues to drag its heels, it will lose in court and the cost will be even greater. To the government I say: It's still the right time to do the right thing.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): A few weeks ago in one of my community newspapers, the Port Perry Star, there appeared an editorial with the headline "Stop Whining." The editorial goes on to say that headlines "trumpeted the budget as the largest single tax grab in Canadian history and the reaction from big business to big labour to the opposition parties at Queen's Park was as predictable as the hands on a clock.

"Liberal leader Lyn McLeod shrilled that the budget will kill the fragile recovery. This begs the question of what McLeod was saying when the Liberals were in power and hiked government spending by hefty amounts for five successive years.

"Like it or not, Canadians have to face the stark facts....

"Point fingers if you will, but never forget that the massive government debt that burdens us now has given each and every one of us a standard of living since the end of World War II unmatched anywhere on earth.

"But wait a minute. Ontarians and Canadians everywhere in this country ought to take a long, hard look around and ask themselves if there's any place in the world they would rather be.

"What we have done is put off paying for it, until now. The day of reckoning had to come.

"Stop whining and thank your lucky stars you're a Canadian. There are countless millions in every corner of the globe who would gladly step into your shoes. Wake up, take a look around, count your blessings and be thankful for what you have."

Those are the words of the editor of the Port Perry Star, and I echo them.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Last week I rose in the Legislature to ask my Tory friends where they stand on Bill 48, the social contract legislation. It seems the Conservatives are still talking out of both sides of their mouths.

When the NDP began the social contract negotiations, Mike Harris clearly told Bob Rae that he could count on his party's support. By the end of April, Harris was saying, "I will support the legislation," bang, bang, bang, first, second and third reading. But by May, what were they saying?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Here comes more "Spend, spend" by the Liberals.

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

Mrs Caplan: The members of the Conservative caucus said: "This process is flawed from the beginning. It's a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants process." One week the Tories are saying, "I've supported the social contract talks," and the next their leader, Mike Harris, is saying, "We told you the social contract talks could not possibly succeed."

But now that we have Bill 48 before us, what are the Tories saying today? Monday, June 14, they said they might support the legislation in principle. On Wednesday, June 16, they said, "You have our support," and in the very next question that the leader asked, he was critical of the legislation. On Thursday, June 17, the Conservative Party critic said that they would vote in favour of the legislation on second reading and they would vote against the legislation on third reading.

Where do the Tories stand on Bill 48? I ask them, do you support the social contract legislation or not? Where are you? The public wants to know.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On May 17, the standing committee on administration of justice began public hearings to review the relationship between crime victims and the Ontario justice system, with particular consideration of a victims' bill of rights, which I first introduced in this chamber in 1989 and have since reintroduced three more times since it was blocked from becoming law by the Liberal and NDP governments.

During committee hearings, members had an opportunity to listen to how victims of crime feel our justice system has failed them and what they themselves would do to correct the problems in it. During her presentation, Priscilla de Villiers reminded us that the report of the coroner's inquest into Jonathan Yeo contained a recommendation for a victims' bill of rights in Ontario, one of only two provinces in Canada without one. As Priscilla stated:

"How have we got to the stage where the security of the vulnerable members of our society is of so little account? It is time we document the fact that there is such a person as a victim and that we delineate their rights and freedoms and their place in the process. In doing that we will establish a balance of rights again, because every person in this room, believe me, is a potential victim."

Debbie Mahaffy is in the forefront of the battle against profit through continued victimization in the form of offensive serial killer cards and violent pornography films. During her presentation, she strongly urged the adoption of my private member's bill on victims' rights, especially that

section that would allow the Attorney General to seize any profits derived by convicted criminals from the sale of their recollections of their crimes, which would go to pay for crime victims' services.

On behalf of these two courageous women, as mothers, we would remind members of the Legislature of what Mrs de Villiers said, that every person is a potential victim in this province.

PETERBOROUGH GREEN-UP

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm delighted to report that the official opening of the new expanded Peterborough Green-Up took place on Thursday, June 10, at the home of Mrs Margeree Edwards, chair of Peterborough Utilities Commission.

Peterborough is proud to be one of the communities participating in this government's green communities initiative. Green-up is already an important part of our community and has done excellent work in auditing recycling efforts, developing the ecology garden and educating the public in many other ways.

Always a partnership program, green-up now has an even more impressive list of partners, including the Peterborough Committee on Sustainable Development, the Kawartha World Issues Centre, the city of Peterborough, the public utilities commission, the public and separate school boards, Sir Sandford Fleming College, Trent University, the Peterborough Chamber of Commerce, Consumers Gas, General Electric and Quaker Oats.

As part of its $3-million green communities initiative, the Ministry of Environment and Energy is contributing approximately $500,000. The key to the new green-up initiative will be the green home visit program, which has set a target of 3,000 households for the first year alone. There will be educational programs and programs targeted at business. Canada Trust is offering a special financial package. This program will help our environment, benefit our local economy and generate millions of dollars in conservation spending in Peterborough. It will create dozens of new jobs.

Thank you Clifford Maynes, Ben Wolfe, Linda Slavin, Cathy Dueck and those many others who have helped realize this project. Welcome and good wishes to Dave McLeod, manager of the new Peterborough Green-Up.

BRIAN LAND

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'd like to seek unanimous consent for representatives of each of the three parties to make some comments about the retirement of Mr Brian Land.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: It's a pleasure for me to rise today and to make some comments about Brian Land, who is the director of the legislative library, research and information services, and has been since April 1978.

As you will know, it was not too long after I arrived here myself that Brian Land was appointed, so in terms of service here, he has for me become not only one of the familiar services, but one of those who, in the process of dealing around the Legislature and especially in terms of access to information, I and most of us in this Legislature have come to rely on in one way or another in a very important process of informing ourselves about both the history of this place and the things that we're dealing with on a daily basis in the process of legislative debate.

Brian Land began his career in 1953 as a reference librarian at the Windsor Public Library. He is the former dean of the faculty of library science at the University of Toronto and has a full professorship at the university.

Mr Speaker, you may know this fact; I didn't until we received some notes about his retirement. He is the 17th legislative librarian since Confederation in this Legislature. If you think about that, with us now some further way into the 35th Parliament, that's an interesting statistic. In that statistic Mr Land happens to be the second-longest-serving of those 17 legislative librarians. It's very important and a career here which he can be very proud of in terms of the service he has brought to this Legislature, to the members of this Legislature and I guess in some respects to many members of the public as well.

He has overseen many organizational changes and additional services that have been added during my time here and during his tenure in his job as director, including the research service itself, which didn't yet exist when I first arrived here.

In that respect his stewardship has been a particularly fruitful one, in terms of how the library itself operates and in terms of how the members of this Legislature, the representatives of the public of the province of Ontario, have had access, in a much more unbiased or neutral way than perhaps many of our predecessors had, to good statistical and policy analysis of issues without the political bias that our own research departments very often bring to those issues that we get concerned about and to good factual information that comes from both the past and the present.

It has been a change that I think has added some interesting dimensions to some of the debates here in the Legislature and helped both government and opposition parties in their struggle with how to approach a debate around a particular piece of legislation.

There are several members of Mr Land's family present in the Speaker's gallery here today: his wife, Edith, and his children, Mary and John, and their spouses. His family has reason to be proud of the service that Brian has rendered here to the members of the Legislature, to the staff of the Legislature and to the larger general public of this province. I'd like to end my comments by saying both a personal thank you and a thank you on behalf of all of the members of the government caucus.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to join the government House leader on behalf of my colleagues in paying tribute to Brian Land and welcoming his family here this afternoon. It seems incredible to me that it is 15 years since Brian Land came to become the executive director of the Ontario legislative library. It does seem a very short time ago that he came over here from the University of Toronto.

I don't know how to put this, but it's hard to describe the library that Mr Land came to take charge of in 1978. It was a very friendly place. It was a warm place, not particularly frequented, as I recall, by too many members of the Legislature, although the late Patrick Lawlor was one of the stalwarts, as I mentioned here a few weeks ago. But the legislative library in 1978 was quaint. It really did belong in a different era, perhaps even in a different century.

Brian Land has, over the course of the past 15 years, revolutionized and modernized that facility in everything from its hiring practices, which were very interesting prior to 1978, through to introducing all of the information technology and developing, as the government House leader has rightly pointed out, a very substantial research capacity.

Why, just the other day, I received from our outgoing librarian three wonderful volumes that the library has produced having everything to do with the history of the Upper Canada Gazette to a very interesting essay on the various parliamentary precincts that the province of Ontario and its predecessors have enjoyed over the course of 200 years. He has been a very, very strong advocate for that part of our parliamentary institution. He has served with very considerable distinction in that role. It's well known, I think, to many in the Legislature that Brian has been honoured by a number of professional associations with awards of merit and achievement.

But I always felt that there was much more to Brian than just a librarian. It may not be known to some that he served for a year as the executive assistant to the late Walter Gordon when Mr Gordon was the Minister of Finance for Canada. Around the same time, Brian wrote a book which I would recommend to those of you who have not read it.

One of the first of its kind in Canada, perhaps the first of its kind, he authored in the early 1960s a book that looked at the election campaign in the federal constituency of Eglinton, where the redoubtable Donald Fleming was taking on the challenger, Mitchell Sharp, and published that book I think in 1965, by Peter Martin and Associates, if memory serves me correctly, a very interesting volume about politics in this city in an innocent age.

But I always felt that Brian's experiences, both as a watcher of the political debates in Eglinton, as an author of that campaign, as well as his experience -- and it must have been a very interesting experience; I hope he writes about it some day -- serving Mr Gordon in the first year of the Pearson administration in the early 1960s made Brian Land a particularly useful member of the Board of Internal Economy, where, as executive director of the library, he had a seat for 15 years and he had an opportunity to serve honourable members in their various interests.

Having spent two very memorable years myself on that assignment, it seemed to me that Brian brought a very keen understanding of the aspirations and perhaps even the foibles of politicians, which understanding he gleaned in earlier times in non-library-related activities.

I just simply want to say Brian has been a very good servant of this Legislature. I consider him a very good friend. He has set a very high and professional standard in modernizing and revolutionizing our legislative library. He has been, as I say, I think a friend to all members and we wish him well. He told me the other day he's 65. It cannot be so. He looks much more youthful than that, and he will, I know, continue to maintain a keen interest in the public affairs and the libraries of this province and country. I thank him on behalf of my colleagues and I wish him well in his new activities.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): As the longest-sitting Conservative in this Legislature, it's my privilege to pay honour to Brian Land today in his retirement from the legislative library.

I don't know if Brian or his staff keep records of who utilizes what services the most, but I would think that my use of legislative information and reference and the research services branch probably would rival any member in this Legislature, as I have an interest in many areas and have utilized those services to a great degree.

One of the great attributes of some of those services is that, although there is a wealth of information that Brian has been responsible for, I have always appreciated how succinctly he has been able to captivate a particular subject or area of interest and put it in layman's language so that we can understand what in fact is happening in other jurisdictions, what people are saying about various policies across our country and what in fact I would be able to utilize during debates, during private members' bills and during other important parts that I have as a legislator.

One of the things that I think Brian has done -- and he has come through a very exciting era in terms of the explosion of information services in our world and in our province -- is that he has been able to put forward a very progressive set of tools for legislators to use, to allow us to have some leading-edge ideas to bring forward in this Legislature. He's given us all the tools and it's really up to us as legislators to use them.

One of the very high standards he's been able to lead and set for the people he works for is the degree of professionalism he has been able to instil in his staff. I have never, never, even in all the uses I've had of his services, ever had any indication that any communication that I had with his services has ever been leaked or shared with anybody else without first coming and asking me if it was possible to share that information with others. I usually did share with others, because a lot of the work was very valuable.

Much has been said before by my two colleagues and I would like to associate my remarks with them as well. Brian, you set a very high standard for your successor. I know you will remember these days with a great deal of fondness. My caucus would like to congratulate you, thank you, and wish you and Edith and your family all the best in your retirement. Thank you very much.

The Speaker: Your executive director of the library, Mr Brian Land, has served with honour and distinction. He has demonstrated most ably that he is indeed a friend of Parliament. We thank you for the commitment you've given. We wish you well in your retirement, Brian.

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the fourth annual report of the Commission on Conflict of Interest, for the period April 1, 1992, to March 31, 1993.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LAND USE PLANNING

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Today, I'm pleased to tell my colleagues that I've received the final report from the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. I look forward to studying the nearly 100 recommendations in detail over the coming months.

In receiving this report, I would like to express my personal appreciation to the commissioners who spearheaded this challenging consultation and review process. They are here with us today in the gallery: Ms Toby Vigod, Mr George Penfold and commission chair Mr John Sewell. We certainly applaud their efforts.

As many of my colleagues will know, our government appointed the commission in June 1991 when strong criticisms of Ontario's land use planning processes were surfacing. It was obvious to us that the public had little confidence in the integrity of the system and so we set out to change that system.

We gave the commission a clear-cut mandate to recommend changes to the Planning Act and related policy in order to restore public confidence, to protect public interests, to protect the natural environment and generally to make the planning process more timely and more efficient.

Mr Sewell tells me that the recommendations in the report address each of these areas, and I have every confidence that they do.

I mentioned that the commission conducted an extensive public consultation process in developing its recommendations. Allow me to share some of their activities with you.

The commission conducted some 60 public forums and town hall meetings, distributed some 30,000 copies of its draft report and received more than 2,000 submissions from individuals and groups across Ontario. I understand that a full 40% of municipalities submitted their views on the proposed changes.

These numbers indicate to me that the commissioners certainly fulfilled our provision that they consult widely with all of those who have a stake in land use planning.

I understand from Mr Sewell and the commissioners that substantial changes were made to the final report, based on concerns expressed about recommendations in the draft report. I am pleased to hear this --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I hope Morley Kells didn't get to them.

Hon Mr Philip: Well, Morley Kells happens to agree with a lot of them -- particularly because I am told some of the changes address concerns raised by people living in rural Ontario. I look forward to seeing the changes because I think any time people's ideas and concerns are acted upon, the result is a more responsive and meaningful system.

Thank you again to the commissioners for a job well done and on time, I might add. Thank you so much.

I believe all the members have also received copies of the final report and I would urge you to read this important document. I look forward to studying this report in great detail.

FIRST NATIONS SOLIDARITY DAY

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I rise today to remind members of an important event now under way. It's an event of significance not only in Ontario but throughout Canada. It's an event evocative of a time that predates either of these jurisdictions and recalls cultures more tuned to the land itself than to boundaries drawn on it.

June 21 is First Nations Solidarity Day, an opportunity to reflect on the heritage unique to Canada that began before Europeans set foot on North American shores.

As legislators, we might particularly note that the traditions of government we are guided by today do not flow from the earliest political organization of present-day Ontario. We are in fact relative newcomers to the task of governing in Canada.

The history of aboriginal peoples is at the foundation of First Nations Solidarity Day. But this special occasion also celebrates optimism for the future and a united involvement in the present.

For example, this morning on Manitoulin Island in West Bay First Nation, sacred ceremonies and prayers began a week-long gathering of elders from all across the country. The elders are discussing cultural survival, self-determination and the future of aboriginal nations. The intent is that the knowledge and wisdom of the elders, with their concerns for social order and harmony, will spark the will of first nations leaders to form a sound base for self-government, which includes participation of all community members.

Many other aboriginal communities in Ontario undertook awareness gatherings, powwows and celebrations over the weekend, with yet more to come. These gatherings celebrate growing solidarity within native communities towards preservation and sharing of aboriginal cultures, languages and traditions, and to the goal of self-governance as well. Ontario has pledged its support to these goals.

In August 1991, I was honoured to sign, along with the Premier, a historic agreement between the province and the first nations in Ontario. The Statement of Political Relationship established the fundamental principle that Ontario and first nations will relate on a government-to-government basis, while recognizing that first nations have an inherent right to self-government.

Ontario is currently discussing self-government proposals and land claims issues with a number of aboriginal communities. We are also demonstrating our commitment to the Statement of Political Relationship through an approach that has involved virtually every ministry in this government.

Aboriginal health, for example, is a key issue within Ontario's aboriginal reform agenda. Government is working in partnership with aboriginal organizations to develop new and lasting solutions directed at holistic healing. We believe significant steps towards healing are essential to improved social and economic wellbeing of aboriginal people, and we are developing a comprehensive strategy to support aboriginal family healing.

The Jobs Ontario program includes training and job creation to meet the particular needs of aboriginal people. Initiatives by the Solicitor General supporting aboriginal policing and justice have demonstrated encouraging success to date. New fishing agreements between Ontario and native peoples will protect the province's fisheries while honouring aboriginal and treaty rights, and aboriginal language training, through our native-as-a-second-language school programs, is helping to preserve a core element of native culture.

This year, First Nations Day falls in the midst of the United Nations' International Year of the World's Indigenous People, hence all the more reason to turn our attention today to Ontario's best approach to the aboriginal community. Ontario's approach begins with the recognition that aboriginal people best understand their own aspirations. It is for them to define their goals in self-government.

As to the nature of those goals, a look to the past may be helpful. Iroquoian tradition offers us the wampum belt, a treaty document that uses parallel lines of beads to represent two canoes moving in the same river, in the same direction, and illustrating peaceful coexistence between equal peoples in a common land.

To me, these traditions tell us a hopeful story. They remind us of the human capacity for relationships, political or personal, less concerned with giving or taking and more concerned with sharing.

I'm proud to take this opportunity today to introduce an individual who combines the best of those traditions of his people with his own personal capabilities, and at the same time, gives back to his people, particularly the young people of his community, an individual who has overcome adversity to reach the top in his field. He is a credit to his people, a credit to the Garden River First Nation, a credit to his sport, to his hockey club and to his profession of coaching. I'm proud to introduce to the Legislature today Mr Ted Nolan, the coach of the national Junior A hockey champions in Canada, the Memorial Cup champions, the Sault Ste Marie Greyhounds.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I too would like to welcome Ted to the Legislature and join the minister in recognizing this, the First Nations Solidarity Day.

Before I go on, Mr Speaker, I might suggest that you may look for medical help for the minister responsible for native affairs. I actually think he threw his elbow out in patting himself on the back. I certainly expected a less self-serving statement.

As a member who represents a riding with some 25 first nation communities, I cannot stress the importance of this day to those communities throughout the riding of Kenora.

Let me pick up on part of the statement made by the minister which states: "Aboriginal people best understand their own aspirations. It is for them to define their goals in self-government." If I can say anything about this, I would hope that this is something this government will take seriously and appreciate and understand what this particular statement means.

In closing, I would just like to mention a very significant event happening in Kenora this week which parallels this particular day, that being the northern justice conference. It has drawn people from around the world actually to discuss the justice system among the first nations, with a focus on both family and healing. I must suggest this is only one of a great number of activities that are taking place throughout the province during this most important week. I really sincerely hope this government will listen to the recommendations that are made by this group and other first nation groups across the province.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): In response to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the John Sewell commission, you will recall that the John Sewell commission was announced in this House with great fanfare. It was supposed to become the 11th commandment of the Planning Act, but it never did.

Today, after two long years of consultation -- I must agree with the minister that a great deal of consultation went on in the province of Ontario -- and after spending $2.2 million, mind you, out of a budget of a possible $6 million, it's not too bad, but the accomplishments, the results of the report are not too impressive.

As you will recall, Mr Sewell was asked to streamline the Planning Act. This is not the first time that a government has tried to streamline the Planning Act to improve the process, but I think the government and the minister are adding another layer of bureaucracy. The final report recommends that yet another layer of bureaucracy be added to the planning process, ironically in order to streamline the process. The report recommends that regional planning review committees of interested ministries be established and that provincial approvals be delegated to ministry staff of those committees.

I think Mr Sewell tried to give municipalities more responsibilities. I realize that maybe 40% of our municipalities responded in writing to the John Sewell report, but not too many agreed with him. Not too many municipalities. Minister, you will recall that you received a number of letters from municipalities saying: "No way. We cannot approve this report."

The report says that we will protect agricultural land, we will protect wetlands, we will protect every ravine in the province of Ontario, yet only three or four short weeks ago, we dealt with the largest amalgamation the province of Ontario has ever seen, the London-Middlesex amalgamation; 75% of the land in this amalgamation was good agricultural land, yet the intention of the London-Middlesex amalgamation was to provide them with more commercial and industrial land.

What Mr Sewell is recommending and what your government and your ministries are doing are two different things. It's not going to work. I don't know what OMB will say about this. I realize that you've given the OMB more powers with intervenor funding, but you have turned it down in the past, telling it, "You will get no additional commissioners." How can you resolve the John Sewell problem?

FIRST NATIONS SOLIDARITY DAY

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I'm responding to the statement from the minister responsible for native affairs. I don't see anything in this statement that's new or different or moving us further into the 21st century, but there is a comment about the statement of political relationship. I'm happy to see that that statement of political relationship is being responded to with fishing agreements, hunting agreements, recognition of policing, many aspects.

But the one thing that really strikes me about this statement is the very first paragraph, where there is a recognition by this minister, who I might tell you is also the minister responsible for the environment. He recalls in his statement "a culture more attuned to the land itself than to boundaries drawn on it." What the minister is saying and recognizing is that the first nations of this country are the stewards of the land. They are the wisest users of the land. They are the people who understand the importance of the land.

The importance of this statement, it seems to me, is a recognition by the minister to learn from those who are the wisest, and that is the native community. I ask the minister, in his capacity as Minister of Environment and Energy, why he wants to put garbage dumps on farm land, why he wants to put garbage dumps adjacent to the Rouge? I think it's incumbent upon the minister to back up, to change his policy and to understand what those who are wisest in dealing with this problem would say about it.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. When this process all started, it was really to bring things into line so that municipalities would be streamlined, would not have to wait so long in the approval process. I'm wondering, is the government listening to what this report is saying in that regard?

The other aspect of the report in terms of the whole process is with regard to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Now it takes up to a year to get approval. The hydrogeology studies sit there for month after month. Is this process going to speed up that end of it? If it is, it's worth it.

The other aspect I'm talking about is septic systems: the septic system inspection user fee. Every five years they'll have to be inspected and it'll be paid by the owner of that property. This is a whole new aspect being put in, and it's another downloading by the province. What's going to happen to rural schools? Are they going to be able to get approvals for septic systems? The minister of the environment said it would not happen. Is that going to be part of this whole report, that they will be able to do that?

Farm severances will be non-existent; therefore, poor land will be left for no use at all.

The other process is with regard to the OMB, the intervenor funding. If we look at that whole aspect of funding, the $500 million that's in there is not much when it comes to the province of Ontario as a whole.

There are some positive recommendations in the report, but I'm looking forward to see if you're going to act on them.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I rise to address the report of my former colleague John Sewell.

I think perhaps at the outset the objectives Mr Sewell looked at were very admirable in terms of the integrity and clarity of the planning process, in terms of the timeliness of the planning process -- because we know it can take up to 13 months for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing -- and the protection of the environment.

However, I must say that there are concerns with regard to the emphasis on policy statements, policy statements that apparently would be devised through interministerial committees, apparently would have only up to three months in terms of public input. I would urge the government to allow more time for public input to the policy statements. These policy statements are very central to the planning process that Mr Sewell contemplates.

There are, in addition, concerns with regard to builders in our province, that Mr Sewell's report would essentially prohibit the building of single-family homes. There are concerns in local municipalities that they would lose authority to the upper-tier municipalities. There are concerns that the official plan amendments would become more complicated, that all alternatives would have to be investigated, that the official plan process would become about as complicated as the environmental assessment process. The intervenor funding is of concern as well. I believe these concerns should be addressed in detail by the government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of both the Premier and the Deputy Premier, I'll direct my first question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I trust that the minister has been following the statements that have been made by the Premier in relationship to the social contract negotiations that are supposed to be beginning. If he has been following them, the Premier has told us on a number of occasions that where municipalities, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities had already negotiated wage freezes or unpaid leaves, these measures would be "taken into account" -- and those are the Premier's words -- in the social contract negotiations.

The minister is certainly well aware that on Friday he released detailed information of transfer cuts to each municipality in the province under the social contract. Will you indicate to us today whether municipalities which had in fact already negotiated wage freezes or unpaid leaves had those measures "taken into account" in the transfer reductions which you are making as of July 1?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): If the honourable Leader of the Opposition will read the legislation, as I'm sure she has, she can see that flexibility is built into that, and the whole concept that we have emphasized at the social contract table is to deal with that kind of flexibility. Indeed, when I spoke to the clerks' meeting this morning in London, I emphasized that. The way in which to deal with that is to get back to the social contract table and we will deal with all of the issues they are concerned about.

Let me just remind the honourable leader of the official opposition that the Premier, I think as she well knows, is at a funeral for a long-standing friend of ours and member of the House, Mr Bud Germa, who we greatly note has passed away.

Mrs McLeod: I was indeed aware of that, which is why I'm specifically asking the question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who should be able to give us a very clear answer on the issue of the municipal transfer payments and how they are affected by the social contract negotiations.

If I've understood the minister's response to me correctly, he must be implying that there is flexibility in the transfer announcements that were given to the municipalities last week.

The Premier indicated clearly last week that any wage freezes, any unpaid leaves already in place, would clearly be taken into account. That's right, it did imply flexibility in the negotiations, and therefore flexibility in the financial targets that the municipalities and other agencies would have to meet.

We have been able to get absolutely no explanation of how this is going to be done. We've used examples: the city of Hamilton, which has already had a wage freeze and unpaid leaves ranging from 15 days to three weeks; the much smaller municipality of Atikokan, which has already shut down its offices for a day a week; and there are countless other examples.

We are asking, if you haven't taken these measures into account already, how are you going to do it, when are you going to do it, where are you going it? If the factors are going to be taken into account during the negotiations, will you adjust the cuts that you're making in transfer payments as a result, and when will municipalities know exactly what they have to work with?

Hon Mr Philip: I think that what the Premier indicated and what certainly I've indicated to municipalities, indeed to the clerks this morning, is that the flexibility is in how they reach their targets. There are no blanket exemptions for any municipality or group of municipalities.

Mrs McLeod: There are negotiations beginning, or at least you expect negotiations to begin, and nobody understands what the ground rules are. The Premier has said comprehensive solutions won't work, but you're legislating broad-brush, comprehensive solutions anyway. Then the Premier says, "No, there will not be any blanket exemptions, but special circumstances are going to be taken into account." I tell you, Minister, this is simply mass confusion.

Let me assume that the Premier's promise, his very clear statement that in some way it would be recognized where people had already made a substantial sacrifice or where they have already taken some steps, that somehow the Premier's words are going to be acted on. That means there are going to be some special cases taken into consideration somewhere or somehow. I have to ask, then, how is the government going to find its $2 billion? Will those municipalities that don't get special- case consideration have to make up the difference for those municipalities that do get special consideration if you're going to reach that municipal sector target of $285 million?

Hon Mr Philip: There certainly was no confusion among the clerks of the municipalities this morning when I talked to them; they understood. And there were representatives of AMO at that meeting this morning in London; they understood that with any concerns they had, there was a process set up by this government, the process was at the table and that they could bring those concerns to that table and we would look at ways of dealing with those concerns. I'm glad to say that they understood that, the municipalities understood that, and they're willing to cooperate.

Mrs McLeod: The minister gets a very different message than we receive, which is a very clear message from the municipalities that says: "Take out your arbitrary conditions. Let us meet your targets in our own way. Don't bring these broad-brush solutions and trap us with them."

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question would be to the Minister of Health. Minister, last week you introduced legislation to give yourself sweeping powers to determine what medical services a patient can receive and to prescribe under what conditions those services can be provided. When I asked you how you and the Ministry of Health bureaucrats would make the decisions, you said, "It's our intent, it's our desire, it's our expectation that we will continue to make those decisions in consultation with all the people involved."

But you have also indicated just as clearly that if your negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association are not successful, you will unilaterally determine what medical services will be limited. We continue to be concerned about this power and to ask how you would intend to make these decisions, as no one has any confidence in the ability of a minister or a bureaucrat to make decisions about what care a patient needs. What does this bill that you have before this House do to ensure that patients in Ontario can have confidence in their health care system?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that no minister or no bureaucrat intends to practise medicine for the province of Ontario. What we intend to do is to manage our health care system in such a way that it remains affordable, accessible and that the quality of care is not imperilled.

What we have done this year is to identify savings that must be achieved within the ministry in order to enable us to in fact make some shifts to reform the process, a reform of health care that has been talked about for many years and has been begun under this government. In how in fact we reach that target, we very much want to negotiate with the OMA, and we have put on the table two specific proposals with respect to insured services which we believe can be achieved and help us to achieve our target.

If there are alternatives, if there are in fact other ways of achieving those savings, we want to do that in consultation at the negotiating table, and the legislation allows us to reach that target. It does not prescribe how in fact we get there.

Mrs McLeod: I feel as though every time I ask you a question to clarify what it is you intend to do with this unprecedented legislation, I get more confused and more concerned about exactly what your intent is. You keep telling us that you have made it clear what you intend to do. All of us are looking at one another and saying, "When did Ruth Grier make it clear what she intends to do with this legislation?"

You tell us you don't intend to use the powers; you intend to negotiate; you're not going to make decisions about what is medically necessary. We keep saying, why, then, are you bringing in legislation that gives you such incredibly sweeping powers to make these kinds of medical decisions on behalf of patients?

The legislation is clear. It gives you, as the Minister of Health, the ability in law to decide what services a patient will receive and to prescribe the conditions under which the patient will receive those services.

You have not made it clear how this bill serves the purpose of limiting costs and still provides effective and essential medical care, and I ask you to tell us, then, very specifically, exactly what kind of medical services, what kind of procedures you intend to limit in implementing this legislation.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me give a straightforward answer: whatever procedures, whatever services, in consultation with the OMA, we are satisfied will enable us to reach our financial targets without putting at risk the quality of health care in this province.

Mrs McLeod: What you want to do then is withdraw your legislation, because you do not need this bill and you should not have it. Surely you understand that this legislation gives you the legal power to make medically necessary decisions on behalf of the patients of this province, and you yourself are saying you don't want and would not exercise those powers. Then don't put them into legislation.

We ask you what kind of restrictions you would ever consider putting in place under this legislation. You will not give us any specific examples, because clearly you have either not thought it through or you really don't intend to use the powers. Again, we say if you don't intend to use them, don't put those powers into legislation today.

We ask you, what is it -- tell us once again -- that you would ever consider to be medically unnecessary, and tell me too that if you should need to implement the powers under this legislation and you decide that something is not needed but the patient decides that it is needed and the patient's doctor believes it is needed, are you just going to send the patient the bill? Can the patient appeal to you? Are you now, under this law, going to become the final arbiter of what is universally accessible health care in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: This legislation has nothing to do with individual patient care or the power of a physician to practise medicine in this province. What it has to do is enable the ministry to achieve a target containing expenditures and to do it in a way that protects the medicare system but gives us the ability to manage it for the first time by consultation with the profession around services. But there are many other aspects of this legislation that enable us to manage the system in a way that we have been prevented from doing so in the past, and that has led to an escalating increase in expenditures without a commensurate increase in the quality of care.

HOUSING POLICY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. Today I received a new report by Clayton Research Associates called The Cost of a Shelter Allowance Program in Ontario.

As the minister knows, Clayton is the foremost firm on housing economics in Canada. Clayton finds that for a cost of $383 million a year, or a monthly average of $114 per household, we could provide shelter allowances for all 279,000 renter households that are in core housing need. By contrast, the average non-profit housing subsidy was $942 a month in April of this year.

We now have a creditable and up-to-date study which finds that shelter allowances are much more affordable than non-profit subsidies. Why then are you expanding the non-profit housing program and ignoring the option of a shelter allowance program for renter households that are in core housing need?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I haven't had the benefit of reading the report to which the member for Mississauga South refers, but I'm sure I'll read it with interest. I'd like her to explain how it is that such an estimate of what it would cost to provide rental subsidies for households in need can be made when the cost under social assistance, where people are in the private market, is much higher than that. We're spending $2.5 billion a year in shelter allowances currently. How much more would she like to spend?

Mrs Marland: I'm not the Minister of Housing yet, but I've done my homework. I read the Clayton report this morning. I just think it's unfortunate the minister didn't have her staff brief her.

Maybe I'll help the minister. I'll summarize some of the conclusions of the Clayton study.

First, a shelter allowance program is more affordable than non-profit housing.

Second, a shelter allowance program would help all those in the needy target group who wish to apply. Right now, unless a needy tenant receives welfare or family benefits, there is no help until a unit becomes available in one of your social housing projects.

Third, shelter allowances would allow tenants to remain in their current homes if they choose, so that they can be close to their families, to child care, to schools and to workplaces.

Fourth, shelter allowances avoid the low-income ghettos which can occur in social housing projects that do not have a mix of incomes.

For these reasons, will you cancel the non-profit housing that you have announced but have not yet built and will you establish in its place a shelter allowance program for the renters in core housing need?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'd like to comment particularly on the part of the member's question that relates to assistance for people who are not on social assistance at the moment. This is indeed a very significant problem. It affects people both who are renting in the private market and also people who are in their own homes paying a mortgage and who run into income problems.

The way to address that kind of problem is not to drop non-profit housing, which is the only source of new, affordable rental housing that will last for decades, that provides construction jobs while it gets built and that is a public asset which is a good investment for this society.

The way to address that, if the member would think about it, is to look at our social assistance system and to make sure that working families that are not on social assistance rolls can get some help when they have costs that relate to the size of their family, where the number of children in the family means that the income in the household is too low. We are engaged in social assistance reform work and the member will be able to read a white paper on social assistance reform within a matter of weeks.

Mrs Marland: For a moment there, I thought she got it. She said there is a very significant problem. Then she lost it. When you talks about your solution, you're quite right: non-profit housing will last for decades, because for decades the taxpayers in this province will be paying to look after a fewer number of households compared to what they could look after outside the non-profit housing program. That's the whole point, and it's unfortunate that you really don't get it.

You like to point out that the province already spends a great deal on shelter allowances. What you never admit is that shelter allowances for welfare recipients are still much cheaper than non-profit housing subsidies. The average shelter allowance for a welfare recipient is $354 a month, compared to $942 a month for non-profit housing. Shelter allowances could cost even less: an average, I just said, of $114 a month for these needy tenants who are not getting any help right now.

By April 1993, the Ontario government had built 87,000 units of non-profit housing. With another 46,000 units to be built by 1998, we could cancel the 46,000 units and save over $400 million a year.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mrs Marland: My question is, based on the fact that $400 million a year is more than enough to cover the costs of a shelter allowance program for rentals in core housing need, Minister, when is your government going to look for ways to provide more services for less money, and why are you ignoring the obvious benefits of cutting back non-profit housing and setting up a shelter allowance program for these needy core rental households?

Hon Ms Gigantes: If there is somebody who doesn't get it, it's the member opposite. You can't have a program to assist people in housing need in this province that only has one wheel. Shelter allowances, rental subsidies, no matter what you call them, do not answer a need that keeps growing and will not in the least answer the question of where we're going to get new affordable rental supply. We can't simply keep pouring money into paying for housing that exists on the market now as affordable rental. The need is growing year by year, the member has to acknowledge that, and we have to keep increasing the supply.

There is no doubt about the fact that rental subsidy programming has a place in housing policy. We spend $80 million currently. But the fact is that if we want to have a new affordable supply, only the kind of financing available under a non-profit program will provide that supply.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): No wonder we're broke in the province of Ontario with an answer like that.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, when your government took office in 1990, the unemployment rate was 6%. This year the economists who came before the finance and economics committee said it will range anywhere from 10.6% to 11.8%, almost double since your government has been in office.

In the 1992 budget you said you were going to make jobs a priority, and during the year of 1992 well over 500,000 people each and every month were unemployed in the province of Ontario. My question to you, Minister, is this: Why have your plans failed for the unemployed in this province and what are you going to do to assist the private sector to create the jobs we need in the province of Ontario?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I don't think that I would agree with the assertion that the plans have failed. I think that we have a multifaceted package with respect to the economy and with respect to job development.

We can certainly look at the number of jobs, thousands of jobs, that have been created through Jobs Ontario Capital, Jobs Ontario Youth, through the housing programs under Jobs Ontario, as well as the previous housing programs, and specifically with respect to leveraged investments in areas like Ford and Chrysler, Bombardier -- the recent announcement that it's going to increase the number of jobs in Thunder Bay. It's the first time ever that in fact we've had a covenant from Bombardier with respect to employment levels in a community.

There are a number of areas in which we are moving forward which we also hope will be an investment in the future of the economy, and I can perhaps provide more detail through the supplementary, but areas like the sector partnership fund, some of the cooperative ventures that are going there. I think that our approach to the economy, a shift from picking winners and losers to a shift to supporting winning activities like innovation, like home-based activities, like investment in technology and export readiness, will pay off certainly both in the short term and, more substantially, in the long term for this province.

Mr Carr: The only shift we got is that we're in the process of laying off nurses, doctors, teachers at a time when you're pouring money into the business of this province. There will never, never be enough money in this province to subsidize all the programs. What you need to do is create a business environment that will allow the private sector to create jobs. You've got to realize that. At a time when we're talking about rolling back and laying off nurses, teachers, doctors, we need to upscale the private sector.

I want to read a quote from Mr Pat Palmer, who came in before the chamber. He said: "Never in the past half-century have business conditions in Ontario been as bad: a record number of bankruptcies, a chilling number of plant closures and layoffs. See our blood; no more taxes. Tax increases will only make the deficit position worse and subsequently put even more pressure on our social programs."

I want to be very specific to this minister, as it relates to taxes and to regulation. What are you doing about the overtaxing and the overregulating that are killing jobs in the province of Ontario?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member opposite will know that in fact our approach in this budget has been one in which, as part of our approach to the economy, we've said that we have to take steps with respect to the provincial government's fiscal situation. I think the emphasis on turning around the deficit-debt problem in this province is one that is supported, by and large, by Ontarians. I think we've taken an approach to that which is fair and equitable that does include increasing revenues at a period in time which is difficult, as it is difficult to decrease expenditures and to address the programs that we are suggesting through the social contract.

With respect to taxation in particular, I would remind the member opposite to take a look at our competitive tax situation with respect to jurisdictions most closely related to our economy: those in surrounding United States Great Lakes jurisdictions.

We will, by next year, be among the lowest in terms of tax rates to corporations in those areas. We have taken specific initiatives with respect to corporate tax rates. The corporate concentration tax is another example. We're working on problems with Ontario Hydro, like the rate and costs of energy, the costs of doing business --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): You guys just don't want to tax corporations. What's going on?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: The tremendous efforts we've been making with respect to bringing health care costs under control in this province --

Mr Sorbara: What's happened to you guys?

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- over one third of the expenditure of the Ontario government, will be a significant contributor to our competitive situation.

I point also to what's been done by the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: All of these areas with respect to the costs of doing business are areas that we are working on. They will make a tremendous contribution in the future to these companies. In the meetings that I hold with people from various business jurisdictions, they acknowledge that and recognize that.

Mr Carr: The more she works, the more the jobs get lost in the province of Ontario. I want to tell the minister that I have in my hand --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Every year you've been working on it. Get to work. Stop working on it.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sorbara: Just like that, we stop shouting.

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South with his final supplementary.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The minister might think she's doing a good job, but in my hands I have a survey done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which shows the most important problems.

It is the small businesses that are creating the jobs in the province of Ontario. My friends across the other side snicker, but at a time when you're laying off nurses, teachers and doctors, it's the private sector and the small businesses that are creating jobs that you're laughing at. They're the jobs that are being created.

They say the number one problem is the total tax burden. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association says it takes seven hours and 52 minutes to cover costs, and only in the remaining eight minutes are they able to produce the revenue needed to pay tax and to pay for your programs. If a page will come over, I'll send this over to the minister.

We have also put together in our minority report some ideas dealing with taxation, government spending, social assistance, non-profit housing, government regulations and the Workers' Compensation Board. We're attempting to put some practical, commonsense solutions together.

I would say to the minister, which of these recommendations are you going to implement and when are you going to implement them, so we can get people back to work in the province of Ontario?

Hon Ms Lankin: I just finished running through a long list of initiatives we are taking with respect to the cost structures to Ontario business. I point out to the member opposite that with the cuts in corporate income tax that were announced in the 1992 federal and provincial budgets, in fact manufacturing firms in Ontario will benefit greatly. By 1994 the combined statutory federal-provincial state corporate income tax will be significantly lower in Ontario than it will be in some of our competitive states around the Great Lakes.

The member opposite seems to ignore those points that are made in response to his questions, particularly with respect to a number of the other issues I outlined in response that our government has.

He also talks about regulatory burden. We have a very well developed initiative within the ministry with respect to clearing the regulatory burden and the paperwork burden, particularly for small business.

I note that the member likes to quote leaders of various business associations. He may want to read the quote from Pat Palmer, which also applauded the work we're doing on that, in which we are going to be involving the chambers of commerce and representatives of other business associations with us in that vein.

With respect to the number of jobs being created, I think it's really important that the member give credit where credit is due. I believe our government is due credit with respect to Jobs Ontario Capital, Jobs Ontario Training, the housing programs, the community economic development programs.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: In this last month alone, I've announced loans to the Ontario Development Corp that have sustained 200 jobs and created 300 new jobs in the province of Ontario in small business. That's keeping Ontario working.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Last day I rose in the House to point out to the government, on behalf of members of the House and the people of Ontario -- this is to the Chair of Management Board -- that the government was squandering $1.4 million on polls to tell itself what it thought about the various issues of the day.

Those of us who read the weekend newspapers noticed a full-page ad that appeared in many of the major metropolitan dailies in the province of Ontario under the signature of the Premier of the province of Ontario.

Taking into context the times we're in, in light of the fact that the government is cutting back on essential services to people in this province because of the economic circumstances that the government faces, in light of the fact that you are prepared to break contracts and raid the pension funds of public sector workers in the province, in this context how can this government possibly justify the expenditure of thousands of dollars when it's trying to send out the opposite message? How can you justify that kind of expenditure on full-page ads in the various newspapers in the province to put out the government's line?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member opposite is precisely a reflection of the reason that the government is having to do what it has to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite chose in his

preamble to his question to repeat a set of allegations, which are not factual, about stripping of pension plans. The kinds of allegations that have been made by some deserve a clear public response. The public of this province deserves a full, clear and factual understanding of precisely what it is this government has proposed so that it can make the appropriate judgements.

Mr Bradley: I'm almost afraid to ask another question because I'm liable to provoke another full-page ad in the newspapers of Ontario.

There is nothing in this ad that hasn't already been reported by the popular media across the province of Ontario. There's been extensive coverage of this by the media -- and I know Brian Mulroney does this and you wouldn't like that.

But my question is this: In light of the fact that the Premier of this province, in opposition in the December 14, 1983, debate in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, said the following about this kind of government advertising, "It is an abuse of power, it is an abuse of the democratic process, and governments which participate in it should be ashamed of themselves" --

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Who said that, Jim?

Mr Bradley: That was none other than the Premier of this province today, Bob Rae. Now, in view of the fact that he said this, in view of the fact that you have squandered money on polls to tell you what you think, and now full-page ads to go along with the other self-serving propaganda you put out, will you now give an undertaking to the House that in the context of these economic times, when you're asking others to make sacrifice, you will discontinue this kind of self-serving propaganda?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite asked me for some kind of a commitment. I'm going to suggest to the member opposite that perhaps he should spend some time and come over to our side and look at the calls we've had, for example, as a result of the budget publication, which we put out as an insert in all of the dailies across the province, calls which clearly indicate -- that's a different document, Jim, different document -- that the vast majority of the public across this province appreciated that modest expenditure because it was the only way they could get an accurate picture of what it was the government had proposed.

This government will continue to ensure that the public of the province of Ontario has an accurate and full and clear understanding of what its government is doing.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Cousens: I'll try not to provoke another ad. They're spending money badly in the Human Rights Commission, so let's just follow up on how the Human Rights Commission, which is now costing three times what it did in 1985, over $15 million a year -- and for this we're receiving a service that is very seriously backlogged. One of the reasons for this is the lack of a screening process to differentiate those cases that really should be proceeded with.

A case in point is the adult magazines that are being sold in corner stores. Already the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that stores can sell these adult magazines when municipal bylaws are in place. Why would your Human Rights Commission now proceed with those cases, spending money, taking additional time when there's already a serious backlog, and the fact that of the three cases that were being considered, one of them has already been thrown out? I ask you, will you throw out the other two cases that are before the Human Rights Commission so that the Human Rights Commission can deal with its backlog?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I think I have to clarify a few points for the member opposite who I think is very well versed in the Human Rights Commission proceedings, but I would like to clarify for the general public, because he has raised some very interesting comments that I think need an explanation.

First of all, the Ontario human rights commissioners sit down and decide what cases go before a board of inquiry. They then ask the minister to appoint a board of inquiry. Under the system that we have, under the Human Rights Code -- which was brought forward, by the way, by a previous government, a Conservative government -- it states very clearly that the minister must appoint a board of inquiry that the commissioners have requested. It is out of my hands to make any decisions about whether a board of inquiry is assigned or not. It's completely out of my hands whether a minister can decide to drop a case or not to drop a case once a board of inquiry has been appointed.

Mr Cousens: It becomes a very serious concern when the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on an issue, and then the Ontario Human Rights Commission takes it up as an issue and crusade for it to follow through on. Three cases are before the Human Rights Commission. One of the three is thrown out. Yet the cost of these cases and the time they take continue to raise the whole issue of if the Human Rights Commission were to sort out and remove from its backlog those subjects that have been dealt with in other courts or other areas, and not take the time of the commission or the cost of those that are involved because they've been dealt with otherwise.

Therefore, why doesn't the minister deal with the real issue and get on with the backlog, an ongoing, increasing backlog, deal with that and stay out of issues that have already been dealt with by other jurisdictions and other courts?

Hon Ms Ziemba: The member opposite raises another point that I'd like to have clarified, and that is that the Human Rights Commission is a quasi-judicial system, a system that should be without political interference. I think that in this province and in this country we would have great difficulty with having any political interference with the Human Rights Commission. This must be an arm's-length relationship with no political interference. I take great offence when I think that the member opposite would even request that a political person interfere with the system in place.

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): My question is for the Minister of Health. It concerns the review of health care services in Ontario. For the sake of expediency, I think I could probably place my question and supplementary together, so there won't be any repetition.

Minister, the private labs in Ontario offer their services to everyone and are not restricted to serving only on premises. These labs have become an integral part of our society and our communities. I know that in the riding of Kitchener-Wilmot these labs make house calls to individuals who are unable to go to labs, as well as to senior citizens' complexes. There is great concern in my riding as to what will happen to private labs, in particular MDS Laboratories and by extension the people who work at them.

We must remember their contribution. Over 8,000 people are employed in private labs. They offer fast, reliable and convenient services. Many are owned by employees through profit-sharing programs. Commercial labs service over 10 million patients. They are community-based and provide specialized services for seniors. The constituents in my riding have very real concerns about the reduction or closure of these labs.

What is the status of the review of these labs and can you give any assurance that private labs will have a place in a restructured, comprehensive health care program in Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to respond and appreciate the fact that the member has said he doesn't have a supplementary. Perhaps I can take some time to explain to the House that in an effort to better manage commercial laboratory expenditures and to keep the cost at an affordable level, the ministry, in consultation with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories, instituted several policy changes over the last couple of years which resulted in savings of $25 million and $11 million respectively.

In November 1992, we initiated a laboratory services review which was to address all the major issues regarding the provision of quality laboratory services, such as the need for utilization management, the best structures to create a system and the roles of the different sectors, as well as the funding mechanisms and human resource management.

This review has been done with all of the various stakeholders and certainly in consultation with the association. The recommendations are currently being prepared, and I am assured that the review will meet its target of taking one year and that we will have the final report from that in November of this year.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. My question relates to the Ontario-Quebec trade barriers, especially in the construction industry. Madam Minister, you will know that the construction industry, especially in the Ottawa-Carleton area, is affected by what is happening in the province of Ontario. Quebec companies are winning contracts and construction workers are getting jobs in the province of Ontario while Ontarians are being shut out of the Quebec market. We think it's very unfair.

The CMIT, the committee of ministers on internal trade, met last week to decide how to break all commercial barriers between provinces. You will recall that their decision wasn't a very good one. The best timetable they could come up with was that legislation could be introduced in 1995. This is unacceptable. We need action now. We need to protect the construction industry right across the province of Ontario.

Can the minister tell this House what action she will take to resolve this dispute between Quebec and Ontario? Are you ready to meet with your Quebec counterpart by the end of this month to figure a way out of this impasse?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I've had many discussions with a number of members from the Ottawa area on all sides of the House with respect to this issue and also with members from northern Ontario, who have a similar problem with respect to, particularly, the issue of construction procurement and mobility of labour in the construction trades.

I'd like to correct one impression that the member may have inadvertently left the viewing public with, with respect to the ministers of internal trade, or interprovincial trade, meeting, which was that a new agenda has been agreed upon which would not see action until 1995.

In fact, we are pursuing an already agreed-to agenda which sees discussions continuing over the course of this summer and the development of a rolling agreement, negotiations to commence directly in the fall at a number of tables, involving various groups of ministers, whether it be with respect to agriculture, the environment or broader issues that ministers responsible for interprovincial trade will maintain the responsibility for. We expect to have conclusion to those negotiations in place by this time next year, and that would be followed on by actions implemented by provinces, as well as legislation to back it up.

Specifically with respect to the issue of Quebec and Ontario, as you know, I've taken the position to support the agreement of the interprovincial ministers of trade not to institute any new barriers and to respect the moratorium on barriers at this point in time. I do, however, agree that there is a need to enter into bilateral discussions with Quebec.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: We have given those indications. There has been agreement between Quebec and Ontario to meet, first of all, at the deputies level. Following that meeting, I would be pleased to report to the House, if it is necessary, on when I would be meeting with my direct counterpart in Quebec.

Mr Grandmaître: We need action now, not next fall. We need action now. We need to protect jobs now in the province of Ontario. People are losing their jobs every day. We need to protect these people. You rightly pointed out that the RMOC, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and la Communauté urbaine de l'Outaouais have been working very closely and have identified at least 50 existing barriers that could be resolved with possibly one or two, maybe three meetings of you and your Quebec counterpart.

Madam Minister, I can't point out more. You have to meet with the Quebec people and the Ontario unions, the syndicates.

Hon Ms Lankin: I just said a meeting has been arranged.

Mr Grandmaître: Well, you're shaking your head. I think you should meet with these people and find out what their problems are. You have a letter on your desk from the Ottawa-Carleton building association telling you that last April it were backing you on negotiations, but now it's asking you to take serious steps, to put an end, to put a stop to the interprovincial barriers.

What will you be doing within the next 10 days?

Hon Ms Lankin: The reason I shake my head at the member is that I don't think he listened to the answer. In fact, I have already attended a meeting with the Quebec minister with respect to interprovincial trade in which these issues were raised, which led to an agreement that we would enter into bilateral discussions, and a meeting is being arranged for the appropriate deputies to meet on that issue.

I would ask the member opposite what action he is looking for. Should the province of Ontario erect unilateral retaliatory actions or barriers at this point in time when we are a signatory to an agreement not to create new barriers? I'm sure he would say no. Would he like us to take action irrespective of what's going on with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, which he referred to, which has said very clearly they do not favour retaliatory action being taken by the province of Ontario till they complete their negotiations and their process, which they see completing in October?

We are working on this issue. We are not pleased with the position the province of Quebec has taken. We respect the desire of all provinces to bring down trade barriers. Ontario is an open province. We are entering into bilateral discussions to try and resolve these issues and try to persuade the province of Quebec to change its practices. Those meetings have been scheduled and are taking place. We are in fact taking action.

LIBEL AND SLANDER LAWS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Attorney General. Ontario's libel and slander laws are antiquated and in desperate need of reform. Your predecessor chose not to address this problem and stated that there will be no action to reform this area as long as this government is sitting. Do you support this position?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): There are many areas of work that are going on in the ministry at the present time, and it's necessary for us to set priorities around some of those areas.

When I talk about "those areas," I'm talking about the massive job of court reform that's ongoing, the kinds of work we need to do to address the issues of victims within the court system, the efforts that must be made to bring accountability into the system, the kinds of efforts we need to do to ensure equity for all the equity-seeking groups in the province.

We have had to set priorities. This is not one of the priorities that the government has set for the current term. That does not mean we are not concerned about many of the issues the member raises, but it does mean that, as any government in a sense of working in an orderly fashion must do, we have set priorities, and at the present time this is not a priority for this particular term of office.

Mr Harnick: This is one area in which the government could do something and it wouldn't cost any money. Unfortunately, only the rich can make use of the current libel laws. Can you explain why you refuse to reform this legislation? Why will you not make this law workable for someone who finds himself involved as a defendant in a libel action?

Hon Mrs Boyd: There is no question but that this issue is very important to those who are involved in this kind of case, but anyone who watches this Legislature understands why it is difficult for this government to move forward with legislation, given the kind of obstructive tactics we see both opposition parties doing every day. If you look at the priority legislation we are attempting to get through this session, then it is very clear to us that we do not intend to be diverted from our major priorities.

It would suit the opposition very well to try and divert this government from the very important legislative reform and change we must make, and we simply are not going to allow ourselves to be diverted. We are going to use the time in this Legislature to bring forward the legislation that we, as a government which has a right to govern, have decided is the priority.

LONDON OFFICIAL PLAN

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. There's been a great deal of concern regarding development proposals in the newly annexed areas of the city of London and the requirement for a new official plan for the municipality. Regulations to guide London's new official plan were promised under Bill 75. What progress has been made by the city in developing a work program for a new official plan?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'd like to commend the work and commitment of the member for Middlesex in representing the concerns of her constituents. Indeed, even early this morning she joined me in a meeting with Warden Joel Blackmore, and we had a very productive meeting in her riding. She has met with my staff on several occasions and with myself, and she has certainly forwarded the concerns of her constituents to this government.

Questions raised by her constituents about the official plan process for the city of London have been brought by that member to our attention, as well as individual development proposals. I'd like to assure her of my commitment and the commitment of this government to respond promptly to all requests for information. The city of London has commenced the process of planning review and consultation for a new official plan as mandated in the London-Middlesex Act, and the city is working closely with the provincial ministries, through the provincial advisory committee, to ensure that provincial interests are addressed.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Minister. I understand the difficulties. However, the people of London and Middlesex county would like to know when these regulations for a new official plan will be introduced.

Hon Mr Philip: The London-Middlesex Act does include provisions for the issuance of regulations concerning the development of an official plan. Staff in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs are currently reviewing the process initiated by the London council, titled Vision '96, which encompasses a broad review of strategic, social and economic planning as well as more traditional official plan elements, and I expect shortly to be able to respond further to the member's questions on the issuance of further regulations.

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. I know you are aware of the impending decision to close down your ministry's district office in Port Hope, because I spoke to you about it last week. What it seems you are not aware of are the actual costs of this decision.

In your haphazard attempts at fiscal management, you have failed to consult with the front-line workers. Had you done this, you would have found out that hundreds of thousands of dollars could have been saved without this unnecessary closure. In fact, Port Hope staff suggested to your ministry official that over half a million dollars could be saved in combining operating costs and salaries. Your officials ignored this, said it was too late for these kinds of proposals. I didn't think any minister would ignore half a million dollars in savings.

Mr Minister, consider this: The retrofit for making the field operations telecommunication system compatible with that in Bancroft would cost $700,000, while the relocation of 40 to 50 employees would cost a minimum of $1 million -- that is, if there's any place for them to go, as the 40-kilometre restriction of your government's redeployment plan would appear to exclude them. Add to this the increases in travel, meals and accommodation expenses which will be incurred with the move from Port Hope to Bancroft.

I have prepared an information package for you full of the real, actual facts. Will you consider these facts before it is too late and the district office is moved? Will you give to me and the people at Port Hope the commitment today?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I'd like the member opposite to consider this: The member will be aware that first and foremost we must address the human dimension, which is the people working at the Ministry of Transportation.

Having said this, the member will also be aware that at present we have a workforce at Transportation which numbers 9,700 employees. The member should also be aware that in the next two years, because of the length of tenure, seniority at Transportation, more than 700 people will be eligible to reach factor 90.

The member knows that with the human dimension being catalytic, that I will, as a minister, make sure that on the one hand, we shall enact savings by cutting down the number of positions, yet, not so ironically, on the other hand, you will preserve the number of jobs but there will be fewer positions because people will be retiring anyway. Everything will be done to minimize the impact on people who already have a job, and everything will be done to maximize the impact on saving money for people who will not be replaced anyway.

Mrs Fawcett: The honourable minister puts me in mind of Marcel Marceau: Everything is in make believe.

Minister, you consider this: According to the growth rate figures as supplied by Statscan for the period of 1986-91, you will see that Northumberland county's growth rate was 15.5%, more than twice that of Hastings county and 50% more than the provincial average. Further, the service areas of Port Hope office, which includes most of Peterborough county, grew 18.9% to 24%,

whereas those in Bancroft only grew at 2%.

These are significant differences and clearly indicate the future requirements for infrastructure development, maintenance and services that will be in the existing Port Hope district office area. It makes absolutely no sense to shut down an operation along the Highway 401 corridor that has the largest potential for growth and relocate to an area that doesn't have any potential for growth.

I know I don't sit at the same table that you and the Minister of Agriculture and Food do, but surely you wouldn't disregard all of these facts for purely political reasons.

Will you review these facts? Will you review the fact that millions of dollars will be lost to the Port Hope and Northumberland economy? And if you are really going to go through with this crazy notion, would you even consider a contingency fund, then, to assist those affected by the decision?

We do not want the move, because it is not the one to make.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member complete her question, please.

Mrs Fawcett: Move Bancroft down to us.

Hon Mr Pouliot: To be compared to Marcel Marceau is indeed an honour. If it weren't for the employees, if the focus were solely on the question, Marceau would have dismissed it, à la bagatelle, with a gesture. Marceau doesn't speak, and yet he speaks legend. The problem here is that the member doesn't listen, Marceau or no Marceau.

People's jobs are at stake. We will do everything to redeploy. We have paid meticulous attention. No stone has been left unturned when it's time to talk about training, about alternatives, about redeployment, not only in the Ministry of Transportation but in working with other ministries.

By way of conclusion, we are fortunate at Transportation that the impact will be minimal. We will achieve substantial savings and people will be able to keep working for the government of Ontario in the great majority of cases.

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition which I'd like to present today that has been given to me by many of the union members in the Quinte area. It reads:

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

"We, the following undersigned citizens of the Quinte area, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ontario government must 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.

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services."

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): 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 192 people from North Bay, Redbridge, Owen Sound, Meaford, Callander, Sturgeon Falls, Brantford, Minden, Haliburton, Peterborough and Bobcaygeon. I've signed it too.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have here a petition signed by many, many students in my riding, many hundreds of whom have signed this petition, concerned about their future and the future of their families and their children.

"Whereas we feel that the Canada-US free trade deal has done immeasurable damage to the economy of the province of Ontario, causing the loss of more than 45,000 jobs in Ontario alone; and

"Whereas we feel that the proposed North American free trade arrangement will have an even more devastating effect upon Ontario, resulting in a loss not only of jobs but also a reduction in environmental standards, our labour standards, our social standards, workers' rights and our overall quality of life;

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal with whatever means possible and we petition the House of Commons to stop this deal now."

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition signed by some 60 residents of my riding and of the Ottawa-Carleton area. The petition reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm going to read into the record again a number of things that people from across the province have presented against casino gambling:

"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."

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

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I stand tall in my place to read a petition from the Stittsville United Church:

"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 citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city; and

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

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

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, members of the Stittsville United Church, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

As I have stood tall in my place, I sign this petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I didn't know the member for Carleton had reached such heights.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition signed by a full third of the residents who live in the town of Pickering.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): All of them against casinos.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): And dumps.

Mr Wiseman: And dumps.

"We, the citizens of the town of Pickering, want the government of Ontario to know that we do not endorse the indiscriminate selection of another dump in our community. Specifically, we object to a selection process which chooses prime farm land close to residential communities on sensitive aquifers as suitable sites for landfill.

"We urge the government to be more environmentally responsible and do what is morally and legally right. We expect this from our elected officials.

"We are concerned that the ultimate aim of this process is to find a Metro Toronto landfill site, and not as we are led to believe, a Durham-only site. This belief is founded on the fact that none of the 57 sites is within Metro's boundaries. Political accountability can only occur if the site is located within the municipality it serves."

I affix my signature to this petition.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

While I won't read all of the organizations supporting this petition, it is part of a petition that has gathered well over 15,000 names. It has my full support. I have attached my signature to this part of the petition.

I'd like to confirm that in fact Bruce A has received a certificate to continue operation for the following year.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's a good job you're in the back row.

Mr Arnott: I'll always be here.

"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 have 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."

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): 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 (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive 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 have 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."

The first name on the list is Doreen Quirk, councillor from Thornhill, and the other signatures were collected at Thornhill United Church -- approximately 50 signatures presented. Ï'm very pleased to affix my signature to this petition and humbly present it with the hope that it does some good on this government.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by a number of my constituents, including Eleanor Rice and Peggy Strong:

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education proposes to substantially modify the provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled by their downsizing, closing parts of or restructuring the schools, resulting in significant hardship for students, families, employees and the local community for the purposes of saving money; and

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents' Association believes that the quality education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled provides the lowest total cost option available while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible;

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

"

(1) Maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model from all interested parties has been developed; and

"

(2) Empower local boards of trustees, as set out in model 5, to manage their own budgets within the ministry guidelines and funding."

I will sign my name. This is signed by a significant number of people who aren't in my riding.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

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

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

GAMBLING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank you very much indeed for this opportunity. I really appreciate the opportunity. I now know this really is an old boys' club.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signifying our opposition to the intent of the government to legalize casino gambling in our province.

"We concur with the reasons expressed in the letter of the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition, which was written on May 3, 1992."

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Just for the benefit of members, when comes the time to rise for a petition, the Speaker always recognizes the person who rises first. If you stand up, how can I recognize you? You have to sit, rise and I recognize you. It's not being unfair. I recognize the first person who stands up, and that is the ruling. That is 22(b), for the benefit of the members.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Paul R. Johnson from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 164,

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

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1542 to 1612.

The Deputy Speaker: "Pursuant to standing order 27(g), I request that the vote on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Bill 164,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act, be deferred until after routine proceedings, June 22, 1993.

"Chief Liberal whip, Steve Mahoney."

The vote will be accordingly deferred. Are there any other committee reports?

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, do you have a point of order?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I guess not.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KIRBRYN HOLDINGS INC ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr9,

An Act to revive Kirbryn Holdings Inc.

PARAGON FINANCIAL CORP ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Grandmaître, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill Pr54,

An Act to revive Paragon Financial Corp.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour that the bill pass will say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. The motion is lost.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I move that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled

An Act respecting Aphasia Centre -- North York, and that it be now read for the first time.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not the right document.

PHILMANSER INVESTMENTS LTD, 1993

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

Bill Pr55,

An Act to revive Philmanser Investments Ltd.

VILLAGE OF MERRICKVILLE ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting the Village of Merrickville.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could I perhaps seek unanimous consent of the House to let the member for Ottawa East try it again?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed, but before I recognize Mr Grandmaître, I would like to bring again the bill of Mr Turnbull.

APHASIA CENTRE -- NORTH YORK ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting Aphasia Centre -- North York.

PARAGON FINANCIAL CORP ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr54,

An Act to revive Paragon Financial Corp.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 48,

An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program / Loi visant à favoriser la négociation d'accords dans le secteur public de façon à protéger les emplois et les services tout en réduisant les dépenses et traitant de certaines questions relatives au programme de réduction des dépenses du gouvernement.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Essex-Kent had finished his speech and we had reached a stage of questions and comments. Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I'm delighted to participate in the debate on Bill 48, the so-called social contract legislation. The reason I call it the so-called social contract legislation is that I'm not really sure exactly what the government means by its social contract.

It seems to me that when the "social contract" term was first introduced in the 1700s, it was a term that really was all- encompassing, where everybody who was going to be affected by the particular decision got together and decided in a collegial way what the outcome was going to be.

In this situation we have what in fact is a unilateral social contract. The government has called people together and said: "This is what we are doing to you. Now you tell us what you think would be the best way for us to do it to you." It is not asking them: "Is this something that we should be doing? Do you have any other alternatives of what we should be doing?" It really is unilateral: "This is what we are doing. This is what we have to achieve. You tell us how we can do it. If you don't tell us, and if you don't come to a reasonable, in our opinion, solution, we will impose on you what it is that we think it should be."

I want to spend a bit of time talking about how we got to this point. How did we get to the situation where the government has had to take what many consider to be quite draconian means to rectify a problem that in many cases was its own doing?

I want to refer to the 1991 budget. The budget document, which was released by the Treasurer of the day, who still happens to be the Minister of Finance, is quite interesting to read when you read it in hindsight.

It starts off and says, among other things, that 1991 "is proving to be the most severe Ontario has experienced in the last 50 years. This recession is unlike economic cycles of the past. It is more serious because of the economic restructuring that is altering many traditional assumptions about the nature of growth and competition."

The government can't say, "We have suddenly been confronted with an economic situation that we didn't anticipate, that has created far more problems than we thought it was going to do and, as a result, we've had to take these somewhat stern measures."

Interestingly enough, on the same page the Treasurer says: "To support our economic strategy, we are committed to managing the public sector in ways that help meet our social and economic priorities through effective fiscal management."

That is a statement that we could have heard from this government today or in the last budget. They wanted to deal with the public sector in ways that help meet their social and economic priorities. But what actually happened? They didn't address that. They went about a totally different strategy.

I want to quote the next page. It says: "The Ontario economy has been in recession for a year. Job losses to date have already surpassed the levels in every recession since the Second World War. Since last spring, employment in Ontario has declined by about a quarter of a million jobs."

This was in 1991. Interestingly enough, and I think this statement is quite historic in its context, it says: "The unemployment rate, however, is only expected to decline to 7.8% by 1994. The jobless outlook is unacceptable to this government and we are committed to pursuing policies to fight unemployment."

What has in fact happened? In 1991, they had predicted that in 1994 they would be reduced to 7.8% unemployment, which was totally unaccepta