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

May 18, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

COURT REPORTERS

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

EVENTS IN MIDDLESEX

OXFORD REGIONAL CENTRE

LOU PARSONS

SENECA COLLEGE CAMPUS

CAPITAL INVESTMENT

ROYAL WEEK

CHANGE OF HEART PROGRAM

RETAIL STORE LEGISLATION

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY MAILING

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

HEALTH CARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HEALTH CARE

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

TIRE RECYCLING

VISITOR

JOB CREATION

ECONOMIC POLICY

CAPITAL INVESTMENT

TOURISM

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

REFERRAL OF BILL 7

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TRANSIT SERVICES

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICE

VIOLENCE

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HEALTH EDUCATION

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

GAMBLING

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

GRAVENHURST OPERA HOUSE

GAMBLING

TENANTS AND LANDLORDS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES ET DES LOCATEURS

TOWN OF GRAVENHURST ACT, 1993

CRUICKSHANK ELDERLY PERSONS CENTRE ACT, 1993

RYERSON POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA RYERSON POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

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

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

HEALTH CARE

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COURT REPORTERS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Attorney General a very serious problem. It's reported in today's Globe and Mail and I'm advised personally by court reporters, some 700 or more who have served this province well over the years, that their jobs may very well be in jeopardy.

The Attorney General has announced a plan to replace court reporters with microphones and computers. I suggest that if this were the loss of union jobs of people in factories due to automation, the NDP would be shouting. Instead, what they do is simply remain silent and allow this ill-conceived plan to take shape.

There are judges and lawyers throughout this province who are terribly concerned about this. The transcription of the words that are spoken, particularly in a criminal court, are especially essential in terms of determining justice for an accused and, in civil matters, for the working out of disputes in civil litigation. I suggest that if you have microphones taking the place of human beings, you're going to have every cough, sputter and everything else on it, but you will be hardly getting what is truly just for the people who are the litigants.

I suggest that the Attorney General perhaps should find out who the light-brained person in her department was who thought up this scheme, because in fact it's not a saving of money to the province. They talk about $20 million being saved. I can tell you, reporters have served this province well for probably minimum wage or a little bit better. They make their money on printing transcripts that are paid for by the lawyers themselves. The justices and lawyers and judges of this province wish the reporters to remain.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement's for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It concerns the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario, more commonly known as the Sewell commission, which is scheduled to complete its final report some time this month.

Minister, the Sewell commission's draft report contains a number of policy proposals that could very well bring any form of development in rural Ontario to a grinding halt. For example, the Sewell commission suggests that private septics should be inspected every three years and pumped out regularly, with all costs charged to the owner. This is nothing but a blatant tax grab and will make developers think twice before they consider investing in rural Ontario.

I have always had concerns that members of the Sewell commission failed to recognize that rural regions of Ontario have concerns that are distinct from those of the urban regions. It is important for the final report of the Sewell commission to include recommendations that take these differences into account. These recommendations must deal with the economic and social problems of rural Ontario, especially the issues of planning, resource development and the environment. It is extremely important that rural regions be given representation at every level of decision-making, and that includes disentanglement and the downloading on municipalities across this province.

EVENTS IN MIDDLESEX

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): As always, it was a busy weekend in Middlesex. On Saturday, May 15, I had the opportunity to participate in two special events. The first, with invited guests the Honourable Marion Boyd, MPP London Centre, and David Winninger, London South, was a special presentation by Labatt's of London to Fanshawe Pioneer Village in my riding. Labatt's has donated the original and historic John Labatt Brewery to the pioneer village. In addition, Labatt's is providing funding towards the cost of the move from west London to the Fanshawe Park location northeast of the city.

Over the winter, the dedicated staff of Fanshawe will prepare the brewery for visitors and history buffs fortunate enough to visit Fanshawe Pioneer Village and share in the rich history of the London and Middlesex area. It is also a fitting way for Labatt's to say thank you to a community that has contributed significantly to the success of John Labatt Ltd.

The second event was the first annual inspection for 201 Dorchester Royal Canadian Air Cadets. The members of Dorchester 201 Squadron, sponsored by Branch 513 of the Donnybrook Royal Canadian Legion, had a great deal to celebrate on Saturday. In addition to this first inspection, the cadets were honoured by the presence of members of the original 201 Toronto Squadron, which began in 1942. Dorchester 201 unveiled its new crest and was honoured with many presentations by the community.

OXFORD REGIONAL CENTRE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My statement is on the closure of the Oxford Regional Centre. As many expected, and from confirmation through an internal document of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, it has now been confirmed that the Oxford Regional Centre will close in 1996.

We all know that there are thousands of developmentally disabled people in this province who are on waiting lists. Yet the same internal ministry document I mentioned earlier states that there will be no increase in transfer payments to social service agencies, these same agencies which will be expected now to meet the needs of the residents of the Oxford centre.

At present, there are 522 staff working at the centre. The ministry is projecting a more than 60% staff decrease in this first year, 1993-94, as it phases out this program. The ministry must assure the families and the present residents of the Oxford Regional Centre that quality care and meaningful programs will be maintained in this important time of transition.

The minister knows and I know that the residents mandated for transition to the community are multiply handicapped individuals with intellectual impairments and often with behavioural problems. As new community settings are developed, parents who have mounting anxieties and concerns must be guaranteed a prominent place at the table.

LOU PARSONS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Lou Parsons, the chairman of GO Transit, has been named Ontario's 1993 Transportation Person of the Year. This award goes to the individual whose leadership throughout his career has improved and advanced the transportation industry. No one is more deserving of this tribute than Lou Parsons.

Lou has dedicated his life to improving transportation and enhancing Ontario's national and international reputation in the ground transportation field. A founding member of the GO Transit board when it became a crown agency in September 1974, Lou Parsons has been a driving force at GO ever since. He served as a vice-chair of GO from 1974 to 1979 and has been the chair since 1980.

Under Lou Parsons's direction, GO has grown from a fledgling interregional transit service to an internationally recognized, state-of-the-art, integrated system which has received numerous awards. On the safety front, GO has been recognized as the safest transportation system in North America.

This award is a demonstration of the respect that Lou's local and national peers have always had and continue to have for his abilities, but his leadership and prowess have also been recognized on the international scene: Lou Parsons is the only Canadian ever to have chaired the American Public Transit Association. His election to that post in 1991 saw his talents being put to use leading an organization which includes over 1,000 members.

SENECA COLLEGE CAMPUS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Mr Speaker, I was almost late today. I rushed over here from a rally that took place at Jane and Finch in my riding of Yorkview.

Right at the corner of York Gate Boulevard and Finch Avenue is this big, huge, open piece of land, a perfect spot for a Seneca College campus. Last week I asked the Minister of Education and Training a question. That question was: What are you going to do about a Seneca College campus? What are you going to do when the consultants come to you and say that a campus should be placed somewhere west of Yonge Street, and when they recommend that perhaps that campus should be placed at Jane and Finch, what are you going to do?

I'm hoping he's going to say yes, we are going to invest in the future of the people in my community. I hope we're going to invest in the people right now who currently need the education. We are sick and tired of travelling 20 miles to the closest college. We want a college in our community. The Jane and Finch community has been asking four years. I hope the minister is listening, because I know that recommendation is going to come down.

I want to thank all of those students from the YESS committee: Yorkview Educates Students for Seneca. This is an important issue. I hope the minister puts a college campus at Jane and Finch.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I think yesterday we saw another sign of the way the Rae government chooses to operate. Yesterday the government quietly introduced a bill that is going to set up four new capital corporations that will bring in new debt, off the government books, probably $5 billion.

We pleaded with the Premier in December to bring the legislation forward well before the budget so we could look at it and see whether it had any sense to it at all. What did we see yesterday? No ministerial statement. It was not announced in the House when we in the opposition would have had an opportunity to comment on it. It was introduced quietly under a procedure that you're aware of, Mr Speaker, where the minister introduced it under the introduction of bills. It should have been a ministerial statement, without question.

We pleaded with the Premier in December. I had an undertaking by the Premier. I thought he appreciated the importance of this and that we would have a chance to debate it.

This bill will no doubt run up enormous debts. All the school boards in this province will now borrow, with a commitment by the province to repay it. It will be a way of hiding, we think, at least $5 billion worth of new debt.

Rather than bringing it forward and giving the opposition a chance to comment on it, it was introduced quietly. I think, unfortunately, this is typical of how Rae is now choosing to operate, rather than giving the opposition a chance to comment on important bills.

ROYAL WEEK

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I wish to inform the House that this is Royal Week 1993 and has been declared so by many municipalities across Ontario, including the city of Burlington.

Royal Week celebrates Canada's heritage as a community living under the crown and the many benefits we share as a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as our head of state. Royal Week culminates in the celebration of Victoria Day on May 24, which honours the 174th anniversary of the birth of Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch at Canadian Confederation, and the birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. This year also marks the 40th anniversary of Her Majesty's coronation on June 2, 1953, and of the royal title Queen of Canada.

The Queen's birthday parade will be the focus of the celebrations on Victoria Day as it makes its way up University Avenue to Queen's Park. Colourful militia and historical units, bands, multicultural and heritage groups will be reviewed by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and by you, Mr Speaker.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the organizers of the parade, Garry Toffoli, the Ontario chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, and Arthur Bousfield, the Dominion vice-chairman, for all the hard work that they put into organizing this truly beautiful parade each and every year.

As an honorary life member of the Monarchist League of Canada and on behalf of my colleagues in the Conservative caucus, I reaffirm my allegiance to the Queen of Canada and invite all members of the Legislature to join me in that commitment, especially during Royal Week. God save the Queen.

CHANGE OF HEART PROGRAM

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Now that spring is here and the weather has turned warm and inviting, I would like to welcome all members of the House to come to a walk in my riding of York East by participating in the Change of Heart program.

This program, sponsored by the East York Health Unit, promotes health and wellbeing by getting involved in any of four signature walks featured in my riding. The walks are combined with an historical tour and they take place in the Crescent Town, Leaside, Pape and Thorncliffe areas. All the walks have access points to the Don Valley.

I will help to launch the historical and architectural walk A Touch of History in Leaside on the evening of Thursday, May 27. I am very proud of the beauty and the history found here in Toronto, in my own riding of York East, and I would be delighted to have you join me in the festivities planned on the 27th. Of course, you are welcome to come any time and take

part in any of the series of walks.

RETAIL STORE LEGISLATION

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege with respect to the treatment of Bill 38, Sunday shopping legislation, by the government. This issue involves a violation of not only my privileges but the privileges of all members of the House. At this time, Mr Speaker, I would like you to consider this breach of privilege in greater detail and report back to the House.

On November 25, 1991, a law which received royal assent prohibited the opening of stores on Sunday throughout the province. The government then introduced Bill 38 on June 4, 1992, which proposed an amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act allowing for Sunday shopping. This bill, which has yet to reach second reading, has no guarantee of passage because the Premier insisted that it would be a free vote when he introduced it to the House on June 3, 1992.

None the less, this government has indicated to police forces and crown attorneys across the province that they are not to enforce the law of this province. In effect, the government has acted as if the bill has received royal assent, even though it has not received the approval and due consideration of the members of this House.

By acting in this way, this government has brought into question the most fundamental tenet of responsible government fought for in this province since 1837, the right of the elected members to vote on legislation and hold the government accountable. By instructing the police forces of this province to not uphold a duly considered law, this government has displayed a reckless disregard, indeed an arrogance, against democratic government and the rights of all members of this Legislature.

Mr Speaker, should you find that the privileges of the members of the Legislature have been violated through the government's actions, I will introduce a motion asking you to instruct the government to enforce the law until the amendments are passed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for St George-St David, may I say first that I appreciate the way in which he has brought this matter to my attention. He raises a serious point, and it's one which I wish to have some time to reflect on. After so doing, I will report back to the member and to the House, but I thank you for drawing a serious concern to the attention of the House.

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY MAILING

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: My point of privilege is somewhat less serious than the one raised by the member for St George-St David, but nevertheless I think it's worthy of your consideration.

Sir, last week I received a piece of mail in my mailbox at home, one typically like the type of junk mail that people get now and again at their homes. This one, like those Publishers Clearing House advertisements, offers me an opportunity to win a free trip to British Columbia. All I have to do is place one of these stamps that you see here on this entry form and I'm eligible for a free trip. It also invites me to send a little bit of money along should I so choose.

When I open the letter I find that it's signed by none other than the famous Jill Marzetti, who is the executive director of the Ontario NDP, inviting me to participate in this year's New Democratic Party sweepstakes.

The thing that I find most offensive about this is that the letter says, "Dear Fellow New Democrat." Now the last time I checked I was the Liberal representative for the riding of York Centre. As a matter of privilege, I would simply ask you to ask the Premier and Jill Marzetti to stop buying lists to try and raise money and, if my name is included on their list, to please expunge my name. There is no greater insult than to be included in that band of rogues.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member, it seems that the message has already been delivered. While the member doesn't have a point of order, I trust that if he wins a free trip he'll let us know.

Are there statements by ministers? It is time for oral questions.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I recognize that a number of ministers have begun to drift in as our members have raised points of privilege. I understand that the Premier is to be late in arriving for question period today. I knew that the Treasurer was not to be present the day before the budget. The Minister of Health, I understand, is to be here but is not present in the House as we begin question period. I want to express my complete frustration at the inability to begin question period in the absence of the individuals to whom we have to direct our questions.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): While I appreciate the concern expressed, the member will know that I have no control over attendance in the House of any member. Admittedly, question period is a time for the opposition in particular to raise questions of policy and issues of concern to members of the cabinet, and it's a little difficult to do if the members of cabinet are not here. There are individual members of cabinet here. I have no control over suspending. It would not be proper for me to suspend the sitting right now.

I see the member for Bruce is anxious to raise a point of order.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent of the House that we recess for a period of 15 minutes and allow the ministers to come here so that we can engage in the business of the day. Failing that, I suggest that we move on to delivering petitions and other routine proceedings until the ministers actually can come here.

As you know, to allow us to put the business of the day in order, we were advised by the government House leader of those ministers who are to attend and who are going to be absent and those people who are going to be late. That way we can prepare our day's work in an orderly fashion. In fact we then are able to proceed in a reasonable way with getting the work of the House done.

With those people not now in the House who have been committed to be here, it seems to me that we have not been given correct information. That, as a result, allows us to have prepared questions which are not now to be addressed to the ministers who are supposed to be here. I ask again, may we have unanimous consent to recess for 15 minutes?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point, Mr Speaker: It is becoming extremely frustrating, not only for opposition members but I'm sure for government backbench members as well, to not have cabinet ministers here. We received a note just now that the Premier is running late. We've had some difficulty getting a list in the last couple of days as to which cabinet ministers would in fact be in the House for question period and which ministers would not be in the House.

I would think that the government would want to give unanimous consent either to stand down question period for a few minutes until a suitable number of cabinet colleagues can arrive or to proceed with motions and petitions and some other of the routine proceedings and we can revert back to question period.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The opposition has taken the position that they want the Premier here in the House, and we have made every effort to ensure that happens. He will be here today, albeit a little bit late, but he will be here today to answer questions. The members of the opposition have every opportunity to stand down their questions until he does arrive.

The Speaker: The first question is, is there unanimous consent to have the House adjourn for 15 minutes? No.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. On the second point raised by the honourable member for Bruce, the list which he refers to, as he will know of course, is an informal document. It is not something to which the Chair is privy, nor does it have any status with respect to the standing orders. It is an arrangement made by the three parties, and I can offer no other information about that.

It would not be appropriate for me to rearrange the order in which we will conduct routine proceedings. We are at a point where we should begin oral questions, and I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, you will recognize that I do not rise to raise frivolous points of order. We take the order of this House very seriously and we prepare for question period with a great deal of attention. I did not raise the issue of the Premier's lateness. I understood that was to be the case. We were given due notice of that and we have adjusted our order of business accordingly.

We were told the Minister of Health would be here. I served notice that my second question is to the Minister of Health. We have no indication of when she is going to arrive. I suggest, as a serious order of business in this House, that the government is simply not taking the place of question period as an order of business seriously enough, and that's why I express my frustration.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, could we have unanimous consent to proceed with motions, petitions, reports by committee and introduction of bills until there are a sufficient number of cabinet ministers here to proceed? We have six away today, nine away yesterday, seven away last Thursday, and seven of them can't do anything except ride around in their cars and call themselves junior ministers.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent to move to motions? Agreed? No.

The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think the one factor the House has to take into consideration when dealing with this matter is that the House did not sit from December 10 till the second week of April, April 13, of this year. All of that time the government did not have to face the opposition or its own members on any questioning.

Now that the House is sitting for such a short period of time, surely we have the right of having the courtesy of having ministers here, the senior ministers who are going to be the subject of questions during a day, instead of being off on hotline shows and 5,000 other places.

The Speaker: Briefly, I understand the concerns raised by the member for St Catharines, the member for Parry Sound and the Leader of the Opposition. It perhaps is a subject which the three House leaders in their regular weekly meeting may wish to address since it obviously has caused some upset here in the chamber.

It is time for oral questions.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a belated point, if I might, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: No, I've dealt with this at some length. There is nothing out of order. I realize the member is an experienced member of the House. If he has something additional to offer, briefly, I will entertain it. Otherwise, we move on.

Mr Conway: You're in a very difficult position, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate that. I have a question to the Minister of Health. She was supposed to be here. She's not here.

I would ask, through you, the government House leader to indicate whether or not the people he said would be here today will in fact be true to their word, because if they're not going to be here, then quite frankly, there's no point in my being here, because I'm here to ask a question to the Minister of Health in good faith because I was told by the government House leader that she would be here. She's not here. I'd like some direction, through you, from the government House leader as to what is going to happen with the people we were told would be here to answer questions today.

Hon Mr Charlton: I have no indication that the specific member whom the member is referring to, or any other member who was on the list, is not going to be here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It is time for oral questions. Start the clock. I recognize --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The Minister of Health is lost.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Brampton South, please come to order. I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): That's not what we were looking for.

The Speaker: Order. Members will note that the clock has started. I would ask members to come to order so that we can begin question period.

Interjections.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, you will recognize that in a parliamentary democracy, the role of question period and my role as Leader of the Opposition is to use this time to hold the government accountable. I cannot do that if the government members will not be here to be held accountable. I have no choice but to stand down my questions until they arrive.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Speaker, in the absence of the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer, in the absence of anybody capable of answering my questions, I would ask if I could stand down my two questions.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board --

Mrs McLeod: Point of order: Stand down the third question in the order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We have stood down both leaders' questions, so we will have a single question here as soon as they come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the House has come to order, then we can continue. For the information of members, we have stood down two questions for the Leader of the Opposition and two questions for the leader of the third party. Therefore, we are back to the Liberal Party, the official opposition, for a single question, and we begin the rotation.

Mrs McLeod: If you had our order paper, Mr Speaker, you would know that our third question was to the Premier. We will also have to stand our third question down.

The Speaker: That isn't allowable. If you wish to relinquish your position -- you can only stand down the two opening questions for both parties.

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): In light of your ruling, Mr Speaker, we place our first question to the Chairman of Management Board.

Minister, we know that over the past two months your government has been holding so-called social contract negotiations in the five-star Royal York Hotel. We know that to date you've spent in excess of $100,000 of taxpayers' money, which has included over $70,000 on the rental of rooms and suites, on food and courier services. We know that, at the same time, you were offered free space at Metro Hall, and you have available your own government buildings at the Macdonald Block and other such locations.

My question to you, sir, is: Why are you spending thousands of dollars on hotel facilities when you could be conducting these negotiations and these talks in the free space that is available to you?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I would suggest to the member opposite that there are probably 100 good answers to the question, but I think there are two primary ones.

The member made reference, for example, to the rooms in the Macdonald Block. I would think, although perhaps memories can be very short, that the member opposite would remember that the rooms in the Macdonald Block are very extensively utilized on a regular basis. In fact, very rarely do they sit empty for any considerable period of time. So it becomes a question of who meets elsewhere, not just the fact that there are rooms available in the Macdonald Block, because they are utilized on a regular basis for ongoing government functions and others.

Secondly, the social contract negotiations which have been going on are an extremely important process, a new process albeit, and a process that has been feeling its way, with fairly regular contact between a large number of parties which in fact need room in order to consult and go forward and so on and so forth. To the best of my knowledge, the government simply sought out the best facility it could find to have that kind of process occur in.

Mrs Caplan: Of all of the answers that I expected from the Chairman of Management Board, that one is one which I think the taxpayers of this province will find completely and absolutely unacceptable.

I would remind you, sir, that just a month ago you began those discussions in your own Macdonald Block. You were offered, free of charge, Metro Hall; you turned it down. This is an issue of government waste, of government saying one thing, getting together to talk about cost cutting and profligate spending at the taxpayers' expense.

I would ask you: How can you possibly justify over $100,000? Your talks are in chaos and you are spending taxpayers' dollars needlessly. Will you today commit to moving those talks to the free spaces that are available to you?

Hon Mr Charlton: First of all, we don't agree that the talks are in chaos.

Secondly, I repeat that the kinds of facilities that are required for the kinds of discussions with the large number of groups needing facilities in which they can consult with themselves, facilities where they can consult with each other and the facilities where they can come to the table with the negotiators are extremely important to the sensitivities around this kind of process, and we don't agree that there's a significant waste of taxpayers' money.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, third party.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): May I place the first leader's question now that the Minister of Health has arrived, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Leader's question.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Obviously, my first question is to the Minister of Health.

Minister, I listened very carefully yesterday to the responses that you gave to the questions that were asked by the member for Renfrew North. He asked, as you will recall, what plans you have to provide for the health care services that will be lost if your ministry acts on the proposals that have been made to the Ontario Medical Association. There were no answers, because there are no plans; because I didn't have any sense that you have really looked at what the impact of those proposals might be.

Minister, I am particularly concerned about the way in which your government has targeted medical students in this province by telling them that there are only certain places in which they are going to be able to practise. What became absolutely clear to me, Minister, in your answers yesterday was that you are simply using these students as bargaining chips in your negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association.

Minister, while you talk about negotiations, the lives of these students are on hold. They're calling our offices, they're calling your offices, they're asking where can they go, what can they do, where will they be able to practise, where will they get jobs, and there are no answers because there are no plans.

Minister, I ask you, how can you use these young people as pawns in your very poorly thought-out game? What are you telling them about where they should be going -- on to the unemployment lines in five weeks' time or straight out of this province?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for being late, but let me say in response to her question that I think it would be most unfortunate if anybody used newly graduating physicians as pawns. That is certainly not what this government is doing, I'm sure it's not what the opposition is doing and I hope it's not what the Ontario Medical Association is doing.

We tabled with the Ontario Medical Association on April 23 a long list of proposals that would better allow us to manage the resources in the health care system, particularly doctors. The idea, of course, is not to prevent new and talented doctors from serving this province but to make sure that qualified physicians do not graduate simply to serve in areas where there is already an oversupply of doctors, and that we have the best qualified people in all the parts of the province and for all the populations of the province who need them.

We had anticipated that we would quickly be able to discuss that with the Ontario Medical Association. A regularly scheduled meeting for tomorrow has now been cancelled by the OMA, maybe because it's budget day, but we certainly hope that it is not because they do not wish to sit down and discuss management practice suggestions that are not new to them --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that are in place in other provinces and that have been under discussion with the OMA for quite some time.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): If the meeting for tomorrow has been cancelled, it's because the options which the government has put on the table are arbitrary, they're unplanned and they're simply stupid.

Three graduates in this year's class intended to provide primary care for HIV patients in Toronto. One graduate of this year's medical school intended to work with people who are addicted at the Queen-Dufferin centre. All of those graduates have been locked out -- locked out, I say to you, Minister, because that's precisely what you've done with this policy. What about the paediatrician who intended to work in cancer care in Toronto with paediatric patients? That person has been locked out.

What account did you take of the health care needs of the people? You are number-crunching and you weren't paying any attention to what people needed in terms of treatment. What analysis did you do? What planning did you do? This is stupid and everybody knows it's stupid.

Hon Mrs Grier: I participated in a number of negotiations, our government has participated in a number of negotiations, and to justify the refusal to negotiate on the basis that they don't like some of the proposals that have been made is frankly not the kind of negotiation that I expect from the Ontario Medical Association or that I believe is in fact its intention.

I'm very pleased that we have a framework agreement with the OMA, an agreement that provides for a joint management committee to meet and to discuss issues of concern, both about the quality of health care, which is the objective we both share, and the cost of health care.

The proposals we have tabled with the OMA are proposals that will lead us to both protect and preserve medicare, which we believe cannot happen if we allow the costs to go simply out of control. It is certainly my hope that the Ontario Medical Association will sit at the table with us and will address precisely the kind of concerns the member has raised.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Since our discussion yesterday afternoon, Madam Minister, I have spoken to hospital and other health care providers in the communities of Pembroke, Renfrew, Deep River and Barry's Bay and, to a person, in those small cities and rural communities in my part of eastern Ontario they are very, very worried about this package of proposals which you have offered under the rubric of an expenditure control plan for physicians' services, which you and your government have already decided will this year strip out $275 million worth of public moneys for health programs in this province.

That has been decided. In my rural communities these people have said that this package of proposals, taken as a whole, will seriously impair the level of services, most especially in the area of emergency services at these small rural hospitals.

My question, on behalf of the thousands of rural people I represent in places like Barry's Bay and Pembroke and Deep River is, what are your alternatives to ensure that there is going to be a reasonable level of health care to people being served in rural, small-town and small-city Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said to the member yesterday, the opportunity and the location for the discussion about how to best manage resources in health care are provided through our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association. We want to see those proceed as quickly as possible. It has now been three weeks since we laid some proposals before the Ontario Medical Association, and we are ready, waiting and anxious to have the discussions that will serve, I believe, to alleviate the very real concern that he is expressing on behalf of his constituents.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Labour and it concerns the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. All in this House support the concept of making workplaces safe. It's not a partisan issue. But it's essential that safety training programs are realistic, reasonable and affordable and that training resources are allocated appropriately so that the safety of all workers is ensured.

In Wellington county there is a firm called L&M Food Markets, which is a chain of supermarkets owned by Merlen Kropf. Minister, your agency is asking this chain of supermarkets, for each store, to send two employees for two full weeks of safety training at a cost of at least $6,900 per store. My question is this: Does the Minister really believe that a grocery store is so dangerous that workers and management require two full weeks of safety training?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The health and safety agency has set up a certification program for various types of hazardous workplaces, whether they're factories, whether they're food shops, whether they're office operations, and they have set in place a training system for those workplaces. I'm not going to second-judge the decisions that were made by a joint labour-management group that decided on the process for health and safety.

Mr Arnott: That agency is not working properly. I'll tell you it is totally unreasonable for grocery store workers to have two full weeks of safety training. This is a grocery store, not a mine, not a construction site, not a nuclear generating facility, not even a factory. The inappropriate use of these training resources may actually endanger the workers in the most hazardous of workplaces.

I know Merlen Kropf; I worked for him when I was in high school. He's concerned about workplace safety because he's concerned about his employees and the safety of his customers. He's a job creator, and your agency is rewarding him by sending him letters threatening a $500,000 fine or even imprisonment.

How can the minister justify this agency threatening the job creators of this province and its refusal to use its training resources sensibly on the most hazardous workplaces first so that all workers are protected in the province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Under the new health and safety legislation in the province of Ontario, I am sure the member knows that there are almost 100,000 workers who will now be going through the certification process. I certainly believe that workers in all different operations and different classifications need the health and safety training program. I don't think two weeks is too long a period of time whatsoever. I know that a number of the unions in the field he's talking about say that's the only way you're going to begin to cover adequately the workers in those operations.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Health. Mrs Minister, there has been quite a bit of discussion around the Legislature and other venues with regard to the proposal the government has put forward to the OMA about fee differentials in terms of doctors' billings. I have a community in my riding, the community of Matheson, which, as of about a month ago, had to shut down its emergency department in evenings and on weekends because it hasn't been able to attract doctors into that community. They've been short a number of doctors for almost six or seven months now.

The question I have to you, Mrs Minister, is very clear: Under the proposal made to the Ontario Medical Association, if agreed to, first of all, would the community of Matheson be designated as an underserviced community so that it would be able to benefit in regard to this particular proposal?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): It's certainly my expectation that the proposal we have made to the Ontario Medical Association with respect to differential fees will contribute greatly to finally providing physicians for areas of northern Ontario where I know a number of my colleagues and colleagues on all sides of the House have been concerned because the existing underserviced areas program, which has been in place for 22 years, has not in fact met the need.

There is no doubt that the definition of "underserviced areas" is probably not, at this point, appropriate to identifying where the needs are, and I hope as part of our discussions with the OMA that we can come to a better definition so that we can make sure that communities such as Matheson, where I know the member is very concerned, can in fact have the kind of health care that they need and that their residents deserve.

Mr Bisson: In my travels around the riding this weekend at a number of public functions, one of the discussions we got into was around the fee differential. If I'm reading the constituents right, once they understand the proposal, they're very much in favour of what the minister is proposing in regard to being able to have an actual tool that would help us attract doctors into communities that are underserviced.

The question I have to you is, what can we do, as members of our communities, to assist the Minister of Health and the government to try to get the OMA to the table to discuss this issue that, to me, in the long run would address a long-standing issue in underserviced areas in terms of the ability to attract doctors?

Hon Mrs Grier: I agree that many communities in northern Ontario continue to be underserviced and that there are some very special needs and demands for medical practitioners for practising in the north. I certainly think this is an issue that can be resolved, and we want to work with health care providers, with the district health councils and with other interested groups to develop a list of areas and patient populations that do have special needs. It's in the course of our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association that we are hoping to better define those areas.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Just so that I can be clear, in the absence of the Premier, to whom my leader wants to ask a question, we're starting the second round?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): That's correct.

Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, and it concerns the commitment this government has to protecting ecologically important areas of this province.

As part of the expenditure control plan, the Minister of Finance has announced that the conservation authorities that carry out very important management functions in our watersheds would incur a significant cut to their expenditures this year. At the same time, the conservation lands tax rebate program, which is vital to a number of these authorities, will not be paying the property tax on environmentally important lands. It is our information that as many as nine or 10 of these conservation authorities are considering selling environmentally and ecologically important lands in order to pay the bills.

Mr Minister, do you condone the sale of these lands by authorities in order to balance their budgets this year and, if not, what are you going to tell them?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): In fact, the issue the member raises has been one that we've already discussed with individual conservation authorities and the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario. I think it needs to be recognized that some conservation authorities indeed possess land which is not integral to their conservation activities. We are willing to discuss with those conservation authorities the possibility that they may sell some of that land which is not part of their conservation mandate. We do not think the situation is so serious that any conservation authority will need to entertain the idea of selling actual conservation land.

Mr Brown: As the minister would know, many of the lands owned by conservation authorities have been paid for by volunteer groups in this country and province. We find it very strange that he would give such an answer.

The conservation authorities are fiscally responsible. They have presented a program to the minister which would save the ministry $25 million to $100 million in the administration of permitting etc in those areas. I would like a commitment from the minister that he will look at that plan seriously and convene representatives of all the ministries that are involved in that permitting-regulation plan in order that he can effect that $25 million to $100 million in savings.

Minister, will you commit that your ministry will convene the meeting that gets all these people together so that the province can save the money that it needs in order to pay your property taxes?

Hon Mr Hampton: When we met a week and a half ago with the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario, we indicated to it that we wanted to meet again in one month's time. At that time we would hope that they would bring forward proposals that could do away with the duplication of some of the services that exist, that could provide for greater integration between the work that conservation authorities do and that some ministries do.

We continue to encourage the Association of Conservation Authorities to do that. We think that is an excellent way of saving taxpayers' money, and I hope the member opposite will support us as we work through this very important process.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's almost an hour since proceedings started today. In fact, it is an hour since proceedings started. Is the Premier going to be here or is he not going to be here, so we can proceed with our lead questions? This is a little ridiculous, to say the least.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Can the government House leader be of any assistance?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): My information is that he's on his way.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for DufferinPeel with a question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Dufferin-Peel has the floor.

TIRE RECYCLING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Some time ago, Mr Minister, you expressed some concern about the export of millions of tires to Connecticut, where they would be burned for a $93-million hydro plant for the production of electricity. At that time you said, "The federal government has approved the export, and I hope they would reconsider that."

Currently your government's policy is that you won't allow tires to be put in landfill sites. You won't allow them to be burned for the purposes of producing energy. Now it's being suggested that you're going to prohibit people from shipping tires outside of our jurisdiction for whatever purpose they see fit, whether it be the United States or other provinces.

More recently, officials from the waste reduction office for the Ministry of Environment and Energy have said that there would be no further assistance for operators who wish to crumb tires. That is the statement that had been made.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'm telling you they have, that a number of officials have made these statements to people who are applying for crumbing tires.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Tilson: My question to the minister is, having made all of these policies, what do you intend to do with the 10 million used tires that are being stockpiled in Ontario each year?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member is quite correct in one aspect of his comments; that is, that I wrote to the federal Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Jean Charest, who has been busy doing some other things recently, to ask him to reconsider very seriously the opening of the border to the transport of waste to the United States, and as yet I have not received a response to that letter. I look forward to receiving it very soon.

In regard to the other comments the member has made, we are indeed maintaining our policy of prohibiting the dumping of tires in landfill sites and also the incineration of tires. But we are moving very expeditiously to invest moneys that have accrued to the province from the tire tax, among other revenues, to the consolidated revenue fund to ensure that we can in fact develop new technologies for the use of tires.

Recently I announced moneys to --

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

Hon Mr Wildman: -- Recovery Technologies in Cambridge, to Domal Envirotec Inc of Scarborough and others to do work with regard to new technologies in the use of rubber. As the member knows, we have developed a collar for sewer covers that will be using a great number of tires. We are indeed not opposed to the --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Wildman: -- use of tires for rubberized asphalt. I know the member will have other comments he would like to make in his supplementary.

Mr Tilson: I understand that since this tire tax -- which you spoke out against when the Liberals introduced it, you spoke out very vigorously, you simply said it was a tax grab -- over $200 million has been collected by the combination of your government and the Liberal government for the purposes of the $5 tax on used tires.

You and the Liberals have put only a very small portion of that -- you've listed off a few minute examples where you have been spreading it around for the purposes of recycling tires. But the fact of the matter is, there's $10 million collected each year for the purposes of the $5 tax which you spoke out so strongly against when it was introduced by the Liberals. Just to remind you --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Come on, put the question.

Mr Tilson: I'm trying to remind the minister what he said at that time. He said: "This tax is an attempt to raise more money from the public. The excuse that we're going to use the money to clean up the environment is just that, an excuse." You're no better than the Liberals. You're doing the very same thing the Liberals did.

The Speaker: And now the interrogative part.

Mr Tilson: My question to you is, when is the Minister of Environment going to start putting all of that $5 tax that you charge the people of this province, resulting in $10 million each year, into actual programs that will see this tire accumulation and fire problem decrease?

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm tempted to refer the question to my colleague in the gallery, the former member from Brant whatever, whom I'm sure we all welcome to the assembly.

However, I would say to the member seriously that in 1989 only 34% of the scrap tires in the province were being resold, retreaded or recycled. That increased to 40% in 1992, and we expect it will increase to 50% by 1994. That is because of the efforts that have been made by municipalities, by the private sector and by this government in investing moneys that have accrued from the tire tax to investment that will mean that we will lower the number of tires going to landfill and will be using more and more rubberized asphalt and others; for instance, the $9 million we've invested in Grey and Lambton counties to experiment with asphalt from rubber.

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

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon a very distinguished former member of the assembly, serving for some three decades for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk, Mr Bob Nixon. Welcome.

[Applause]

The Speaker: Start the clock, please.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have now stood down one of the leader's questions for the Liberal Party. We've stood down two leader's questions, and it's perfect timing. I would ask, considering the fact, regardless of the time left on the clock, that you allow at least those three questions, supplementaries and responses to be put.

The Speaker: We will follow the normal procedure, and I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition for her question.

JOB CREATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker, although I am going to preface my question with very real regret that the day before the budget neither the Premier nor the Treasurer was here to answer what we consider to be critical questions about tomorrow's budget presentation.

The fact that we will not have time to place our questions in the order that we deem to be important before budget presentation tomorrow means that we will not have an opportunity to ask important questions about a bill that this government brought in yesterday which quietly brings about a revolution in financing capital grants in this province.

I will ask the Premier my first question. Premier, we would hope that the budget you will present tomorrow would give Ontario a very badly needed message of hope in economic renewal, but we are tremendously concerned, from everything we've heard, that instead of providing positive signals it will simply hurt our fragile economy and cost more people their jobs.

The Finance minister has clearly said it's his intention to bring in a budget with hundreds of millions of dollars of new taxes. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association says that for every $40,000 in new taxes it will kill one job. We can assume that your budget, with its new taxes, will therefore kill thousands of jobs. Premier, the question is a simple one: How many jobs will your budget tomorrow cost Ontarians?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I hesitate to refer to the distinguished visitor in the gallery, but if we follow the logic of the honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Finance's predecessor, in raising taxes when he did for reasons that he felt were compelling, would have destroyed tens of thousands of jobs,

whereas we all know in fact the period prior to the recession was one in which jobs were created.

We're now into a period again where we see some substantial signs of recovery in the economy. Over 100,000 jobs have been created in the last eight months in this province. This province has led the way in terms of economic recovery in the country in the last year.

So I can say to the honourable member that while there may be differences of opinion about the budget that will be brought down tomorrow, the thrust and theme of the budget tomorrow is jobs, the creation of jobs, the creation of opportunity and the creation of chances for all the people of the province, based on a sense of fiscal reality and, if I can quote from the words of the accord which I signed with Mr Peterson in 1985, based on the needs of fiscal responsibility, which we agreed on, largely at the urging of the former Minister of Finance and Treasurer of the province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: So I would say to the honourable member, fiscal reality, fiscal responsibility, job creation going hand in hand, we think it's the way to go.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, this is a new day. This is no longer the era of unprecedented economic growth. This is no longer the era of record levels of employment. This is the era of record levels of unemployment: 575,000 people in this province without work, looking for jobs, hoping that your budget will give them some hope tomorrow.

Premier, the question was simple, and the math is simple: New taxes equal lost jobs. We can't afford any more lost jobs. We're asking you, how many?

According to the CMA, $1 billion in new taxes will eliminate 25,000 jobs. That would push the unemployment rate up to 11.2%. The Conference Board of Canada says it has reduced its growth forecast for Ontario by one percentage point. According to one bank, that means another 33,000 people will lose their jobs, and that pushes unemployment up to 11.8%.

Surely, Premier, you and the Treasurer have worked out the impact of your budget decisions on the economy and on the people who will be affected by those decisions. If you don't agree with the CMA, if you don't agree with the conference board, will you tell us what studies you have done on the impact of the budget you will present, what those studies show? Will you simply tell us how many more people in this province your budget will put out of work tomorrow?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the honourable member, perhaps that's a debate we should have starting tomorrow and Thursday. But I would also say to her that those same economists are saying to us that higher debt interest payments equal more unemployment, that higher debt interest equals more unemployment. The Leader of the Opposition should know that.

Let me remind her that as of April 30, last week, the week before, participants registered in the Jobs Ontario Training: 64,000; the next week, 67,000. Employers registered: 10,700 one week; the next week, 11,384. Positions registered by local brokers: 17,500 one week; 18,200 the next week. This is the program the Liberal Party wants to cancel. This is the program the Leader of the Opposition says she wants to do away with. This is the program that's creating jobs in the province.

We are out in the world. We are creating jobs. We're also dealing with the world of fiscal reality, which is more than we say for the Liberal Party of Ontario, which has been living in cloud-cuckoo-land for some years now, precisely since 1987.

Mrs McLeod: Back to basics, Premier, and the basics are: This province needs an economic recovery, your government needs to provide support to that recovery, and your new taxes will kill it as it begins.

There is no question that you have to deal with the deficit problem that you have allowed to build to crisis proportions. We agree with that. Yes, we have proposed some alternatives, a number of ways in which you could reduce your deficit and get to your budget target without increasing new taxes; and yes, we do say, review the Jobs Ontario Training program, which is not creating new jobs. It is providing employers with dollars, with important, valuable dollars to train people for jobs that need new training.

We've said, Stop the Interim Waste Authority and stop building up the kind of bureaucracy that you're going to put in place with the advocacy legislation." Look at the programs that aren't working and make your cuts there. Don't bring in new taxes that will hurt the economy and that will put even more people out of work.

Premier, why will you not at least look at the alternatives that we've been presenting with an eye to cutting spending in those areas rather than bringing in the new taxes that will put more people out of work and kill this economic recovery?

Hon Mr Rae: I'd say very bluntly to the Leader of the Opposition, I don't think she's begun to address the fiscal realities of the province. I don't think that her proposals even begin to cut the top of the ice. I don't think the proposals she's been putting forward can be taken seriously as any kind of deficit reduction strategy.

If you were to refer them to any group of senior officials in the government and say, "How much is this going to deal with? How much is this going to save?" it would be merely a tip of the problem that this government has to face due to the seriousness of the structural deficit.

You're playing the old game with respect to opposition politics. We have to deal with a serious fiscal situation. Your party is not prepared to deal with it. It wasn't prepared to deal with it before; you're not prepared to deal with it now. Those facts are entirely clear for all the public to see.

[Applause]

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

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. I understand, Premier, that you had lunch today, a rather long lunch today, with Matthew Barrett of the Bank of Montreal, according to your itinerary.

On January 18 of this year, Mr Barrett offered a strategy to eliminate government deficits and achieve high employment, a goal which I would hope that the Premier shares. Included in Mr Barrett's plan, which I'm sure the Premier read and perhaps was discussed today over lunch, was this: no increase in the tax burden for five years, no increase in government spending for five years.

Premier, after your lengthy lunch, can you come back to this Legislature today and tell us now that even though you and your Treasurer seemed to have rejected our advice and that of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and all the business associations, you're going to accept Matthew Barrett's advice? If you can do that, I'll pay for lunch today.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): That will be the first contribution the Tory party has made to the Bank of Montreal in quite some time, I'm sure, or so I've been led to believe. I don't know; I only hear about these things.

Let me say that Mr Barrett's leadership in the province, in the country, is a leadership that I respect. I think he is somebody who cares a lot about this country and who has a sense of imagination about what needs to be done.

I will say to you, sir, what I said to him, not today, because the immediate subject of his proposal didn't come up, but at a previous chance I had to speak with him. I said to him, if we were to do what he suggested, it would not deal adequately with the deficit problem which this province faces; it's as simple as that. In order to deal with a deficit problem which is as serious as the one this province faces, we have not only to deal with expenditure controls; we have to deal with expenditure reductions.

If we were to simply freeze revenues where they have been for the last few years, we would end up with a continuing deficit problem that would be at levels which Mr Barrett himself, I'm sure, would find unacceptable.

Therefore, when it comes to this province -- I can't speak for the national plan which he put forward, because he put his numbers through some other computer -- when it comes to our situation here, I'm afraid we have to take measures which are even tougher than those proposed by president Barrett.

Mr Harris: I suggest to you that the chairman and chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal might have just a tad more credibility than the NDP has and you have right now on economic issues. Matthew Barrett said this: "A further increase in our tax burden could make our problem of competitiveness more severe, which in turn would mean that higher taxes would not help us to reduce our deficits. There is no sense trying to tackle one problem while making the other worse." That's Matthew Barrett on January 18 in his plan, Recovery With Jobs. You see, his plan doesn't just deal with the deficit; it's recovery with jobs.

Premier, 55 Liberal and NDP tax increases in the last eight years have already taken eight billion job-creating dollars out of the hands of taxpayers and given them to Liberal and NDP governments which, essentially, they frittered away.

Given what you heard from Mr Barrett, given what Mr Barrett has said here, given what I'm sure Mr Barrett repeated to you at lunch -- that tax hikes will in fact not help you deal with the deficit because they will not help with job creation -- are you now finally willing to scrap your plans tomorrow for even more tax increases?

Hon Mr Rae: Unlike the honourable member, my memory extends beyond 1985. I don't think the tax increases brought in by treasurers started in 1985. I don't think they stopped in 1985 either. I'm surprised that he would refer to the 55 measures brought forward since 1985 and wouldn't talk about the measures brought forward since 1975 or since 1971 or since 1967, 1963, 1959, 1955, 1951, 1948, 1945 and 1943. Let's go back to those realities.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): A more simple question: Are you better off today than you were in 1985? I don't think you are. I think I know what the answer is. Are you better off today?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Parry Sound is getting agitated because he has a sense --

Mr Harris: Why don't you take that to the people and find out what they think?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: He's there trying to rewrite history, and I'm telling him that if you go back to the period between 1981 and 1985, indeed the government of which the member for Nipissing was such an enthusiastic supporter of the Suncor decision, enthusiastic supporter of the various tax increases brought in, enthusiastic supporter of the Frank Miller budget, which extended the sales tax, raised the sales tax, raised taxes on a whole bunch of areas -- he was an enthusiastic supporter of those.

I will say to him, we have a reality to face, and I found in the discussions today with the business leaders whom I spoke to at lunch today, I wouldn't say that there was anybody taking out a party card or that indeed such were offered at the door, but I would say to him that there was a grudging recognition of the fact that this government is dealing with problems that have been some 25 years in the making and that we are now trying to deal with those problems. That's a precise quotation from some of the people who were there.

Mr Harris: If the Premier wishes to go back to Leslie Frost, that's fine. The fundamental point is, the cumulative effect of all the tax increases has led us to the situation we are in today. You seem to have missed the fundamental principle that I believe Matthew Barrett believes, that I believe, that CFIB believes, every economist, and every business person I've talked to believes, and that is that the key to reducing your deficit is to advance a prosperity agenda to help the private sector expand.

Premier, the best way to get more revenue from corporate taxes is to have more corporations and to have them making more money. The best way to get more money from sales taxes is to have consumers with enough money in their pockets that they can spend it so that the total sales tax revenue will come up. And you can get more money from income taxes if in fact more people are working and earning money.

So that is why they are all telling you, including Matthew Barrett, the same thing that I've been trying to explain to you: Hiking taxes will kill jobs, it will kill investment and it kills our economic recovery.

So, Premier, given all of this advice from all of the people who have been out there creating jobs or trying to create jobs, how is that you listen to a few union leaders or some in your own party who think the evidence otherwise from all the experts, from all of the businesses? And given, Premier, that you look at the last --

The Speaker: Will the leader please place a question.

Mr Harris: -- 55 tax hikes in eight years, would you not finally agree that over the last 50 years, if you want to take that, taxpayers have done their share --

The Speaker: Would the leader please place a question.

Mr Harris: -- and that it's now time for government to do its share, and will you reflect that in the budget tomorrow?

Hon Mr Rae: I guess the first three quarters of the

preamble, which I found quite compelling -- I think the member is quite correct. We all understand that. The economy is improving, and as the economy improves, it will produce more revenues, it will produce a stronger economy, and all of us have an obligation to do everything we can to sustain the recovery.

I would just say to the member, as non-rhetorically as I can, we've reached a conclusion that there are major expenditure reductions that have to be effected, which will be more substantial than those effected by any government in living memory, which are being carried out by this government.

Second of all, in addition to that, in order to get a sense of momentum towards deficit reduction and in order to create a stronger climate for investment in the medium to long term and in order to create a stronger climate for the private sector, we think we have to show convincingly and compellingly that this is an issue that we're prepared to deal with and deal with in a very straightforward way.

We happen to believe that the approach we're taking is balanced, that it's reasonable, that with the continuing recovery in the United States and with the continuing recovery nationally, it will help to sustain the recovery, and that a more responsible approach than the one that's being advocated is the most effective approach.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This question is for the Premier.

Yesterday in this House, your Minister of Finance tabled very far-reaching legislation that has major implications to the future dealings of this government. It's the Capital Investment Plan Act, which has now been given the title of Bill 17. It's the creation of three crown corporations, one of which is the Ontario Financing Authority, which is charged with facilitating innovative financial arrangements for the province of Ontario.

This particular authority is designed to move substantial spending, taxing and borrowing off the books of the province into a separate agency. In other words, they're transferring capital expenditures to crown corporations.

Another way of looking at it, when you start reading what this is all about, is that it's a shell game, a shell game in which you're moving the shell around but the nut ends up out there somewhere else so it's off the books of the province of Ontario. It's another way of saying you're cooking the books, if you really want to get down to what this government is doing.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Cousens: I have a question, Mr Speaker. My question is, what merit is there in this government forming such a corporation except to cook the books?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Well, this is a subject the member says -- I must say it's something I have been interested in since my days in --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You were opposed to it when you were in opposition.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I wasn't. Since my days in opposition --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St Catharines normally ascribes all kinds of views to me. Perhaps I could just tell him that I have been supportive of the notion of a clearer delineation between investment decisions and spending decisions by governments since 1978.

Mr Bradley: You were against crown corporations. I remember that.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: If you want to go back and get truly bored, you'll read some of the speeches I gave in the House of Commons on this subject in 1980, and it will help with any insomnia problems the honourable member for St Catharines has.

Let me say to the honourable member for Markham that there are a number of national and subnational financing authorities, including those in a number of states, in a number of jurisdictions and in a number of countries around the world. We think it's an effective way for us to manage the capital investment decisions of the province. We think it will produce a more effective, businesslike approach in separating out longer-term investment decisions. It will all be completely transparent. It will all be seen very clearly by everyone, including the rating agencies. In the world today, there's no way that anybody can do any of these things in a way that isn't seen as being entirely transparent.

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

Hon Mr Rae: It's quite simply a means for us to, we think, run the affairs of the province more efficiently than we have in the past.

Mr Cousens: The province of Ontario is doing something that no business can do and no individual can ever do, and that is to move a responsibility from themselves to a separate agency and still say it's not theirs. It's debt. It's transferring debt and responsibility to another agency. It's now giving this new crown corporation the right to beg, borrow or steal, under the authority of the province of Ontario, to finance any capital expenditure, to adjust its budget accordingly.

Knowing that, let's deal with the specific and get away from all the generalities which cause the Premier to escape a classic example, and that has to do with capital grants to school boards which were promised by the then Liberal government. They promised school boards some $300 million for the years 1993-94; $300 million would go in grants from the province to school boards. This grant under this new legislation now becomes a loan, not a grant. How will the schools pay for these supposed grants that are now loans?

Hon Mr Rae: I really think the member is asking questions that I'm sure the Treasurer would be happy to answer when he's here again on Thursday. But I would say to him that again, if you look at other examples in other jurisdictions, there are issues I think here that have to do with sharing, in a sense, the realities of the world. It allows capital expenditures to be amortized over time, which reduces the distortionary impact on the province's expenditures, and the approval system is not being changed in any way.

Mr Cousens: It's downloading at its worst. It's a transferring of responsibility from the province to the school boards. They will end up having to pay the bill in the local tax bill. That's where it's going to have to be. So we can have all the nice words in the Legislature; the bottom line is that the taxpayer in Ontario, the local ratepayer, will pay more.

You know, the record by this government in setting up crown corporations isn't the best. You have Ontario Hydro with its $34-billion debt. You've got the Workers' Compensation Board with its $11-billion debt, and that's increasing at $100 million a month.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: Give him a fish or something, Mr Speaker. It's feeding time for the Minister of Environment and Energy.

What assurance can you give as Premier that the Ontario Financing Authority and the three other crown corporations are not just a new bureaucracy that will add to the debt and cost taxpayers?

Hon Mr Rae: For a member of the Conservative caucus to rise in his place and somehow talk --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Don't lecture anybody.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- about Ontario Hydro somehow, an issue which we inherited -- and not only did we inherit the mess from that administration.

When you look at Ontario Hydro, when you look at the structure of the decisions that were taken, when you look at the level of debt which was allowed to grow up in that organization, when you look at the top-heavy bureaucratic structure which was implicit in the Big Blue Machine attitude towards the creation of public power in this province in the last 20 years, when you look at the Darlington project, which was supposed to come in at $4 billion and came in at $14 billion, there you have a party that, when it talks about Ontario Hydro, should simply hold its head in shame and embarrassment and admit that the New Democratic Party has finally got Ontario Hydro on the road to financial stability and economic prosperity in this province.

I rest my case.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Niagara Falls.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. No, I will recognize the member for Niagara Falls for her question. We had left off in the rotation in order to accommodate the leader's question and then the two leader's questions for the third party. We rejoin the rotation over here. I will recognize the member for Niagara Falls.

TOURISM

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Each year in Canada, we get 500,000 visitors from Japan. Niagara Falls is a very special destination for most of these visitors. In fact, they spend $25 million in Niagara Falls each year. I don't think they would mind spending a little bit more to help this government at a casino.

The Japanese market is expected to expand greatly in the near future, following the opening of the new Osaka International Airport next summer. As to our major hotels in Niagara Falls, 50% of their business is estimated to be from Japan. This morning, I spoke to Mr Tony Zappitelli, who owns the Sheraton Fallsview. He and other tourism operators have been to Japan this year; in fact, have been to the Tourism Ontario Tokyo office and conducted meetings there.

This office is scheduled to close on July 30. Madam Minister, this closure could be interpreted in Japanese culture as a sign that we are no longer interested in their business. What are you doing to make sure our presence is not diminished but in fact enhanced in Tokyo?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'd like to begin my response by expressing a very sincere thanks to the staff of the Tokyo office for the fine work they've done on behalf of Ontario while they've been there.

I'd like to point out, however, that times change. Of course, fiscal times change, and so do many other things. I believe that we've now, thanks in part to the work of the staff of the Tokyo office, achieved mature relationships with the people of Japan, with the businesses, the governments of Japan. I believe we've now also achieved a very sophisticated level of technology to continue business relationships with countries like Japan.

I believe we also have developed now a tremendous base of experience as a government of the province of Ontario in dealing with that country.

I think we are now clearly in a position of being able to consolidate not only the expenditure of taxpayers' funds in promoting tourism to a country like Japan and to its wonderful people, but also to be able to consolidate marketing functions much better from the city of Toronto, to be able to establish the strong partnerships with governments, the federal government through Tourism Canada, with the private sector, with airlines, with travel companies, as well as to be able to better focus on the kind of marketing plans we can make through targeting sales calls and participating in marketplaces all around in the places they exist.

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

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Renfrew North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health concerning an expenditure control plan on health services in Ontario. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the following standing committees:

On the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mr Lessard for Mr Ferguson; on the standing committee on general government, Mr Grandmaître for Mr Sola; on the standing committee on government agencies, Mr Curling for Mr Grandmaître; and on the standing committee on regulations and private bills, Mr O'Neil (Quinte) for Mr Sola.

REFERRAL OF BILL 7

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I seek consent to move a motion that would change an order of the House referring Bill 7 to the standing committee on resources development, changing that to the standing committee on general government.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that the order of the House dated May 12, 1993, referring Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management to the standing committee on resources development be rescinded and that Bill 7 be ordered referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Speaker: Shall the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament re Bill 38, an amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act to permit wide-open Sunday shopping and eliminate Sunday as a legal holiday.

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38. We believe that this bill defies God's laws, violates the principle of religious freedom, reduces the quality of life, removes all legal protection to workers regarding when they must work, and will reduce rather than improve the prosperity of our province.

"The observance of Sunday as an a non-working day was not invented by man but dates from God's creation, and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people, both physically and spiritually. We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

I've affixed my signature.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government has proposed, without consultation with the municipalities to be affected, conditions to reduce the provision of GO Transit services to Halton-area municipalities; and

"Whereas these service reductions have been proposed arbitrarily without further considering their impact on off-peak employment and the social, education and recreational travel needs of Halton residents, especially the unemployed, seniors, the physically challenged and those on fixed incomes; and

"Whereas these service reductions will have profound, far-reaching negative impacts on current, set-in-place municipal budgets and subsequently catch-up budgeting,

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

"That Premier Bob Rae and his Transportation minister undertake to immediately review their decision of April 23 with respect to full GO Transit services to Burlington and Halton regions."

There are about 2,000 signatures, and I have affixed my signature in support as well.

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICE

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the residents of the Jane and Finch community, in accordance with the tenants in Norfinch Plaza, located in the riding of Yorkview, agree that a motor vehicle licensing office would benefit our community;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ministry of Transportation grant permission to establish a new motor vehicle licensing office in the Norfinch Plaza."

I sign the petition, Mr Speaker, and I thank you very much.

VIOLENCE

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 37 residents of eastern Ontario:

"The undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children; encourage and support women to report incidents of assault or abuse; provide assistance and support for women reporting assault and abuse; provide relief and support to women and mothers to protect their children; emphasize the need for abusers' rehabilitation; concentrate special efforts on the training of police, lawyers, court workers and judges to become knowledgeable about women and child abuse, and to focus public attention on the very importance of the long-ignored problem."

I have also signed this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): 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 of 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."

That's signed by 44 signatures, and I'll affix my name to it.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"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 that Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I do not affix my name to this petition.

HEALTH EDUCATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition in hand today signed by over 70 constituents of mine from the Kincardine area who are expressing concerns about the type of material which has been generated from the Toronto board of education with respect to the teaching of homosexuality and any homosexual counselling, and I am pleased to present this to the Legislative Assembly today.

I affix, as is required by standing orders, my name to the petition.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by, I believe, virtually all the unionized employees of the Ministry of Natural Resources in my area:

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

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of OPSEU Local 441, employed with the Ministry of Natural Resources in Brockville, 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."

I have affixed my name in support of the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I add this petition to the thousands of people who say no to casino gambling in the province:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"Whereas large-scale gambling activities invariably attract 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."

I'm very proud to affix my signature to this, and I enjoin this upon every member in the House: Say no to casino gambling.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP, when in opposition, introduced a private member's bill which would ban the use of lost, stray and abandoned animals from Ontario's municipal pounds for the purpose of experimentation; and

"Whereas a number of Ontario municipalities have banned the sale of pound animals for research and have requested that the government amend the Animals for Research Act to end this practice; and

"Whereas the 1,800 cats and dogs from Ontario pounds annually used in research represent less than one tenth of 1% of the total number of all animals used in research,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to declare an immediate moratorium on the sale and use of municipal pound animals for the purposes of research and, further, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food be directed to prepare amendments to the Animals for Research Act to permanently prohibit the sale and use of pound animals for research."

I affix my name.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly from the municipal council of the corporation of the township of Stephen.

"Whereas on Friday, April 23, 1993, the government of Ontario presented Ontario's expenditure control plan, which included plans to close Centralia College of Agricultural Technology; and

"Whereas such plans were made impulsively without local consultation and with unfair disregard to the impact on the local community and the broader agricultural sector,

"The council of the corporation of the township of Stephen hereby petition the government of Ontario to reverse their decision to close Centralia College and associated facilities and to conduct a comprehensive public review to determine what expenditure controls are necessary and appropriate for agriculture."

GAMBLING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit 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 as follows:

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

I have affixed my name to this petition, which is signed by a number of constituents from Rosemont, Alliston, Loretto, Mansfield, Everett, Baxter and RR 1, Orangeville.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition asking for the withdrawal of Bill 164, the Insurance Act, from a number of residents in the Midland-Penetang area.

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 of 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."

This is a group of signatures from Scarborough, Ajax, Toronto and other places which join some 15,000 others and members of labour groups, business groups and others in supporting Bruce A.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"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."

I support this petition and will sign it.

GRAVENHURST OPERA HOUSE

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have another petition today from the people of the Gravenhurst area requesting that the government provide full funding for the restoration of the opera house that was closed earlier this year by the Ministry of Labour.

GAMBLING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"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 of 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."

I affix my signature.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have another petition with respect to casino gambling and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas credible 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 support this petition as well and have affixed my signature to it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TENANTS AND LANDLORDS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES ET DES LOCATEURS

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

Bill 20,

An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords / Loi visant à protéger la personne, les biens et les droits des locataires et des locateurs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Introduction of bills.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There ought to be a chance for a brief explanation, sir.

The Deputy Speaker: Please go ahead.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I thank the House leader in the official opposition for his timely intervention.

The bill provides a mechanism for the speedy eviction of tenants who have been convicted of certain narcotics offences committed in connection with the rented premises.

TOWN OF GRAVENHURST ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Town of Gravenhurst.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make any comments?

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): No, thank you, Mr Speaker.

CRUICKSHANK ELDERLY PERSONS CENTRE ACT, 1993

On a motion by Mrs MacKinnon, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr88,

An Act respecting the Cruickshank Elderly Persons Centre.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RYERSON POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA RYERSON POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

Mr Gary Wilson moved third reading of Bill 1,

An Act to amend The Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, 1977 and the University Foundations Act, 1992 \ Loi modifiant la loi intitulée The Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, 1977 et la Loi de 1992 sur les fondations universitaires.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any comments? Do you want to debate?

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Just a brief comment and that's to say I pored over the record of yesterday's debate in the House and I think it's fair to say that there was a wide-ranging discussion of the change in name from the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute to Ryerson Polytechnic University. I think it's also fair to say that it's considered to be something all members in the House support and I look forward to hearing the debate on the third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments on Mr Wilson's debate? Is there any further debate?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My sweatshirt may give you some indication as to whether I stand in support of this bill. It's with great pride that I'm wearing a sweatshirt hot off the press. It reads, "Ryerson Polytechnic University," and obviously I lend my wholehearted support to this bill.

I presented the reasons for that yesterday but, very briefly, this is but a step in the natural evolution of Ryerson. It began some 45 years ago and has culminated today in this House, and then ultimately with royal assent, by the passage of this bill which will enable Ryerson to grant university degrees. It will enable it to provide education towards post-graduate degrees and enable it to conduct further research.

The only real difference, as I outlined yesterday, between Ryerson and other universities in this province is found within an inequity in fact, and that is the funding which it receives. Ryerson students are at present effectively penalized to the tune of 10% vis-à-vis their other university counterparts.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate President Grier, members of the administration, faculty and the students at Ryerson. I hope they will spend some time luxuriating in this moment and in the realization that they will be recognized, as they should have been for quite some time, as a full-fledged university with all the inherent rights in that capacity.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Further debate.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It gives me a great deal of pleasure and in fact it's an honour to be speaking today in support of Bill 1,

An Act to amend The Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, 1977 and the University Foundations Act, 1992.

I'm going to begin on a personal note, and that is that Ryerson has been a very important academic institution in this province. Its graduates have gone on from being educated in the city of Toronto in the province of Ontario to make tremendous contributions not only in our own province and in our country but around the world.

It's become one of the most renowned institutions, I think, and it goes back to its very humble beginning.

Its very humble beginning, for those of us who grew up in this city, began in 1948, certainly before the time I went on to university, but at a time when our parents were extremely proud that in fact we were going to have an institute that recognized the importance of the trades, people who worked with their hands, people who had to go on in technical education to, I think, achieve in the eyes of the public of the day -- certainly my father was very much involved -- recognition of the contribution that they make and the kind of education that they needed, many of them going to school in the daytime and in the evening and working in what we would call placements in industry and in the business community in order to achieve the practical work; in fact, to receive their university degree.

At that time it wasn't referred to as a university degree, but it was clearly an institute of higher learning meeting the practical demands of the time.

Mr Speaker, if I can talk about today's world and the young people and their hopes and their dreams, we need many more institutions like Ryerson, which never forgets its roots, and that is that our young people need that practical training to meet the requirements for the jobs of tomorrow.

In fact, at this time in the history of our country, in the history of North America, as we take a look at the need of Canada to be internationally competitive, we know that the engines that we've relied on in the past, the engines that drove this economy, that refer to the need to promote and mine our natural resources -- I suppose the resources beneath our feet would be a good way of establishing a recognition of those resources, whether it be mining or fishing or agriculture. The resources of tomorrow will in fact rely on the resources between our ears and the practical application of those resources.

Therefore, it's with pride today that we note and acknowledge and support the natural evolution of Ryerson: the institute of technology, as it was established in 1948, to its degree-promoting or recognition of university degrees in 1971, which of course now we know they've been doing for some 22 years, looking at some 28 designations, I think, and moving forward just last year when they were given, according to the University Foundation Act, the right to raise funds for their university, as is every other university, including the one in the middle of my riding, the University of Western Ontario.

In fact, this is an evolution, and now the students, upon the completion of the debate of this bill and the royal assent of this particular piece of legislation, will in another week or so be able to graduate from Ryerson University. That's extremely important to them, I think; in fact, it's something that's important probably in three respects. First of all, they've been doing the work anyway. Secondly, the institute right now receives less funding than the other universities, and in fact they are doing the same kinds of work.

Many other universities have moved towards the direction of Ryerson, in fact, in promoting hands-on training not only in institutions in cooperation with the private industry in this country and this province but in institutions around the world.

So I can say now that they will achieve, over a period of time, which I think is extremely responsible on their part -- I think it's about 10% less funding they get per student at this point in time. They'll phase that in over the next few years. I think that's extremely practical and responsible.

So all I can say is that it's an exciting time. It will be a historic day for Ryerson, and many of us are there to congratulate President Grier. I've had the opportunity and the privilege of visiting the institution in the last five years more often than before, and I can say that the students are receiving a wonderful education with a tremendous staff and support group and that they are probably on the leading edge in some technology.

I was at the Rogers-supported telecommunications and journalism department. I probably haven't said the name right and I apologize for that, but it was a very exciting addition to the college, supported with private funds. I should tell you the letters that we have received from the private sector and report, because many of these persons are involved because they have been friends of Ryerson over the years.

My staff tell me that the chief executive officer of Maclean Hunter is a member of the Ryerson board, the chairman of the Eaton Foundation, vice-president of Bell and the Live Entertainment Corp of Canada, just to name a few. All of these people who have taken the time to write to us to tell us about their support, to encourage us as we move in a direction that could have been criticized, which is always easier to do, through misunderstanding, have come forward and given us all kinds of reasons to support the university and I think at the same time have pledged their ongoing support, which I think is extremely important.

So Ontario's first polytechnic university will be in need of the same kind of support of the other institutions. I just want to take a couple of minutes to talk about that. We know more recently that the universities have not, in my view, been given the priority that they ought to be given and the resources that we establish here in the province of Ontario and support through taxpayers' money in that the young people that are attending our universities are not getting the same quality of education as the young people even a decade ago in that we have very large classes, we have too many tutorials, we don't have the kind of equipment that we need.

We know that our young people right now are asking themselves whether or not they're going to be able to support the universities in the same way that they have in the past as graduates as we ask them, through voluntary contributions, to support what they were privileged to get.

I never, in all the years that I've worked in education, have had a more disillusioned group of young people. Part of it has to do with the lack of support for our colleges and universities at a time when we're asking them to do more in helping us become even more competitive in the future because of the demands as we look at this global economy.

So I can say right now that the government of the day should take a look at its priorities. As we take a look at the department of colleges and universities in the more recent document, Ontario's Expenditure Control Plan, April 1993, we take a look at a restructuring allocation being reduced from $56 million to $25 million, a saving of some $31 million, at this point in time, Mr Speaker, we are looking for savings, but I have to tell you that this is the kind of thing that should have been looked at over a long period of time.

Just like the restructuring of this university with regard to giving it more money per student is going to be phased in, this is the kind of thing that should have been phased in.

There are in fact other departments of government that are less important than this particular department of government, meaning the Ministry of Education and Training, where there could have been savings that would not have affected the lives of young people and the future of this country. There is all kinds of bureaucracy in government that has nothing to do with front-line students and front-line teachers that could have been slashed, but instead we're looking at the very core of our colleges and universities: restructuring allocation and the other one, base operating grant adjustments, some $22 million.

There isn't a soul in this House that believes that those are the kinds of cuts that we should be looking at in our colleges and universities rather than looking at the ultimate in waste that this government could have found instead. I'm not saying that we don't have to take a look at our budgets, that we have to get rid of our deficits, get rid of our debt; I agree with that. But to ask our colleges and our universities and our education training institutions to take these kinds of reductions in the next few weeks and months is absolutely irresponsible.

They could definitely be looking elsewhere, and we have given them many other alternatives. So I'm going to put that on the record because I believe strongly in it.

Just to let you know how the young people are feeling, the colleges around Ontario right now are sending out a letter. They're talking about, "You have been accepted after your hard work." Our young people have done what we told them to do: stay in school, get a good education, work hard. Many of them have stayed in their secondary schools longer, have taken more courses than ever before, to get the kind of requirements to get into our colleges and our universities. Ryerson is no exception to this; there's a tremendous competition to get in there.

Then they get a letter saying, "Yes, you finally have been accepted, on a conditional basis, pending clarification of the college's financial circumstances by the Ministry of Education and Training for the province of Ontario."

All I can say is I'm reading a letter that will be sent, if it hasn't already been sent, to the students who have been accepted at Fanshawe College in London. I think for the first time they're not only disillusioned now about getting jobs; they're disillusioned about even being accepted into our colleges and universities after they have met the toughest requirements. Mr Speaker, this is the kind of atmosphere in which our colleges and universities are working, and I know and you know and so do the members of this government know that there are other places that we could be looking for cuts, not in the front lines when it comes to the education of our young people.

My best advice to this government is to phase these kinds of cuts in over a period of time. We'll find out what happens tomorrow with regard to the budget. It's not new information. They certainly have had it. The colleges and universities have said it themselves. If we're looking at some kind of a social plan to take a look at cuts, I can tell you right now, you're cutting in the wrong place.

I'd like to end on another piece of advice to the government, because I'm sure they read the Hansards every day. This is with regard to the funding of our students, as we take a look at the tuition fees and as we take a look at moving from the grants program to a program that doesn't recognize the importance of grants but only recognizes the importance of loans. I think there should have been a better balance. Something also --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): This speech was given by Mr Tilson yesterday.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Tilson has learned, and so have some of the Liberals learned, that you don't just cut something in the month of April. That's what happened. You don't change the name of the game in March and April when young people are making their plans now for a year from now. We've taught them to plan and to set their goals and to make sure that they work over a number of years so they'll have the proper kind of finances to support themselves, and then we come out with this kind of stuff in the month of March -- total disillusionment and bad management, I must say.

In fact, if you're going to ask them to pay more, you should be introducing some kind of an income-contingent loan repayment plan, because young people do want to pay back for what they have achieved and what they've gained as a result of the tremendous support system in this province.

I'm here to speak on the Ryerson legislation and to say that Ontario's first polytechnic university, I believe, will go on in the history of this province to support the kind of training for our young people that is necessary, certainly in the past, and in the future. I hope they never forget their roots, because the kind of thing they did in 19 -- I've got the year wrong here; anyway --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It was 1948.

Mrs Cunningham: Was it 1948? I hate to say that, because I remember my father telling me about this at the dinner table. But the kind of things they did in 1948, I think, were just as important to the success of this province as what they'll be expected to do in the future.

It's been a privilege for me to have this portfolio and to be invited to that outstanding educational institution from time to time. I look forward to working with them in the future, and I wish them the absolute best of luck on graduation day when that first class of graduates from Ryerson University graduate. Thank you for this opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? Any further debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Gary Wilson: I'm pleased that we have continued in the general support for the change that Bill 1 represents.

I do want to say that in looking over the remarks of the members, including my own, the impression could be that this is simply a change in name, but in fact Bill 1, when it is passed, represents a change in status for Ryerson, that it will now be a degree-granting institution. With that, I close the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Wilson moves third reading of Bill 1,

An Act to amend The Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, 1977 and the University Foundations Act, 1992. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

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

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

Mr Christopherson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des commerces le dimanche.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): This legislation amends the act by allowing stores to open on Sundays, with the exception of Easter Sunday, which has been added to the list of existing enumerated holidays.

Bill 38 simplifies the Retail Business Holidays Act. We've eliminated uncertainties by making it abundantly clear that all retailers, without exception, have the right to choose whether or not they wish to open or not open for business on Sundays.

Retail lessees and franchisees are ensured that the protection against having to open on Sundays currently afforded them under the act will be extended to Sundays, even though Sunday will no longer be a holiday under the act. In turn, retail workers are guaranteed the nine holidays specified under the Retail Business Holidays Act, and they are protected under the Employment Standards Act from being forced to work on Sundays.

By making Sunday retail business openings possible across the board, we've provided the most equitable treatment for all retail businesses. This legislation creates a level playing field while ensuring retail workers' rights.

We've also made explicit the nine holidays on which most retail businesses must be closed. These are January 1, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas Day and December 26. On those days, no members of the public may be admitted to a retail business, nor may goods and services be sold or offered for sale by retailers.

The Retail Business Holidays Act sets out certain limited exemptions to this requirement. In addition, the government is also ensuring that the amendments preserve the right of municipalities to pass tourism bylaws permitting retail activity on those holidays during which most retailers would otherwise be required to close.

We believe that while it is important that these days be preserved as pause days, the legitimate interests of tourism must be addressed, and municipalities following provincial criteria are in the best position to do this.

During the last 10 months, we have had the opportunity to test public and business response. The results have been mostly positive. Once Bill 38 becomes law, it will be retroactive to its date of introduction, that is, June 3, 1992.

The principles behind Bill 38 are already at work. The bill meets the needs of consumers, the needs of business and, together with the Employment Standards Act, meets the needs of retail workers. It is working because Ontarians have wanted to simplify the law to el