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

June 7, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

WOODSTOCK GENERAL HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

LAND TRANSFER TAX

SENIOR CITIZENS

AGRICULTURAL LAND

RETAIL SALES TAX REBATES

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS / NÉGOCIATIONS DU CONTRAT SOCIAL

RETAIL STORE LEGISLATION

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

ECONOMIC POLICY

ONTARIO HYDRO

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CLOSING OF TREE NURSERIES

HEALTH CARE

PHOTO RADAR

WASTE REDUCTION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

POLLUTION CONTROL

GAMBLING

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

GAMBLING

BICYCLING SAFETY

GAMBLING

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

GAMBLING

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

LANDFILL

GAMBLING

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

GEORGIAN-SIMCOE RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

WAUBAUSHENE RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

PICTON-TRENTON RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

WATERLOO-ST JACOBS RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature the announced closing of the South Baymouth Fisheries Research Unit on Manitoulin Island. Bob Rae wants to close this unit and transfer the employees from the north to the south.

Bob Rae's government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading this facility in the past two years. The former Minister of Natural Resources, Bud Wildman, assured me at estimates committee last November of the importance of this unit to MNR and assured me that it would remain open.

Enter a new minister, enter a new deputy minister and enter a new budgetary policy. From nowhere, without consultation, came a complete reversal of government policy.

The unit has been instrumental over the years in research surrounding lake trout and back cross trout. The unit has played an important role in the rehabilitation of lake trout in Lake Huron. The facility is first class and even provides educational instruction for students across the province.

I have communicated my shock and disbelief at this decision to Minister Hampton in writing and, I might say, orally. My views are similar to the local reeve, Gary Brown, and to the people both on Manitoulin and elsewhere who are concerned with the rehabilitation of Lake Huron and lake trout.

I call upon the minister to rethink this ill-conceived closure which will save little and cost much.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to focus the government's attention on a highly successful youth employment, education and training project which is operating in downtown Kitchener.

This project is a unique and innovative partnership that unites the Waterloo County Board of Education, the Waterloo region Catholic school board, Conestoga College and Lutherwood in providing a coordinated, one-stop-shopping concept for unemployed young people between the ages of 16 and 24.

This project offers a job-information-resource service, employment counselling, self-directed high school programs, the Futures program, a housing registry and an independent living skills program. Indeed, it has become a model for cooperative and integrated delivery of services throughout the province. So far, over 2,000 young people in my community have been the beneficiaries of this project.

The integration and rationalization of these services in this partnership is a direction that the government has been encouraging to take place.

I have personally spoken to the young people such as the street kids and the single mothers who have been able to turn their lives around because of this project. Unfortunately, they will be the losers if the funds do not continue to be provided.

I urge this government not to abandon these young people and not to allow this unique project to fall apart. I urge you to reconsider your decision not to provide the necessary funding.

WOODSTOCK GENERAL HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate and acknowledge the 100 years of work and effort by the auxiliary to the Woodstock General Hospital in my riding of Oxford.

The auxiliary's work began in 1893 through a group of women who helped to raise funds for the opening of the hospital in 1895. The Woodstock auxiliary is the third oldest in Ontario.

Over the last 100 years, auxiliary volunteers have worked diligently to collect funds for medical and surgical equipment for the hospital by holding different social activities such as cultural events, bingos and bridge parties.

In the early days of the auxiliary, they were extremely dedicated to patients. Some of them even kept cows to provide patients with fresh milk.

The auxiliary funds have also contributed to professional development of hospital personnel, including scholarships for nurses, employee retraining and higher education for supervisors.

Our community is proud of its auxiliary. For a century, these volunteers have dedicated time and energy to help Woodstock and the surrounding communities.

In closing, I want to again congratulate the Woodstock General Hospital auxiliary for its 100th anniversary of serving people in our community. I believe that voluntary contributions of time and effort to our communities play an important role in our Canadian culture and particularly in our health care system.

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Members will recall that only a few short weeks ago I implored the Minister of Finance to make a decision on funding for the Long Sault Centennial Arena. I told the House that Cornwall township, minor sports associations and parent groups were very anxious to learn of the government's decision, since they were planning their winter activity schedule. Now even the school children in my area are asking the government to fund the project, which is ready to go at any time.

The fund-raising is in place. All that is necessary is for the government to allocate funds, through the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, so that this very worthwhile and necessary project can get under way.

The children of St George's School in Long Sault have stated that they have worked very hard to raise their portion of the money needed to rebuild the well-used arena. Now we need funding from the government to help us.

I hope that the Minister of Finance will listen to the children of my riding and grant the funds that will allow construction to begin.

LAND TRANSFER TAX

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): On April 26, I questioned the Minister of Finance about the non-resident land transfer tax of $95,000 that was demanded from the family of the late Albertus Boerkamp.

Mr Boerkamp died shortly after moving from Holland to his Ontario farm at Atwood in Perth county and therefore did not complete the two years of residence in Ontario to exempt him from the foreign ownership part of the tax.

The land transfer tax on foreign ownership was never meant to apply to individuals who legitimately moved to Ontario and then happened to die. The family remains on its Perth county farm and farms it actively.

The Minister of Finance has said he could halve the amount of tax, given that Mrs Boerkamp could be considered a half owner. Mrs Boerkamp has lived here for two years and qualifies to be exempt from the foreign component of the tax.

I'm sure the Minister of Finance considers this generous, but his actions amount to nothing more than a copout on the principle of the issue. The fact remains that because of an untimely death, the Boerkamp family, which acted in good faith, is being penalized for many thousands of dollars. Mr Boerkamp certainly did not know he was going to die, and had he, he could have registered the property in his wife's name or in the family's name or the children's name.

There was a time that the NDP would have been up in arms against a government which behaved in such a fashion. I cannot accept, nor can the supporters of the Boerkamps accept, that this is being done by this government.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): June is Seniors' Month, and today I'd like to thank the organizations in my riding that provide services to seniors, like the workers and volunteers who lend a hand to families and seniors.

This year I hosted a spring tea in the Uxbridge Seniors' Centre and I had a chance to share some tea and some stories with some seniors. This facility provides the local seniors with a friendly place to meet, to socialize and participate in a wide variety of social activities.

These services are really important to helping seniors remain in their homes and active in their communities. Many of the organizations provide services to seniors in the community, such as: home support services, Meals on Wheels, home help, transportation, home maintenance, foot care, friendly visiting, care giver relief and a monthly luncheon for isolated seniors. Homemaking is a program that allows seniors to remain in their own home and can include shopping, meal preparation and personal care.

During Seniors' Month I hope to visit some of these groups like: in Uxbridge, Community Care; in Brock township, Brock Good Neighbours; the CHATS-North Branch (Community Home Assistance To Seniors); and of course the Markham-Stouffville branch of CHATS that provides services in the Whitchurch-Stouffville area.

To wrap up, I think we all should recognize the hard work done by the volunteers and staff, providing more seniors the healthy opportunity to continue on with a healthy lifestyle.

Of course, today I did have an opportunity to participate in the kickoff of the York Region Seniors' Games. There are over 860 participants registered for today's games.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In opposition, the New Democratic Party used to wax eloquent about preserving prime agricultural land in the Niagara region and elsewhere in Ontario, and suggested that previous governments of another political stripe were negligent in protecting this important natural resource. When handed the reins of power, the NDP has been reluctant to implement policies that would save the farmer and ultimately the farm land which will be of such great value for future generations.

With favourable climatic conditions, excellent soils and an expert workforce, the northern portion of the Niagara Peninsula is ideal for the growing of tender fruit and other agricultural products. The produce grown is of the highest quality and is famous around the world.

If the government wishes to save the agricultural land of the Niagara region, it must develop policies designed to make farming viable and geared to producing a decent income for farmers.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has before him a sensible, thoughtful proposal for conservation easements that appears to be collecting dust on his desk. The easements would enable farmers to survive on the land, grow top-notch produce and contribute to the preservation of an essential natural resource.

With a lot of fanfare, the Premier, when in opposition, visited the Niagara farm land and lamented its potential loss. He and his colleagues have an opportunity to preserve it. They need only act upon their own promises to leave a lasting legacy to our province, our country and our world.

RETAIL SALES TAX REBATES

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): In the spring budget the Minister of Finance announced that the retail sales tax rebate for out-of-province visitors will be cancelled, effective next month. The cancellation of this incentive to visitors to Ontario was not welcome news to the tourism industry, already on its knees because of excessive provincial taxes and the stubborn recession. Many tourist operators and associations have already spent precious marketing dollars to produce brochures and promotional literature advertising the rebate to visitors to Ontario.

Other provinces such as Quebec and Manitoba are aggressively marketing their harmonized visitor rebate programs. Quebec and Manitoba have harmonized the provincial tax rebate programs with the GST visitor rebate program. Foreign visitors to these provinces can enjoy the convenience of receiving their rebates instantly, in cash, at land-border duty-free shops when they exit either province with a land-border access to the United States. In Quebec, the combined PST-GST rebate amounts to over 15%, while in Manitoba the combined rate is 14%.

Quebec and Manitoba are aggressively marketing their harmonized visitor tax rebate programs. Manitoba rebates have increased dramatically. Ontario, on the other hand, is left behind in the dust as other provinces successfully attract foreign visitors.

Tax rebate programs can be effective, as evidenced by the Quebec and Manitoba examples, but only when foreign visitors know about the program and when it is easy to implement. I would suggest to this government that it reimplement the retail sales tax rebate program, fashioning the program after the successful models which Quebec and Manitoba are using.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): We are becoming more aware of existing social problems in native communities worldwide. The harsh realities of native suicide have been brought to our attention, it seems, more in the past year than in the past 500 years. This, to me, indicates a strong message: Together we need to do more. As part of the healing process, we must come together to deal directly with the underlying issues that contribute to emotional distress.

For native communities in Cochrane North, part of the healing process will be made possible on June 22. The Sagashtawao Healing Lodge, meaning the dawn of a new day, is a drug and alcohol abuse treatment centre for native residents of the James Bay coast, opening in Moosonee. It will be the first of nine healing centres across Ontario offering services in the Cree language. Native people will be able to receive holistic healing methods which reflect traditional Cree values. In the past, people were being sent as far away as Edmonton for this type of treatment.

The establishment of the 12-bed facility was initiated by the Keewaytinook alcohol abuse program and involved input from the Mushkegowuk first nations communities. The lodge, funded by the provincial Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of Health and the federal government, will employ 11 people.

I'm extremely pleased about this initiative and would like to express my sincere appreciation to all who contributed to this development.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

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

I would draw to members' attention, and indeed ask them to invite warmly to our chamber this afternoon, one of the officers of the assembly, the Ombudsman, who is seated in the Speaker's gallery. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS / NÉGOCIATIONS DU CONTRAT SOCIAL

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The single most important goal of this government is to make investments and implement policies that will put Ontario back to work. The plan we have proposed to renew the Ontario economy includes the largest capital investments by any province to modernize our infrastructure. Through an imaginative array of programs under Jobs Ontario, we're putting tens of thousands of Ontarians back to work building the roads, bridges, subway lines and other public facilities that help improve the province's competitive edge and therefore its future economic wellbeing.

On another front, we're working in partnership with the private sector to make investments which secure existing jobs and provide workers with new skills, and to build modern manufacturing facilities that are the source of jobs for the future. We're achieving our goal of putting Ontario back to work in the face of the worst recession since the 1930s, despite drops in government revenues and increasing demands on public funds.

Our plan to renew the economy of Ontario is built on a tough, practical approach to managing the government's finances. This government has accomplished what no government of this province has done in 50 years. We have, for the first time, reduced total government spending on programs. Using principles of good management and fairness, we've implemented a program to reduce and then eliminate the provincial deficit. We have cut the government's own expenses by $4 billion. The recent budget introduced tax and other revenue measures worth another $2 billion.

We've asked the people of Ontario to bear a fair share of the burden of controlling the deficit. Every sector and every region of the province has made a contribution to moving the province towards that goal.

The concept of negotiating a new social contract is a vital part of the government's strategy of economic renewal and job creation. The thousands of formal and informal agreements among those who deliver public services, those who benefit from them and those who pay for them all constitute the social contract which makes Ontario work.

The renewed and modern economy Ontario needs to move into the future requires that we also rethink and modernize the social contract that binds our society and makes it work. The government proposed this process of modernization and restructuring to public sector workers. It was clear to everyone that one of our goals was to achieve a saving of $2 billion in public sector compensation. We also made it clear that in this challenge there was an opportunity.

We proposed to the province's 950,000 public workers that they participate in negotiating new ways of carrying out their work for the public, in fixing their compensation, their benefits and working conditions.

Quelques personnes nous ont dit et soutiennent toujours que ce n'était qu'une perte de temps, qu'il aurait été plus simple de ne pas penser à négocier et d'imposer tout simplement notre solution. Ce sont les mêmes premiers ministres de salon qui déclarent qu'il est facile de combler un déficit, de créer des emplois et de remettre l'Ontario sur la route de la relance économique.

Nous n'arriverons à rien si nous essayons de jeter le blâme sur quelqu'un d'autre ; ce n'est qu'en collaborant que nous trouverons des solutions.

We will not succeed by finding someone to blame. We will only succeed by working together to find solutions, and that remains the foundation of the government's approach.

The effort to build a new social contract between the people of Ontario, the government, the nurses, teachers, police officers and other public workers of the province is a difficult task. It's full of risk and frustration. Though the effort at the negotiating table did not achieve everything that we wished, it was none the less an important process. The talks focused the attention of all public workers, indeed of the entire population of the province, on the need to rethink how we deliver services and create the conditions that empower public workers to do the best job possible for Ontarians.

The social contract talks have broken rigid patterns of thinking about public services. They have set in motion a process of change and brought forth from public workers new ideas to improve public services and to keep them affordable. The representatives of public workers in every sector of society had a hand in shaping new ideas, bringing new approaches to the table, and in building through a process of collective bargaining an agreement not only to reduce costs, but to bring the public sector into the future as an essential support for the economic wellbeing and quality of life of people in Ontario.

The many ideas and new approaches that were arrived at during the social contract negotiations are a credit to all those who participated. They are an achievement for the people of Ontario, whose investment of support and hope in the talks will be justified by the results: better services delivered more efficiently and at a better cost.

The government is proud of what took place around the social contract table. I'm honoured today to report on the content of the package that had been negotiated by the end of the talks last week. Many people worked countless hours to forge these proposals. They drew on their individual experiences as public servants to examine how they work, how they can work better and how the exchange between public workers, those who use public services, those who pay for them and the government that manages the process can be made to work better for all the residents of Ontario.

It's not easy to change how we think about work and our routines, to adjust our expectations to reality and to put the common wealth or good ahead of private or partisan interests. Those who worked at the social contract tables achieved that objective. It is their efforts which brought about the offer which was on the table from the government when the social contract talks came to an end. That offer included:

-- Job security: The guiding principle has been to preserve jobs and to preserve services. The result was an assurance that every worker affected by the abolition of a position would have a priority for another job with the same public sector employer or with employers in the same industry or within the same region. For those affected by layoffs, we proposed a job security fund totalling $300 million over three years to top up laid-off workers' UIC benefits to 95% of take-home pay for one year or to be used to extend notice periods and allow time for retraining.

The job security proposals had the effect of strengthening existing collective agreements in the critical area of job security. I'm proud of those proposals; I think they're very sound.

-- To recognize the link between the social contract and public investment in jobs, it was proposed to set up a provincial capital partnership board whose job it would be to participate in decision-making on capital investments aimed at improving public services.

-- Employees making less than $30,000 a year would be exempt from measures that affect compensation.

-- Wage increases and merit increases will be deferred until April 1, 1996.

-- The most significant savings would be realized by setting up a system of unpaid leaves of absence administered in such a way as to protect overall service delivery and to accommodate the preferences of individual workers.

-- Public sector workers would participate in eliminating wasteful expenditures and practices. Savings would be used as follows: one half to offset the social contract target for the sector where waste was eliminated; one half to be retained by the employer to preserve services and employment through training or redeployment.

As a result of this process, it was envisaged that there could be a saving of $500 million in contributions to pension funds: not to entitlements from those funds, but to contributions to them. The government proposed to utilize this amount to provide job security and to achieve part of the total savings target of $2 billion. This proposal would have in no way affected the pension entitlements of public workers, but rather was evidence of the government's flexibility in working with public sector unions to achieve the overall target for savings.

These and the other components which were on the table at the end of the social contract negotiations could not have been arrived at without the full and energetic participation of public sector unions, employers' groups and government representatives. They are the result of a new way of achieving our common purpose: to improve the quality of the services we provide to the public, to bring their costs in line with our resources, to make public sector workers participants in decisions that affect the cost and quality of the services they provide to the public.

I invite all members of this House to join me in congratulating everyone who laboured these past weeks to bring forth the ideas and solutions to establish a new social contract for Ontario. The government of Ontario welcomes these solutions and will ensure that they form part of the process of reforming public services in Ontario so they can better serve the interests of the people of this province.

That remains one of our key objectives and it remains our intention, as part of this process of reform and renewal, to achieve the savings of $2 billion in public sector compensation that was our initial target. The government will announce later this week how it will keep its commitment to achieve those savings as part of its plans to control the debt, to protect jobs and services and to put Ontario back to work.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I find it a little bit difficult to relate the statement that the Premier has just made to the fact that there was no agreement reached last week and I simply cannot join in congratulating a Premier or his government on the failure of the process that he put in place, although indeed I do respect the very sincere efforts that were made by the participants in the process to make an absolutely impossible situation work.

I suspect that the Premier probably feels that as an opposition leader I take some kind of satisfaction in the failure of the talks. But I can assure him I take absolutely no satisfaction at all in this absolutely no-win situation which he has now put this province in.

It is true that I have been pessimistic about this process having had any chance for success from the very beginning. I have said all along that I did not believe that you could successfully negotiate with the representatives of 9,000 individual collective agreements at one central bargaining table, and I believed that was particularly true when many of those people who are responsible for reaching those collective agreements were not even at that new bargaining table and there was no one there who could bargain responsibly on their behalf.

I have never understood how broad-brush solutions could work across all the sectors that were involved, and in fact I could not believe some of the proposals that the government put forward in the process of conducting those negotiations. We have been in fact as worried about some of the tradeoffs that might have been made in reaching a deal as we were concerned about the chaos if the talks indeed collapsed, and I believe that our pessimism is a direct result of our realism.

We have said from the very beginning that this government had two responsibilities. The first responsibility was to bring in a budget to set realistic financial targets that would have to be achieved. The second responsibility was for the government to sit down with its own employees and negotiate the way to achieve the reductions and let other employer and employee groups do exactly the same thing.

We take absolutely no satisfaction at all in the fact that we have now had eight wasted weeks and we have nothing to show for that except a level of frustration and anger and confrontation of a kind that we have never seen in this province and that is going to make any resolution of these issues just that much more difficult. I take no satisfaction at all in what has occurred over the past eight weeks and I certainly do not feel it is a source for the government to feel some pride over.

I am as frustrated and as worried as everybody else in this province when I ask the question, what happens now? I am absolutely appalled that the Premier of this province, who put this process in place, had no backup plan to put in place if his talks failed. I am dismayed that he comes into the House today and still appears to have no backup plan at all, has no idea of what to do next. I am concerned that it is in fact too late now for any alternative to get us out of the absolute chaos that has been created.

On Friday, this Premier talked a lot about rhetoric. He talked about the rhetoric of union leaders who had been involved in trying to reach some agreement at the social contract tables, he talks about the rhetoric of opposition leaders, but he himself has been indulging in what I consider to be unrealistic and rather grandiose dreams of achieving an unprecedented social contract instead of providing real leadership that works on the ground.

He has said that we should not blame the people who were the negotiators for the government or the people who were the participants in the talks, and I could not agree with that more, because the responsibility for this whole situation belongs directly with the Premier. It was his mismanagement of this entire issue that has created this chaos. If he believed that this process could work, I ask why his government began by talking about wage rollbacks and job layoffs before it even called people together to engage in this cooperative new approach to resolving the issues.

I ask why he added to the anxiety and the confrontation by continuing to make veiled threats of "settle or else." Surely, this is not the way in which you produce a constructive and cooperative result.

I finally ask why this all started so late. We are halfway into the year. Budgets have been set. Contracts have been reached. People are about to be laid off and this government knew at least last fall that its own budget was in trouble, yet it did nothing until six weeks before it brought in the budget. This is total chaos; it is complete mismanagement. It is the responsibility of this Premier and this government to deal with it. It is time for some real leadership here.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): The Premier is a graduate of the University of Toronto. He'll be familiar with the E.J. Pratt Library just up the street from Queen's Park. I don't know if members of the House are familiar with any of Pratt's work, but today I'm thinking of Pratt's poem The Titanic:

"No wave could sweep those upper decks, unthinkable,

"The perfect ship at last.

"The first unsinkable."

The tragic story of the Titanic is one that I think about today. It's a story of overwhelming human pride, a story of hubris. They thought the ship was unsinkable. The ship designers and the builders didn't supply enough lifeboats. They didn't have sufficient evacuation plans. They ignored warnings from other ships, the America, the Baltic, the Californian.

I warned the taxing and the spending government of four years ago, I warned the Liberals they were not planning for economic downturns. The Liberal taxing and spending approach, whether by them or by you, Mr Premier, was leading to spending that could not possibly be sustained. It was leading to the size of government that not only would contribute to an economic downturn, but could not possibly be sustained during one.

I wrote the following in a Financial Post

article in January 1991:

"We need long-term economic and fiscal reform. Controls on public spending, for example, are vital to the achievement of long-term fiscal stability....Massive tax hikes during an economic boom have failed to balance the books and high spending has clearly failed to achieve a commensurate increase in the quality of public service." What do we have to show for all this spending of the last 10 years, to be fair? It's a massive increase in taxation and spending, and not very much else.

That was 1991. I warned the Liberals. I've warned the NDP. You both kept stoking the fires of that huge ship called government, and the hubris of these Liberal and NDP shipbuilders has placed us in this disastrous situation. They were warned, but they continued the lavish spending. Like the champagne and roast duckling in Pratt's poem, the excesses continued, and now we face this very difficult situation.

The Premier has several options at his disposal. None will be easy. None are simple. My advice to the Premier is that panic is no substitute for planning. It took us several years to get into this mess. We need immediately to change direction. The important thing, though, is that we change direction, and it will take several years to get us out of this mess. The government's too large. It taxes too much and it spends too much.

There seem to be three options the Premier has left himself to implement his plan: (1) layoffs, (2) arbitrary cuts to transfer payments and (3) wage rollbacks.

It goes without saying that none of those options would have been necessary if the mess had not been created in the first place, but it was. We're in a mess and we need to get out of it. There is, however, a fourth option, and there may be many others. But I believe the Premier should move to institute the option that I presented as a fourth option, or a fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth, because the first three are unacceptable to Ontarians.

I believe the Premier could move immediately to institute a hiring freeze and a wage freeze in the broader public sector over the next three years. We must systematically begin reviewing the work performed by government and its employees. We must review the services provided and the method of delivering those services. The restructuring of government must be real and it must be permanent.

We must systematically begin downsizing government in this province. At the same time, we must pave the way for the upsizing of the private sector. We must allow our private sector to compete, to grow and to prosper. I've said this many times before. The Premier must look at this as a two-sided coin. You must have a comprehensive plan to see the private sector upsized before you begin downsizing the public sector, as you must do, and we agree with that.

So I say to the Premier again that I am willing to work with this government. Again, I'm willing to sit down in a non-partisan way. I'm willing to sit, if the Premier likes -- perhaps it would have been better if the Premier and the leader of the Liberal Party and myself were at the contract talks, because I didn't see a lot of experience, either on the union side or on the government side, at the bargaining table. If you would have taken some advice from those who have had some experience, both on the union side, the Canadian Auto Workers, for example, and on the public sector side -- but I say we are still willing to be part of the solution and we'll continue to offer alternatives.

RETAIL STORE LEGISLATION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Just prior to oral questions on Tuesday, May 18, the member for St George-St David (Mr Murphy) rose in the House on a question of privilege.

The member indicated that the government had issued instructions that a provision in the Retail Business Holidays Act prohibiting Sunday shopping would no longer be enforced. The member also indicated that the government had issued these instructions after announcing in 1992 that it was introducing an amending bill which, if passed, would permit Sunday shopping. The amendment bill was given first reading in the last session, but has yet to receive second reading.

The member suggested that, by acting as if the amending bill were law, the government had violated his privileges and the privileges of all members of the House. Although the member did not indicate what specific heading of privilege had been violated, I reviewed the relevant authorities. I find that the member's concern does not amount to a prima facie case of privilege.

Furthermore, I want to assure the member that I am cognizant of the fact that, in recent years, Speakers in other jurisdictions have had to rule on whether certain government pronouncements on bills constituted a contempt of the House on the ground that the pronouncements openly suggested that the bills would become law. Having reviewed the submissions of the member for St George-St David in light of those rulings, I find that the member's concern does not constitute a contempt of the House.

I again thank the member, not only for his interest in the matter, but for the way in which he brought the matter to my attention.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. We have kept asking you what your alternatives would be in the event that your social contract talks failed. You have responded over the last couple of weeks with vague threats that the parties at the social contract table had better reach an agreement, or else. The question we asked last week was, "Or else what?" It now becomes absolutely apparent that you had no backup plan. The question this week is, "What now?" After your statement today, we have no clearer idea of what you plan to do next than we had before.

I ask the question very directly, Premier, what now? What are you going to do now?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The Leader of the Opposition has repeated the canard which found its way into a headline in the Toronto Star when she says that I went around saying, "Do this or else." That's not my style. That's not what I said. That's not the direction the government is taking.

What the government is now doing is obviously considering what is the fairest and best way to ensure the reduction of $2 billion in public sector compensation costs while at the same time ensuring that services will be delivered in a fair way, that as many jobs as possible can be protected and that all the parties who are the parties to the hundreds, and indeed thousands, of collective agreements that the Leader of the Opposition keeps referring to can continue to take some ownership of a continuing challenge for the whole of the public sector, which does not belong exclusively to the provincial government.

As the leader of the third party has pointed out, this is something that's going to take some consideration. We are moving quickly to do it. We've had several meetings as a caucus and as a cabinet, and I gave the House the assurance today in my statement that before the House adjourns at the end of this week -- that's to say Wednesday; Wednesday's the last sitting day this week, because we've agreed to let the Conservatives go to their convention on Thursday.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): We don't want to go. Let's stay.

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

Mr Harris: We want to stay here.

Hon Mr Rae: No, we want to give the various campaigns a chance.

I will be making a statement before the end of the close of session this week indicating clearly the outline of the government's approach.

I would say to the honourable member that one has to be realistic about the kinds of preparations that go into making a decision of this kind --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- but I can assure her that the matter is well in hand and the commitments of the government are very clear.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, it is just too late in the game to calmly tell us that everything is well in hand. Nobody believes that everything is well in hand. Even Stephen Lewis has reportedly called the social contract process hastily conceived and shabbily executed. It's quite clear that it was not very thoroughly thought through.

Premier, we happen to agree with you on one point, and that is that there is broad public support for financial restraint. Furthermore, I believe that people were ready to work with you to find some solutions to the financial problems that this province faces. I continue to be concerned about the fact that in this very grandiose process you set up, many of the people who could actually reach the agreements were not at the table. For the past month we have been asking you to sit down and negotiate with your own employees and allow other employee and employer groups to do exactly the same thing.

I ask you very specifically today, will you now get on with what needs to be done? Will you sit down at the table with your own employees and will you give others the tools they need to do the same thing?

Hon Mr Rae: Yes.

Mrs McLeod: I assume, since others cannot sit down at the table without the tools they need, that the Premier heard the emphasis in the question, because I was very particularly emphatic, and that he will then be able to tell us what his legislation will look like and when he is going to bring in the legislation. This is not a time for easy and flippant answers. There are a tremendous number of people across this province whose lives have been put on hold because of the failure of this process. They've waited eight weeks for resolution. They still have no answers. People are at the point of decisions.

I hope that the Premier, in responding to this third supplementary, will give some thought when he gives me a simple yes as to exactly what that means. I hope he will tell people specifically what his next steps will be, how quickly he will bring in the legislation which will be needed to give people the tools to sit down at the local contract table, what that legislation will look like, and I hope he will be thinking as he gives me this answer not of some flippant way of responding today, not of calmly telling us the situation's in hand, but of those people who are today waiting for their --

The Speaker: Could the leader conclude her supplementary, please.

Mrs McLeod: -- layoff notices and all of those college and university and high school people who are wondering whether they'll have a spot in school next year, remember that they are waiting for his answer today and tell us what he is saying to those people in very specific terms.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that it's not the government negotiators who walked away from the negotiations on Thursday evening -- I think that's something she might want to reflect on and recognize as a fundamental reality of where we are today -- and then say to her very directly that I've indicated already in answer to her previous questions that the answers to the kinds of questions she's asking are answers that I think we can be much closer to providing later on in the week and that we will be providing to her and to the province later on in the week, but say to her directly -- she says, if I answer quickly to a question saying yes, she asks me, are we willing to sit down with our own employees?

The answer to that is, of course. We were there on Thursday night. We were there Thursday night, and we're still willing to negotiate with our own employees. Of course. Of course we are.

Second of all, I say to her, are there the tools available for others to do the same? The answer to that is, of course there are.

As a result of what happened on Thursday night, the government is obviously going to have to take further steps to ensure that the kind of approach we've taken -- and I'm delighted to see the kind of positive response the member is giving in terms of our efforts to enter into a dialogue and say to her that if she has any more practical suggestions, we'd be glad to consider them.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: We'll wait to read the results of the scrum, when the Premier hopefully will be asked to explain specifically what it is he means in terms of tools he is going to give people to get on with this business of resolution.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We are almost totally preoccupied with the social contract talks and people are tremendously concerned about them. I am nevertheless absolutely determined that we are going to keep pushing what the government says it recognizes as the other part of the agenda but refuses to do anything about.

There were recent unemployment figures that came out this weekend that confirmed what we all are only too well aware of, and that's that the economy is not producing more jobs. The fact that was shown was that Ontario lost 13,000 permanent jobs last month. The unemployment problem is being felt in communities across this province.

John Mirski, who is a local retailer in Kingston, has received over 1,000 job applications from local unemployed people who are desperate to find work, and I can tell the Premier that many of these 1,000 applicants are already highly skilled individuals. They include machinists and engineers and skilled tradespeople and university graduates. They're looking for jobs in the retail sector because there are no other jobs, but there are no jobs in the retail sector either. Mr Mirski sent us the 1,000 applications. He asked us to pass on these comments to you and he says:

"I hope that these applications put a face to the numbers that the government seems to so flippantly rhyme off. I hope you can present them to the government. Labour legislation and taxation have encouraged employers to do anything to minimize the number of people on their payrolls."

So, Premier, I ask you, how do you respond to the fact of 13,000 permanent jobs that were lost last month and to these particular 1,000 people in Kingston who are so desperately looking for a job?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would say to the honourable member that I don't think any of us go through a day when we don't recognize the fact that an unemployment rate of over 10.5%, which is where the rate still stands in the province, is too high, and that creating the new opportunities and new work and new opportunities for training has to be the top priority for the government.

I know the member says, "Well, it's the labour legislation which is causing the problem." I don't think there are too many objective observers who feel that way. Other provinces are facing similar challenges to ours. Other parts of the world are facing them as well. We are still further ahead this year than last year. That happens to be a fact. She may not want to get up and say that, but it happens to be true.

But I want to assure her and assure the members of the House that while she may not agree with the way in which this government is facing up to the problem, I can assure her that there's no priority that's higher. That's why we're putting as much as we're putting into the capital works program, that's why we're putting as much as we are into the Jobs Ontario Training program and that's why we're putting as much effort as we can into working with the private sector, in partnership with the private sector, in the creation of new employment opportunities there.

So I would say to her that we all recognize the fact that unemployment is a challenge for us as Canadians and we are doing everything we can to address the problem.

Mrs McLeod: I say to the Premier that this is not a training issue; this is a real jobs issue. We've lost 13,000 permanent jobs, and the unemployment statistics also show that our young people are facing increased unemployment. Part of that is permanent and part of that is the need for summer employment.

Youth unemployment in May was up by almost half a percentage point over April, and even more important than that was the fact that youth unemployment is a full two percentage points higher this May than it was in May a year ago.

We have certainly heard from Mr Mirski in Kingston, who doesn't have jobs for the 1,000 skilled applicants who are looking for permanent jobs, that he won't be hiring any more students this summer either.

Premier, I simply ask you, when you see this kind of increase in youth unemployment combined with the loss of permanent jobs in this province, why can you not understand the impact your policies and your budget, your labour legislation and your taxation are having on industries and businesses in tourism, in the retail sector, in hospitality, in the very businesses that normally employ our young people?

Hon Mr Rae: Again I'm sure the honourable member will want to say, "There's more you could do," and I know she put out a program in which she said: "Spend more money in every government program there is. Just go out and spend more." We'd love to be able to do that, but I would say to her that I hope she would recognize, after her discussions with some of her other colleagues, that we put $185 million into youth employment programs. No government's put more into programs, and if we can find more, we obviously will be prepared to invest it.

But the challenge we face is making sure that at the same time we stick to some realistic financial targets, that we recognize that even with the measures that were taken, even with the extraordinary measures we're taking, we still have a deficit situation of over $9 billion, so obviously there are limits to how much the government can simply spend to solve the problem.

I would say to her that we're working with the private sector. I've had some very good discussions with the retail industry, we've had good discussions with the people working in the auto industry, with people working in all the different sectors. We've had good discussions and we do believe that with a continuing sound management of the overall financial situation, here and in the rest of the country and indeed in North America, there are real prospects for growth this year.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Our leader has indicated to you in percentage terms the impact of unemployment. The unemployment figure released last week indicated that 189,000 students are unable to find the jobs they need to go back to school in the fall. Premier, you have effectively destroyed the vision of hope of our young people. The OSAP grant is gone and they have to depend on loans. Those who have been trying to complete their education to improve their futures can't find the temporary positions they need to go back to school.

What do you tell these young people when they wonder how they will be able to complete their education? There seems to be no future for them. Could you comment on that?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the member from Scarborough, whose experience in this area I have a lot of respect for, that we're putting far more money into these programs in terms of youth employment and opportunities for people returning to school than any other government. Clearly, we need a national program as well: We have no national youth employment programs at the moment, and clearly, we need them. I think it's time they came, and came to the fore as issues that need to be addressed.

But what other government in the country is spending $185 million on youth programs? What other government in the country is putting together the kinds of programs for young people? There is no other government that's doing it on the scale and at the level and with the intensity that we are. Yes, I'm sure there's more that can be done. Obviously, in response to what we see here, we'll try to do even more, if that's possible. But it's important for everyone to recognize, and I hope even the Liberal Party will recognize, that we are investing a lot, we are putting everything we can into the process. As I say, if we can find more, we certainly will.

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. For the last two months you've been dancing, so to speak, with the union leaders. Taxpayers were willing to let you try this. I certainly was willing to let you try. But throughout this time it appears that you were dancing to the union leaders' tune, and now the dance is over.

People's futures, however, are on the line. We're dealing with students. We're dealing with families. We're dealing with children. We're dealing with both public and private sector Ontarians. The uncertainty out there of people who are worried about their jobs or people who want jobs is overwhelming.

I wonder if the Premier can tell me why he did not have a backup plan in the event, as happened, that the social contract talks failed.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would say to the honourable member that obviously we have an approach that we're continuing with and that we are now going to carry out in order to effect the $2 billion in savings. I would say to him that we've already indicated to everyone and to the House that the government's commitment to the $2 billion stands, that we wanted to allow a process of negotiation to take place without any kind of "or else," despite the newspaper headlines to the contrary.

Now that the unions decided on Thursday night, 24 hours before the conclusion of talks, to walk away unilaterally from the talks, the government has to look to other measures that will ensure fairness, delivery of services, a respect for the participation of employers and employees in finding a solution and our clear commitment as a government to the bottom line, and the bottom line is that the $2 billion has to come out.

Mr Harris: The union leaders whom I've talked to tell me that without knowing what the "or else" was, they didn't have a mandate from their members to negotiate away and break their contracts. In spite of the fact that you didn't want to be known for "or else," they're saying that the lack of that led to the failure of the talks.

Premier, you're management. You're elected to make the tough decisions. You're elected as management to lead and set the direction. Regardless of how confident you may have been of the talks, good management always has a contingency plan. We urged you for weeks to tell us, to tell the union leaders, what you would do the day the talks failed, what was the "or else."

But you continued, it seems to me, to live in this dream world, Never Never Land, thinking that the union leaders, many of whom I have talked to -- who, if they had a mandate from their membership, would have been prepared to negotiate a deal, as long as their membership understood what the "or else" was.

Now, to attack the deficit your way, you can do one of three things. To implement your plan (1) you can cut transfers by $2 billion, leaving hospitals and school boards in chaos, (2) you can force layoffs and throw thousands out of work with nowhere to go in the private sector, or (3) you can look for $2 billion in rollbacks from existing wages.

The time for action's long overdue, you would agree with me. Which one of those three do you intend to do?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not sure I quite agree with the characterization of all the options that have been put forward, but I would say to the honourable leader of the third party that the government's commitment to a reduction in the overall size of the broader public sector payroll by some $2 billion remains firm, our view that this can be done by building on the experiences and the information and the knowledge and, frankly, the experience of the last two months, which has not been lost and has not been wasted. In fact, there's been an extremely valuable process.

I'm not saying that it resulted in a successful conclusion on Thursday night; of course not. But I am saying that none of that experience has been lost, and it must all be built on. I've found in my discussions with our public sector partners a real willingness to say: "You gave it your best shot in that regard. Now let's look at what the next logical stage is, moving on from there."

In our view, the next logical stage is to carry on, in the spirit of the social contract, to look at the ways in which the parties themselves can come up with creative and effective solutions and to make sure that the parties themselves have the effective tools with which to do the job while respecting their historic relationships and while respecting the need for us to preserve jobs and to protect services at the same time as we get that $2 billion out. The government's commitment to getting it out is clear.

Our strong, strong commitment to the people of the province to ensure services is there and our commitment to the working people of this province to save as many jobs as we can is there as well.

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

Hon Mr Rae: All of those steps, it seems to me, must be taken, and those are the kinds of steps that the government will be looking to implement in our announcement later on this week.

Mr Harris: Premier, you have all these directions and all these philosophical views, but you have no plan. You have no specifics, and if you did have, shame on you for not sharing them with the union leaders, because they're telling you that if you'd done that, they might have been able to reach a deal.

You wouldn't accept any of my advice on how you could have made your plans work better, bringing in people who actually have some experience negotiating, telling people where you stood, what the "What if" was. You ignored all that. In addition to that, last week I presented you and your Treasurer with a fourth option. It was contained in our Prosperity Agenda, as part of that plan. This was an agenda that dealt not just with social contract talks but also with a prosperity agenda and upsizing the private sector. It dealt as well with controlling your own costs and your own spending.

This agenda, in my view, put Ontario, not just the public sector, first. I explained to you that natural attrition in dealing with the public sector would result in a 2%-per-year reduction in staff. Over three years that's 56,000 fewer public servants, 16,000 fewer than your plan seeks to downsize by. There's a three-year plan with natural attrition, with a hiring freeze. It would mean a permanent downsizing of government, no unnecessary layoffs, enough flexibility to ensure priority services are maintained, and quite frankly, no legislation is even required to implement that one.

Can you tell me why you will not look at the fourth option plan that I've presented to you that would allow you to get the savings that you need and provide a three-year plan with no unnecessary layoffs and with no legislation?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to him that his off-the-cuff view -- and I don't want to be too critical of it -- that somehow attrition alone will solve the problem is a view that is not shared universally by others in the field and I would say to him directly that if he has any serious proposals, we would be glad to look at them.

Mr Harris: I tell the Premier that the figures that I give him come from his government. They're his government figures.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier as well. Your refusal, along with your predecessor government's, to recognize that government has had a serious spending problem for the last number of years in Ontario, not a revenue problem, and your refusal to recognize that for your first two years in office, has left more than just the public sector in a mess -- your social contract talks are trying to deal with that -- it has also left the private sector in disarray. It has left taxpayers in disarray. It has left families and left young people with loss of hope and in disarray.

Your mismanagement of the province's affairs is responsible for your $2-billion tax grab. Your $2-billion increase in spending before you're going to claw back wages is responsible for that in your budget.

But, Premier, as well as all of the problems in delivering government services and downsizing, there's a struggling private sector out there, outside of this building, that has been left out in the cold. I would ask you this: When we finally do see what your plan is -- you keep telling us you have one, but it's hidden away -- when we see what your plan is for the public sector, will you also unveil your plans for growth and prosperity and an upsizing of the private sector?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The government's policies on the private sector -- we brought in the budget. You may not agree with it, but we think it has provided some real sense of certainty to the marketplace. Also, we think that on a sector-by-sector basis, we have a very good relationship with the business community and with the private sector. We see signs of investment decisions being made, we see signs of jobs being created and some very significant decisions. So I would say to him that as far as the future is concerned of our relationship with the private sector, I have a much more positive outlook than the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: The Premier says I may not agree with the budget. What I agree with is not important. The private sector doesn't agree with it. Those who may invest five cents don't agree with it. The only people I can find who agree with it are those who never have and never plan to invest five cents of their own money in this province. That's the problem. It's not whether I agree; it's whether the private sector, the job creators, agree. You now need the private sector more than ever.

So while you've been fixated on this social contract process, one that I agree needs attention, businesses have gone bankrupt, people have lost their jobs, and $2 billion in new taxes will only deepen the economic woes in the private sector.

You know my views on taxes, Premier, but there are many other things that you can do that will help the private sector and allow it to create jobs. You can scrap Bill 40 and you can look at other regulations that are barriers to allowing our private sector to compete. You can immediately move to reduce the interprovincial trade barriers, towards scrapping them. You can scrap lot levies, something you opposed when you were in opposition, when the Liberals brought them in.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader place a question.

Mr Harris: Now you continue to collect all that money, thwarting the building of private sector housing.

Why have you rejected all these solutions and many more that are presented to you to help our private sector grow and prosper?

Hon Mr Rae: The leader of the third party may want to spend his time debating legislation that was passed over a year ago; that's up to him. I would just simply say to him that if you look at the decisions that are being made week by week by large and small companies, you will see a sign that business formation is up, that business investment is up; General Motors making its decision last week.

You may well think that your recipe for what is going to carry you into this office, what's going to sweep you to power, is a message of doom and gloom, and that if you vote for Mike Harris, you'll never have to pay any taxes for the rest of your life. Free beer tomorrow. I don't think that's a program that has any credibility.

This government is taking the toughest decisions that any government has had to take in the last 50 years. We're proud of them and we're seeing now that the economy is starting to turn around. We're beginning to see some positive signs in terms of the investment climate and we're dealing with government spending in a way that your party never had the guts to even start to deal with when you were in office and when you were in cabinet. You never sat around in cabinet and had to deal with the kind of issues we've dealt with in managing the public sector. So I just don't take your rhetoric very seriously.

Mr Harris: I'm always amused that when they can't defend their own policies, they try and make up some things about others who are questioning those policies. If you can't defend your policies, step down and move aside. Let's get some leadership in this province.

Let's face it: The only plan you've had for the private sector is your plan to use it to finance your spending binge. That's the same plan the Liberals had before you: Use the private sector and the taxpayers to finance a government spending binge. That's the only plan you've had. In a few weeks, every single man or woman who is lucky enough to still have a job in Ontario will feel what you're going to take out of their pocket in July.

We look at the bankruptcy figures: 353 new ones in April; 1,500 to date this year; 2,000 consumer bankruptcies in April; 8,000 individuals this year; 353 in companies alone this year. Everyone, because of your budget, is now going to pay more money.

I would like to ask you this simple question: What makes you think, after a 10-year record of Progressive Conservative, Liberal -- in a monumental way -- and then two years of your government, where government thought it could spend money better and fairer than individuals and families and taxpayers, what makes you think, after a 10-year record of disaster, that you now have a plan that you can spend the money better than taxpayers can?

Hon Mr Rae: There might be some real basis for the member's questions if this government wasn't the first government in 50 years to actually be reducing program spending. So I find the premise of the question to be really quite out to lunch and quite out of keeping with the facts of the situation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order, the member for York Mills. New question, the member for Renfrew North.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, please come to order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question today is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. In the last six months there have been some rather significant, I would say perhaps even dramatic, developments at Ontario Hydro. I would like, just for a moment today, to turn the attention of the House to those developments and ask a couple of questions to the new Minister of Energy.

In the past number of months, we've seen at Ontario Hydro, among other developments, the following: The announcement that this year, the Hydro corporation will take at least a $1-billion loss. They have announced next year's rate increase at 0%. They have announced that there will be at least 4,500 positions eliminated. There is a major restructuring of the grand old corporation. There is a dramatic change in the policy of private power acquisition.

Most recently, there has been a very interesting announcement that the Hydro corporation is embarking on an experimental deep discount policy to a certain number of selected big industrial power consumers.

Having regard to those and other developments, and accepting that this government has said that a hallmark of its energy policy is accountability, particularly for Ontario Hydro, would the Minister of Energy, on behalf of his government, be prepared today to indicate to the House and to the province that, under

section 36 of Ontario Energy Board Act, he will refer all or some of these matters to the energy board for an independent adjudication of these issues, just to assure the public that these developments are, as we hope they will be, in the public interest?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): No.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "I can't find the page. No, I can't answer" is what he meant to say.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Somebody send him in an answer over there.

Hon Mr Wildman: The answer is no.

Mr Conway: I appreciate the answer. The answer is a declaratory no. I hope the member from Ottawa Centre doesn't choke as she hears that, because some of us remember a time when, for example -- and I'll take a supplementary on just one issue.

The energy board act states in

section 37 that where Ontario Hydro proposes to change any of its rates or charges, Hydro shall submit that proposal to the minister, who shall then submit that proposal to the energy board: "shall." That's what the energy board act says.

About six weeks ago, very quietly, the Rae cabinet passed a regulation that amends the impact of that section, giving Hydro an exemption from that accountability if those changes are deemed to be experimental. Now, in light of the long-standing position of the New Democratic Party that we've got to have a good independent adjudication of significant developments at Ontario Hydro, surely the minister understands that while this may be very good policy -- in my view, I think a number of the developments are quite positive --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- surely in the public interest there should be a reference of these issues, and, I'd ask specifically, if not of all of the issues, at least the issue of the so-called experimental deep discounting rates to big industrial users.

Would the minister not agree that that would be a timely and useful thing to do?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is correct in his

preamble to both his first and his second questions in saying that the corporation is right now experiencing and going through a significant restructuring of its operations which will affect the public, certainly the ratepayers, and the employees of Ontario Hydro.

The member is correct that when Ontario Hydro proposes a rate change to the minister, the minister can refer and should refer the matter to the Ontario Energy Board. In this case, Ontario Hydro is not doing that, and the member for Renfrew North knows that.

The corporation has suggested, on an experimental basis, looking at the possibility of a differential rate in relation to its major customers as they consume the surplus. The government has responded by saying that on an experimental basis -- Mr Speaker, surely my first answer was concise. You can give me a little bit of time here.

The Speaker: I appreciate that, but perhaps the member could still conclude his response shortly.

Hon Mr Wildman: Well, after a one-word answer on the first one, to be hurried along on this one --

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

Hon Mr Wildman: The point is this: In response to the proposal for an experimental approach, the government responded with a regulatory change that would facilitate that. If at any time the corporation proposes that kind of an approach on a permanent basis, that matter would then be subject to an Ontario Energy Board hearing.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the minister responsible for auto insurance. Mr Minister, when you first introduced Bill 164, you promised the people of Ontario cheaper auto insurance premiums on the understanding that they withdraw their right to sue for economic loss. Thanks to the Treasurer adding a 5% tax on premiums, premiums will definitely not be going down. They will be increasing a maximum of 10% to 40%, depending on which studies you use, yours or of course the auto insurance companies'.

Bill 164 is a lose-lose situation for consumers of Ontario who rely of course on automobiles. Why are you going ahead on a piece of legislation that is not only flawed but will mean only fewer options for accident victims and higher rates for consumers?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The member opposite seems to indicate that he and his colleagues in the Conservative caucus have forgotten the entire debate around Bill 68, the Liberal legislation which led us here.

For the member opposite to talk about Bill 164 as a lose-lose situation when the current legislation, the Ontario motorist protection plan legislation, which they seem to be now defending, leaves without coverage virtually at all significant segments of the population of this province: children, students, homemakers, women who decide to take a few years off work to raise a family and those who in the middle of a recession like this one find themselves temporarily unemployed -- people who under the current legislation are significantly left without coverage, this legislation will provide coverage to.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Hey, it's not right. They are covered. There is coverage.

Hon Mr Charlton: Yes, $185 a week for life.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Bruce. Would the minister please take his seat.

Mr Elston: When he becomes an honest man, then I will be quiet.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Bruce knows that's not parliamentary language. I realize he'd like to ask a question, but would he please withdraw --

Mr Elston: When he's honest, I'll withdraw that.

The Speaker: I ask the member, first, to take his seat, and second, would he please withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Mr Elston: I will withdraw but I will not stop interjecting while he refuses to tell us what the bill actually does.

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat and would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Charlton: Very quickly, the members opposite, it would appear, would prefer to leave all of those people without any adequate coverage under the current legislation. It is possible that there will be small price increases associated with the passage of Bill 164, but it is a small price to pay to ensure that the people of this province, no matter who they are, have adequate coverage under their auto insurance legislation.

Mr Tilson: At the very least, the small price increases that you're giving are 3% in the hidden premium tax your Treasurer gave last year and 5% this year. That's without even the flaws of Bill 164.

In committee, the committee members of the opposition have asked a number of questions on all of the areas that the minister has been putting forward, and, Mr Minister, your committee members, the government members, either refuse or won't answer the questions that we put to many of the flaws with respect to Bill 164. They simply won't answer or they're unable to answer.

Now you've prepared a motion as House leader to limit debate of Bill 164 for one day in committee and two hours in the House. Why are you proceeding with Bill 164 when you haven't even brought forward your amendments in the committee and they're so painfully unprepared to deal with the results of Bill 164?

Hon Mr Charlton: As is quite often the case, the member opposite is incorrect. All of our amendments have been tabled with the committee.

Mr Elston: That's not true. What is wrong with you? Why can you not tell the truth?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Why can he not tell the truth?

Hon Mr Charlton: All of the legislative amendments have been tabled with the committee. The member refers to the fact that I've tabled a time allocation --

Mr Elston: That's not the issue.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce: I understand his concerns about the issue, but the honourable member knows that he should not be using that kind of language in the chamber and I would ask him to please simply withdraw.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, the issue is important, but the manner of the presentation of the material here is what really is getting me. We are supposed to tell the truth here. I have not heard it, but I will withdraw my question, which was, "Why can he not tell the truth?"

Hon Mr Charlton: I'll resist the temptation to respond to the member for Bruce and respond to the member who raised the question. The member referred to the fact that I've tabled a time allocation motion before the committee. That is because the opposition House leaders before Christmas agreed on a time

schedule in the committee for two weeks of public hearings and one week of clause-by-clause during the intersession.

Since that time, I've allowed an additional three days and now a fourth day for the committee to deal with clause-by-clause and it's still only at clause 7 because the members of the Conservative and Liberal parties have been conducting an intentional and nonsensical filibuster. I must proceed and I will.

CLOSING OF TREE NURSERIES

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Durham East with his question.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Natural Resources, and it's about the Orono Nursery. About 18 months ago, the Orono tree nursery was threatened with closure and, through the intervention of the past Minister of Natural Resources, that was averted. Now, with the cuts in government spending --

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Oh, come on.

Mr Mills: I want to ask my question, and he keeps shouting at me. It's awful. I want to hear my question. I'm fed up with it.

The Speaker: The member for Durham East --

Interjections.

Mr Mills: I'm shouted down.

The Speaker: Would the member for Durham East just relax. I ask the honourable member to direct his question to the minister.

Mr Mills: Mr Minister, we averted that trauma at the Orono tree nursery about 18 months ago. Things have calmed down. Now suddenly rumours are starting circulating again about the fate of the Orono tree nursery --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Simcoe West, please come to order.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, these rumours are circulating and I suspect I know where they're circulating, but I'll ask my question.

My question, Mr Minister: I want you this afternoon to stand in your place and tell me that there will be no job cuts at the Orono tree nursery, that there will be no reduction in staff and that people can go to bed tonight, sleep happily and get this thing off their chests. It's such a worry. Can you answer that? Can you give me that assurance?

Interjections.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I'll attempt to make myself heard over the noise on the other side.

Through the expenditure control plan we had to look at a number of Ministry of Natural Resources operations. We announced that we would close 18 small field offices and work stations at various locations around the province. We've completed that list of 18, and there will be no job losses associated with the closure of those small offices, although there will be significant savings.

I can tell the member that there is no plan to close the Orono tree nursery. I should say to the member that we will be looking at reducing in particular --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- levels of management within the Ministry of Natural Resources, and as we reduce some of the management numbers, that will have repercussions for the whole system, so that in the end some employees at the Orono nursery might be affected. I doubt it at this time very much.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Mills: Just to thank the minister for being honest and straightforward to the people I represent. Thank you, Mr Minister.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): In the absence of the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Health, I'd like to address my question to the junior Minister of Health.

On Thursday I raised the chaotic approach this government had taken with respect to its physician resources policy. That very afternoon the minister indicated through a letter, which was signed by her assistant deputy minister and written to Dr John Evans, that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, shall I redirect the question to the Minister of Health, who has finally arrived for question period?

That very afternoon the minister indicated through a letter which was signed by her assistant deputy minister to Dr John Evans --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but I cannot hear her question.

Mrs Sullivan: I will reiterate. Last Thursday I asked questions in the House with respect to the chaotic approach that the government has taken to physician resources in Ontario. That very afternoon the assistant deputy minister of health, Margaret Mottershead, signed a letter which indicates to Dr John Evans that the Minister of Health, "accepts the committee's package of recommendations totally," which was a totally different position than that which the minister had enunciated the day before. In the letter she says that there is an "explicit commitment" to the plan, but there is a caveat: The minister doesn't know if her cabinet colleagues will ratify the proposal.

I'd like to know if the Minister of Health will indicate to us if the recommendations of the Evans committee report will be ratified by the government and accepted as the government's final policy statement on this issue.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the member, I apologize for being late. I was in Niagara Falls speaking to the association of local health authorities and it took me longer to get back than I had planned, so I regret my absence.

Let me say to the member that I think the committee Dr Evans heads has done some very interesting and creative work in dealing with post-graduate -- medical graduates and human resources management for the profession.

The recommendations they have made to me are ones I believe will lead us in the direction of being able to both manage our resources better as well as deal with the critical problems of underserviced domains. I certainly feel it is a step forward from the rather blunt instrument of a 75% discounting, which was our initial proposal to the OMA --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): That was your instrument for goodness' sake.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and I recognize it was my instrument, as we began negotiations.

The response of the committee is one that I think is preferable, and I will certainly be discussing that with my cabinet colleagues as soon as I can. I can assure the member that I will inform her of that conclusion as soon as I have it.

Mrs Sullivan: Two weeks ago the minister was going to use exactly what she calls a blunt instrument to lock out all new paediatricians, GPs, family practitioners and psychiatrists by paying them only a quarter of what they have the right to earn under the negotiated fee schedule. Last Thursday night, the minister speculated that maybe other doctors and older doctors should be "discounted," and I use her word. Friday, we have a new position which accepts the Evans committee report, but once again with the caveat of not knowing whether she can get the agreement of her cabinet colleagues.

What is the position today? What is the government's policy on insuring that we have the right number of doctors in the right places with the right skills? What is your policy today?

Hon Mrs Grier: The policy of this government is to reform the health care system, and that to us, with respect to physician management, means making sure we have the right doctors in the right place. We do that through our discussions with the OMA, discussions and negotiations I am not going to have in this House. Our second policy is to maintain our fiscal targets and reduce the increase in expenditures on health care that under previous governments have been allowed to run unchecked.

I'm confident that we can do both of those things and at the same time ensure that underserviced areas, whether they be populations or regions of the north, that I know colleagues on all sides of the House have been concerned about for a very many years, will in fact be dealt with, and I'm confident that this will be the outcome of our discussions with the OMA.

PHOTO RADAR

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Solicitor General. How are you planning to handle the implications of photo radar to car rental agencies?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): That question would rightfully belong to the Minister of Transportation, but he's not in the House, so I'll attempt to answer. My understanding is that we would attempt to deal with that in the same fashion that one now deals with parking tickets, wherein people who own the cars are responsible for those tickets, not the people who are driving them.

Mr Turnbull: Quite obviously, that's just simply abdicating any dealing with it at all. That is a problem for those car rental agencies, and quite clearly we make ourselves more uncompetitive in the tourist market when we do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Turnbull: I've got a specific suggestion to you as to how you can mitigate this. I would suggest you develop a form the agency would get the customers to sign which would pre-authorize their acceptance of responsibility for the ticket and would also authorize withdrawal from a credit card for anything which may be incurred by way of charges.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: That is a way of making sure you don't harm the businesses of Ontario, the hundreds and hundreds of small rental agencies that are already burdened with a lot of government red tape. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I don't understand the question. Sorry, Mr Speaker. There's been so much commotion in the House today I've had a great deal of difficulty listening to the member, and he is on the other side of the House. If I could hear the essence of the question again, I will be glad to attempt to answer it.

The Speaker: Could the member briefly place his question, and it would be helpful --

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I cannot -- I must -- if he doesn't --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There was a considerable amount of noise in the chamber. I had trouble hearing the question. I would ask all members to please allow the member to place his question.

Mr Turnbull: You have added a considerable amount of red tape to the administration of car rental companies by doing this. You also injure the tourism business by adding extra costs which will be distributed across all people who rent cars. A solution that I'm offering to you, Minister, is quite simply to create a form on which auto agencies would undertake on your behalf, the government's behalf, to get a signature from those people who are renting.

This form would automatically make the onus on the person renting and would pre-authorize on behalf of the government a deduction from any credit card for any amounts which would be owing, rather than spreading it across the cost of renting all cars. Will you do this?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm glad I asked for the question to be repeated and clarified, because it's what I thought the first time when I heard the pieces of it through the roar on the other side.

The reality is that essentially what the member is talking about is exactly what we are planning to do, which as I understand it is very similar to what is done with parking tickets. So there's no intent to put an onus on business. There's going to be an opportunity --

Mr Turnbull: You're doing nothing with parking tickets. it's the responsibility of the car agency.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, I really question whether the member wants to hear an answer to a question or whether he just wants to make a lot of noise here today.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The suggestion by the minister completely distorts what I have said. The government does not take any responsibility to --

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

WASTE REDUCTION

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. I believe that this government takes seriously the need to control garbage, because the materials we throw away are valuable, because our environment is damaged by the excessive extraction of resources from it and because there's really no satisfactory way of disposing of garbage. Could the minister tell us what this government is doing to support the measures that the Minister of Environment and Energy recently announced around the 3Rs program?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for Peterborough for the question. The government of Ontario has undertaken what I can only describe as the largest 3Rs program taken on by any institution in North America. We have attempted through the way that we've proceeded with our program to try and provide leadership to the private sector and to the public at large. We have, through the reduction of some 7,700 tonnes of waste each year over the course of the last several years, saved between $3 million and $4 million in tipping fees at landfill sites across the province.

We've established composting sites at some 30 institutions. We've used over 8,000 tonnes of recycled paper, saving roughly 68,000 trees, and recently we've initiated the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: In recent days, we've had as many as 87,000 government employees in 760 locations across the province involved in the green workplace program and involved in reducing waste in government operations.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm serving notice of my dissatisfaction with the answer provided by the Minister of Environment and Energy to my question. I'll be happy to debate it later in the week.

The Speaker: I trust that the member will file the necessary document with the table.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario re Bill 38, an amendment of 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 a non-working day was not invented by man. It 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."

It's signed by 114 residents of the province and I've affixed my signature.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition signed by the residents of my riding which says:

"We have been residents of southeast Oakville since 1974 and have been increasingly concerned about the pollution being emitted from the St Lawrence Cement plant and we request that testing of contaminants in the dust be done."

GAMBLING

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition from the St James-Rosemount United Church and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it states:

"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."

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I've been provided with a petition from Margaret Brocklebank, who is the secretary of the Streetsville Senior Citizens' Club 111, and the members would like to express their concern regarding changes proposed to the Ontario drug benefit program. They are concerned that the changes may result in user fees for seniors and it's my pleasure to sign this petition on their behalf.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 441, Brockville and Area Centre for Developmentally Handicapped Persons Inc, 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 service."

I'm affixing my signature in support.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition here addressed to Premier Rae, Treasurer Laughren, Minister Buchanan:

"We, the undersigned, request that you seriously consider reversing your decision to close New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology."

It's signed by about 99 constituents and I'll affix my signature to this too.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many cases in which mothers have not abused or neglected their children and are treated unfairly;

"Whereas children's aid societies do not recognize single mothers and children as a family unit;

"Whereas single mothers lose all rights once their children become crown wards; and

"Whereas some case workers of children's aid societies have lack of communication with single mothers; and

"Whereas children's aid societies, in placing the children in relief homes, reduce meaningful visits with their mothers; and

"Whereas children's aid societies plan visits at their discretion and not in the best interests of the children; and

"Whereas parents of the children's aid societies should be screened before becoming foster parents; and

"Whereas the words 'the best interests of the children' are not fully defined by the children's aid society and in our courts; and

"Whereas single mothers are becoming victims of children's aid societies in losing all access to their children;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to have the children's aid societies investigated when the children become crown wards at the discretion of the children's aid society, for the purpose that the visitations are being removed from the mothers and their children, to allow the courts to have more say for mothers and their children to remain as a family, and to have children's parents of the children's aid society screened before becoming foster parents."

That's signed by some 523 signatures and I have signed the petition.

GAMBLING

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition which has been signed by about 20 people in Bloomingdale, Maryhill, Kitchener, Waterloo and London.

"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 of Ontario as follows:

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

I hereby affix my signature.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition against the mandatory requirement for individuals to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle, and it's to the Speaker of the House and the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, support the voluntary use of bicycle helmets promoted as part of a comprehensive bicycle safety program; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, oppose the province's plan to mandate the use of bicycle helmets as being an excessive restriction of personal rights to choose for ourselves as guaranteed under the Constitution;

"We respectfully submit this petition for your consideration."

GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition signed by 25 members of the congregation of St John's Church, Ida, in my riding:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 100 school children at St George's school in Long Sault, Ontario, which asks the government to support the construction of the Long Sault Centennial Arena. The petition reads:

"We, the youth and our families, along with the members of our community, have been working very hard to raise a portion of the moneys needed to rebuild our well-used arena. We need government funding to help. Unfortunately, we can't do it alone. We need our arena."

I fully support the petition and affix my signature and applaud the efforts of the St George's school children and their teachers.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 440 employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General 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 the public services."

I have affixed my signature in support.

GAMBLING

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition respectfully submitted to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario by 24 Middlesex residents who ask that the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos in the province of Ontario.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have quite a massive petition here, primarily signed by the folks from the town of Englehart in the riding of Timiskaming, and it says in regard to health care in northern Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, wish to strongly suggest the following recommendations:

"

(1) Governmental officials legislate doctors to practise in northern Ontario by making northern postings a part of their curriculum. This could be a way of paying back subsidies given them, government grants, community sponsorship etc.

"

(2) Issue a number of licences to southern Ontario and an equal number per capita to the north.

"

(3) Open up immigration practices again to allow foreign doctors to practise in Canada. This practise has worked well in the past.

"Where there is a lack of governmental services, there is no community. Because we have chosen to live in the rural north, we should not be penalized. The closing of small northern Ontario hospitals and the reduction of government funding that causes bed closures is not the only answer to the health care crisis. As it is, when beds are needed in the southern hospitals for patients requiring specialist care, the wait is long, as it is in the list of patients awaiting beds. If more hospitals and beds close, these hospitals will be even further overloaded. The cost of increased transfers will escalate, along with the number of people requiring travel grants and other types of assistance.

"In addition, the north cannot afford to shoulder the burden of reduced income in any way of lost jobs. What we need is more doctors in the north to keep the facilities and services operational."

I affix my name to this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here:

"Whereas the town of Georgina has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural, residential and recreation/vacation lands; and

"Whereas these areas would drastically be affected by a megadump; and

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of number 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would disrupt the vibrant agricultural communities and farm families in these areas that have continued to invest large sums of money in their farms; and

"Whereas these communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority putting in a megadump; and

"Whereas most of the people in Georgina depend on groundwater for their drinking water supply and a dump would threaten their clean supply of drinking water; and

"Whereas Lake Simcoe is the ice fishing capital of the world; and

"Whereas Lake Simcoe provides a strong draw for tourists year round; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump would destroy the local economies in the community;

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

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land and turn it into York-Metro's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew its efforts to seek alternatives like waste reprocessing to landfill and implementation of progressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs.''

I affix my name to this petition like the many people who were out in front of the Legislature this weekend at a GAG rally.

GAMBLING

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have another petition 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 of Ontario as follows:

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

I have signed the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Pursuant to standing order 60(a), I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates on the estimates selected and not selected by the standing committee for consideration for the fiscal year 1993-94.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates presents the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to Standing order 59, your committee has selected the estimates of the following ministries and offices for consideration:

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, seven hours and 30 minutes; Ministry of Housing, seven hours and 30 minutes --

Mr Jackson: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No, no, carry on.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Ministry of Health, 10 hours;

Ministry of Labour, five hours;

Office responsible for women's issues, seven and a half hours;

Office of francophone affairs, seven and a half hours;

Ministry of Education and Training, seven and a half hours;

Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, seven and a half hours;

Ministry of Community and Social Services, 10 hours;

Ministry of Natural Resources, five hours;

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, seven and a half hours;

Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, seven and a half hours.

Pursuant to standing order 60, the estimates of the following ministries and offices not selected for consideration are deemed passed by the committee and reported to the House in accordance with the terms of the standing order and deemed to be received and concurred in.

Ministry of the Attorney General: law officer of the crown, $261,832,257; ministry administration program, $27,949,700; guardian and trustee services, $20,794,400; crown legal services, $99,552,500; legislative counsel services, $4,272,300; courts administration, $291,395,200; administrative tribunals, $26,978,100; special investigations unit, $2,099,400.

Cabinet Office: Cabinet Office program, $5,775,100; Premier's councils, $4,565,100.

Ministry of Citizenship: ministry administration, $5,496,765; program support, $26,371,400; anti-racism strategy, $8,478,900; disability and seniors' issues, $15,516,100; ministry agencies, $21,566,100.

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations: ministry administration, $23,876,457; business practices, $14,804,200; technical standards, $18,211,300; registration, $72,425,200; agencies, $43,474,900; casino development, $2,960,500.

Ministry of Environment and Energy: ministry administration program, $43,585,173; environmental services, $114,500,000; environmental control, $104,679,600; utility planning and operations, $217,795,200; energy planning and development, $26,001,700.

Ministry of Finance: ministry administration program, $57,099,907; treasury and controllership, $7,155,977,000; taxation and intergovernmental finance policy, $7,048,000; economic policy, $21,215,600; treasury board, $449,549,500; office of the budget, $1,004,100; financial standards, $50,167,800; tax administration, $202,260,400; property assessment, $109,293,900; Province of Ontario Savings Office, $12,403,100.

Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs: ministry administration program, $2,425,808; federal and interprovincial relations, $5,738,100.

Office of the Lieutenant Governor: Office of the Lieutenant Governor program, $662,000.

Management Board Secretariat: ministry administration program, $29,577,107; realty services, $377,832,500; supply and services, $65,574,600; computer and telecommunication services, $15,406,500; human resources, information technology and management policy, $64,345,800.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs: ministry administration, $6,519,507; municipal policy, $9,266,600; municipal operations, $950,980,300; Ontario municipal audit, $1,809,800; Ontario Municipal Board, $7,967,100; office for the greater Toronto area, $1,717,400; board of negotiation, $143,200; waterfront regeneration trust, $1,916,900.

Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat: Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat program, $18,343,608.

Office of the Premier: Office of the Premier program, $2,363,748.

Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services: ministry administration program, $59,238,165; public safety, $46,619,300; policing services, $22,787,300; Ontario Provincial Police, $498,076,400; correctional services, $563,088,700.

Ministry of Transportation: ministry administration program, $35,591,857; policy and planning, $18,775,300; safety and regulation, $109,592,000; program delivery, $595,122,900.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 60(b), the report of the committee is deemed to be received, and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not being selected for consideration are deemed to be concurred in.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GEORGIAN-SIMCOE RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr J. Wilson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr27,

An Act respecting Georgian-Simcoe Railway Company Limited.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Do I get a short explanation on the bill?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It's a private bill, so there are no introductory remarks.

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

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

Bill 43,

An Act to amend the Mining Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les mines.

WAUBAUSHENE RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting the Waubaushene Railway Company Limited.

PICTON-TRENTON RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr29,

An Act respecting Picton-Trenton Railway Company Limited.

WATERLOO-ST JACOBS RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting Waterloo-St Jacobs Railway Company Limited.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Orders of the day.

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order with respect to government notice of motion number 2, which is also on the order paper as orders of the day today, which motion, as I'm sure you are aware, states: "That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on June 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, and 24" etc.

That, of course, is the usual motion that is passed some time before the last eight sessional days of the parliamentary calendar. I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that that motion in this particular case, as it's worded, is out of order.

The reason I submit that to you, sir, is that on May 10, 1993, in this place the government proposed a motion, which was unanimously passed, "...that, notwithstanding any standing order of the House, the House meet in the morning of Wednesday, June 9, 1993, for the consideration of private members' public business, and when the House adjourns that day, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, June 14, 1993, and that Monday, June 14, 1993, be not considered as one of the last eight sessional days in June for the purposes as set out in the standing orders."

My submission to you very simply, Mr Speaker, is that this House having passed on May 10 unanimous motion that June 14 was not to be considered one of the last eight sessional days, it is clearly out of order for the government today to introduce a motion including June 14 as one of the last eight sessional days and therefore granting permission to sit from 6 pm until 12 midnight.

Mr Murray J.

Elston (Bruce): I agree with that in the sense that I understand the House has the opportunity to do whatever it does wish to do with the standing orders, but it seems to me, having given precedence to one change in the standing orders, with the consent of the people here, because there were special arrangements being made because of the Thursday early rising this week of the House, we have agreed that the last eight days not include June 14 because that means the government can actually do certain other business, ie, they can actually introduce a bill which they can require to be dealt with in those last eight days otherwise.

It seems to me, therefore, because the previous motion, which now must be given precedence and priority over the standing orders, has taken away June 14 as a day of one of the last eight sessional days, that we can no longer be asked to comply with the rest of the standing order which tells us that we can have a motion, almost a right -- it has a two-hour debate time limit as you know -- that will require us to sit evenings, the reason being that June 14 now is available for the government to do business that it would otherwise be excluded from doing, ie, introducing more legislation for the last eight sessional days.

Mr Speaker, I think that therefore means that this particular motion is indeed out of order because we're dealing with something other than the last eight sessional days, as the standing orders have been amended by prior agreement of the House.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): It's an interesting but expected position that the two opposition House leaders put.

I should, I guess, point out to you, Mr Speaker, that the business which the House leader of the opposition referred to as business that we wouldn't otherwise be able to do on June 14, we seek to do in order to accommodate the wishes of the third party not to sit on the Thursday so that its members can attend the convention.

But all that aside, there is no point of order here. The motion, as the House leader of the third party has indicated, which was passed on May 10, is a valid motion. The House also has a right to pass a subsequent motion which will in effect change that order because it will be an order of the House.

The motion that stands framed before you today, the one that hopefully I will be moving in a few minutes, is a motion which deals with standing order 9 and standing order 9 alone. The other parts of the motion passed on May 10 will still stand and be valid. But in any event, there's nothing out of order. The House has the perfect right to debate a motion and to order its business, and that's what I'm requesting we do this afternoon, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The three House leaders have given me something to think about, because indeed I find that the member from Parry Sound's arguments with respect to the previous order declaring that the 14th would not be included cause me some concern when the government then wishes to pass a new motion that includes the 14th in the number of days for evening sittings.

I think that under the circumstances it would be best to pause for a few moments. I think 10 minutes would be sufficient. If the current motion is permissible, it would allow enough time to complete the debate, and if it's not permissible we will go on with other business. So this House stands in recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1543 and resumed at 1554.

The Speaker: First, before addressing the point of order, I realize that all members in the assembly make every effort to do the public business as expeditiously as possible, and sometimes extra hours are required in order to do that.

The member for Parry Sound has indeed raised a valid point of order. There was a special order of this House which indicated that June 14 was not to be considered as one of the eight sessional days during which time the hours could be extended.

The question of the point of order rests on the wording of the motion which was placed at that time.

The government may wish to come back to this House tomorrow with a new, revised motion, with suitable notice and placed on the order paper, so that it in fact can be debated and would stand in order. But I must, under the circumstances, find that the honourable member for Parry Sound indeed is correct, that he has a valid point of order and that the motion is not in order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 102,

An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'équité salariale.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I believe the member for Waterloo North had the floor last when we completed the debate.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yes, Mr Speaker. When the House adjourned on May 12, I was speaking to the pay equity bill. At that time I was reviewing some of the communications I had received from people throughout the province, both in the form of written letters and verbal communication, regarding their concerns about Bill 102, the pay equity legislation. I would just like to add again that there has been a tremendous amount of concern expressed regarding this issue.

The first letter I had dealt with that day was a letter from the YWCA of Kitchener-Waterloo. It was a letter to the Honourable Bob Mackenzie and was dated February 15, 1993. In speaking to the bill, they mentioned, "We strongly support your government's proposal to extend the implementation period of pay equity to 1988," in order that they don't have to reduce their service and in order that they don't have to lay off their staff.

That was the concern they were bringing to our attention. If they were forced to go ahead with the implementation of pay equity at the present time, because of the economic recession and the fact that they are struggling to meet their needs, the cost of pay equity was going to result in layoffs and service cuts to the YWCA. As a result, the women this bill is supposed to help were the women who were going to be suffering from the cutbacks, as well as the children. It was the women and the children who need the emergency housing who were going to be the ones who were going to suffer as a result of the implementation of pay equity.

The Y also indicated that it had concern about the implementation of pay equit