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

June 30, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

DAY CARE

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM FESTIVAL

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

GO RAIL EXPANSION

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

SOCIAL CONTRACT

BOATING SAFETY

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

VISITORS

CONTAMINATED SOIL

SOCIAL CONTRACT

RACE RELATIONS

TAX INCREASES

FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

ROUGE VALLEY

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TENDERING PROCESS

FOREST INDUSTRY

EDUCATION FINANCING

HEALTH CARE

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

PAROLE SYSTEM

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

CHILD CARE

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAY CARE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Premier a serious matter arising in the region of Peel as a result of your social contract.

Last week I was informed that, as a result of the reduction by the province of its grant payments to the region, regional council on June 24 resolved that the family day care program be cut in its entirety effective September 3 of this year. That means that 932 day care spaces will be eliminated. The region is requesting that the provincial cutback be reduced.

The action as a result of the social contract has a devastating effect not only on the providers of family day care spaces but also on the individuals who need these spaces. I have been told that many of these spaces are needed by single moms who have made a go of it and have found jobs. The dilemma they face is that there are no day care spaces available in Peel to meet the 932 space needs. They will in fact have to leave their jobs this September.

Minister, Premier, I ask you to approve the option provided by the region of Peel. Meet with them. Let us save this program which provides quality day care for children and allows people who have found jobs to keep them.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would like to once again bring to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services the very urgent need for maintaining the special services at home program. Members of this House know that I have raised this issue several times now in the House.

Special services at home provides at-home assistance to parents with developmentally handicapped children. Many parents in Wellington county have seen their allocation of hours in this program severely reduced or eliminated altogether as demand for the service has grown.

Let me be very clear: This is a call for a reallocation of existing government spending, not a call for increased spending. Instead of properly helping families with disabled children, we see the government spending approximately $800 million to build non-profit housing units in this province, units which are not necessary given the high vacancy rates at reasonable rents across this province.

I'd like to read some comments from parents who have written to me expressing their concern and desperation regarding the cuts in service. Typical is this one from Mary Ellen Brown of Fergus:

"My feeling is that your government needs to rethink their priorities in funding. You and your government have spent millions of dollars on snowmobile trails, but cannot find it in your budget or your heart to fund a program such as special services at home adequately."

I say again I hope that the minister will make more resources available for the special services at home program through a reallocation of existing resources within the government.

This is the fifth time I have raised this issue in the Legislature. I say to the Minister of Community and Social Services: Disabled kids in Wellington county need your help. When will you hear their cry?

INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM FESTIVAL

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): It's that time of the year when I'm able to announce another Windsor festival. The 1993 International Freedom Festival is already in progress and promises to be spectacular and of course fascinating.

The 35th annual International Freedom Festival is a celebration which brings two nations together in harmony. The province of Ontario, the city of Windsor and of course the state of Michigan come hand in hand and celebrate the freedoms we both enjoy.

Hands Across the Border has become a tradition we savour and look forward to. This aspect of the festival occurs on the Ambassador Bridge, where hundreds of people join their hands in a gesture of goodwill.

The festival is highlighted by the Canada Day parade, held Thursday, July 1, at noon on Ouellette Avenue. This year we celebrate Canada's 126th birthday.

On the roster this year: the Canada Day family picnic, the great bed race, Brights Wines waiter-waitress relay, singer Michelle Wright, the Motown Sound and the Johnny Trudell Orchestra entertain at the Cleary International Centre on Riverside Drive. Pancake breakfasts, tugboat races, battle of the bands, windsurfing demonstrations and a US-Canada coast guard search-and-rescue demonstration are just part of the fun.

Again this year the highlight will be the massive fireworks display on the Detroit River. This annual and historic display will last about 40 minutes and be witnessed by an estimated 500,000 spectators lining both sides of the border.

The 35th Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival is on and continues to July 4. My Windsor colleagues and myself congratulate Terry O'Rourke and her dynamic staff of volunteers for another super presentation.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): For some time now the Liberal Party has expressed concerns about the functioning of the special investigations unit under this government. As it stands now, the SIU does not have the confidence of the police or of the public it was created to serve.

Remarks attributed to the director of the SIU can only serve to further undermine confidence in the special investigations unit's ability to conduct investigations.

According to press reports, the director of the SIU will hire civilians to participate in investigations even if the civilians never reach the level of trained police officers. How this will enable the SIU to conduct better investigations is really a mystery.

One of the most important recommendations of the Race Relations and Policing Task Force was the creation of a body that would conduct investigations within a 30-day time frame. Both Stephen Lewis and Clare Lewis recognized that this would require the use of experienced investigators, likely former police officers.

What the SIU now needs and has not been provided by this government is the resources to conduct independent and thorough investigations that will enjoy the confidence of both the police and the public.

GO RAIL EXPANSION

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I rose in the Legislative Assembly on May 5, 1993, to address the subject of the GO rail expansion program in the Richmond Hill corridor, which passes through my riding of Willowdale.

The expansion will increase the service from the current eight trains per day to a total of 34. These trains will literally be travelling through my constituents' backyards.

Those affected are concerned about the impact the expansion will have on their homes and about the Ministry of Environment and Energy's lack of consultation with the area residents.

On March 28 I wrote the Minister of Environment to request that an individual environmental assessment be conducted. Scores of individuals have written similar requests, yet to date the minister has ignored them.

This issue is of major concern to my constituents. On Monday, June 21, I attended an action meeting with several hundred area residents. There was general agreement among those in attendance that the need for public transportation must be recognized. However, the residents do not feel that their concerns about proper safety precautions, noise barriers and vibration damage were taken into consideration by GO Transit in their environmental assessment.

On behalf of my constituents, I repeat my request to the Minister of Environment that he agree to undertake an individual environmental assessment that addresses and resolves my constituents' concerns. Minister, once again, I implore you to answer your mail.

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Tomorrow the Red and White People Parade will wind its way through downtown Kingston to Confederation Park across from city hall. As well as celebrate Canada's 126th birthday, this parade will honour Don Cherry, Doug Gilmour and Kirk Muller, all natives of the Kingston area, for their contributions to our national game.

This is only one of a number of varied activities celebrating Canada Day in my riding, but I single it out because it serves to highlight the importance of hockey to our national life. And I'm proud to say the Kingston area has played a prominent role in hockey history. For example, the first competitive game was played in Kingston in 1886 between Queen's and Royal Military College.

Just as July 1 is a day when we remind ourselves what it means to be Canadian, hockey has its own institutions to focus on its heritage. One of these is the International Hockey Hall of Fame Museum in Kingston, which is open every day to show visitors many aspects of hockey's fabled past.

Things like national holidays and the hockey museums demonstrate how important heritage is to our community.

Last August our government's Minister's Advisory Committee on Heritage Legislation made its recommendations. As chair of that committee, I know that the heritage community and other stakeholders as well were anxious to see new legislation introduced. I know too that members of the committee put in a lot of volunteer hours over the course of the year and their efforts developed a consensus on the recommendations, quite a feat considering the diverse interests around the table: archaeologists, ethnocultural communities and heritage activists.

So I was pleased to learn recently from the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation that her ministry has nearly completed draft heritage legislation based on the advisory committee's report. I'm pleased to hear too that she plans soon to circulate this draft for comment by the committee members and other stakeholders.

On the eve of Canada Day, I ask my legislative colleagues to reflect on the importance of committing ourselves to gain the all-party support that will ensure the passage of new heritage legislation this fall.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The saga continues. Yesterday I actually thought Mike Harris was going to listen to my advice when I said that bang, bang, bang was wrong and bad, bad, bad was the social contract legislation. Now -- can you believe it, Mr Speaker? -- it seems that the Tories are still floundering when it comes to their position. The Conservative caucus is still trying to have it both ways.

I ask my Tory friends to stop the confusion, to be clear with the public and come clean. What is your position on the social contract?

First Mike Harris tells Bob Rae that he will support any legislation. That was bang, bang, bang. Then he says that legislation isn't needed at all. Then his caucus votes in favour of the legislation even though during second reading debate many members acknowledged the serious flaws and problems with this legislation. Now Mike Harris says he wants the social contract negotiations to continue for three years.

Mike Harris is adding to the chaos on the debate of the social contract. Mike, when will you realize that this legislation is fundamentally flawed? Lyn McLeod has explained the problem and shown you the flaws with the legislation, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto has told you this is bad legislation, members of your own caucus have said it is seriously flawed, yet you seem to still support it.

I ask you to join the Liberal caucus and help us to defeat this bad legislation.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On June 2, I introduced a private member's bill aimed at increasing public awareness of the need for boater safety and education courses. As an avid boater myself, I know there is a need to educate the public that there is a real problem with careless and uninformed operation of motorboats on the province's waterways.

I recently met with Mr Sandy Currie, executive director of the Canadian Marine Manufacturers' Association, who indicated that he supports initiatives to educate people not acquainted with the rules of safe boating.

Mr Currie suggests those who want to achieve greater boating competence and confidence can call Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons at 1-800-268-3579 for information about the boating course. The manual is available for $10.

Mr Currie notes that the Canadian Coast Guard's toll-free boating safety information hotline number, 1-800-267-6687, is available to provide a host of information to help maximize boater safety and peace of mind.

According to the statistics obtained from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, there were 43 boating accidents on Ontario waterways that resulted in deaths in 1992. There were 45 boating mishaps in 1991.

I applaud the Canadian Marine Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons and the Canadian Coast Guard for promoting boater safety and education. Like me, these organizations know that recreational boating need not be dangerous, provided the operators acquire basic knowledge and take reasonable precautions, and this book is available for water safety.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): On this last day of Senior Citizens' Month, I'd like to tell the House of the opportunity I had to celebrate with residents the official opening of Bethany Place, a non-profit housing project for seniors.

As you know, Mr Speaker, these projects don't happen without the dedication and support of sponsoring groups like Bethany Christian Residences of London, groups who know the needs in their communities. Without them, the non-profit program of the Ontario Ministry of Housing wouldn't be such a success, and many people, including seniors, wouldn't have secure, affordable housing.

Non-profit housing works, and it makes a difference in people's lives. It creates jobs -- more than 40,000 in 1992 -- for workers in construction and other related industries. It's a lasting investment in our communities, and, most important, it creates affordable homes.

The importance of adequate, affordable housing cannot be overstated. Without it, everything else is more difficult. Caring for yourself, your family, getting an education, holding down a job, or finding one, or even safe, secure retirement -- it's all harder if you don't have a home base to count on.

I'd like to congratulate board members for their hard work and their vision of housing for people in Middlesex and London and the community. I'd like to thank the Ministry of Housing for the support for those in need.

My very best wishes to the residents of Bethany Place for the many years of safe, secure and happy retirement ahead.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, the Honourable Joan Kirner, former Premier and current leader of the opposition party, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. She's joined by her husband, Ron Kirner. Welcome.

We are also joined this afternoon -- seated in the Speaker's gallery is a delegation of former parliamentarians from Russia headed by Mr A. Nikolaev and Mr V. Novikov. Welcome to our chamber.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to draw to your attention constituents of mine, Mr Sultan Jessa, his wife and daughter, seated in the Speaker's gallery. Sultan is one of the twelve 1993 recipients of the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship, which will take place later this afternoon.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm very pleased to inform the members today about steps this government is taking to resolve a matter that has been discussed in this chamber many, many times. It is an issue that's very familiar to the members from the eastern part of Metro Toronto and it's of particular interest to the member for Scarborough North. I'm referring to the radioactive soil in Scarborough's Malvern community.

For far too long there has been a lot of talk but very little action on this situation. In fact, if just talking about it could have fixed this problem, then it would have happened long ago. But today I am pleased to announce that some dozen years after it was first discovered, soil contaminated with radioactive particles will be removed from the backyards of all 48 homes in the McClure Crescent area of Scarborough.

This government has pursued an active and thorough consultation with the local community spearheaded by a public liaison committee made up of area residents. The committee identified three possible sites where the treatment and temporary storage of excavated soil could take place, and the community endorsed those potential sites.

Today cabinet has approved the purchase of a site in the Tapscott industrial district, east of Tapscott Road and south of Passmore Avenue, the clear preference of the community.

I am happy to report that about 200 construction-related jobs will be created over the life of the project when excavation of the McClure soil begins this fall.

The soil will be transported to the Tapscott site and sorted to remove radium-coated plastic tubing and particles. This contaminated material will be sent to the federal government's facility in Chalk River and the resulting cleaner soil will be temporarily stored on the Tapscott site.

We have the technology to separate the soil like this. It was first demonstrated in the successful cleanup of similar soil at nearby McLevin Avenue. The soil remaining at McLevin will also be moved to the Tapscott site for storage.

This project demonstrates our government's commitment to ensure that people and communities have a right to a cleaner and safer environment.

At the end of the day, we'll have no more contaminated soil in Malvern. The McClure backyards will be restored and we'll have a temporary storage facility that's well away from where families live and children play.

I know this will be welcome news to the member for Scarborough North and I commend him for his ongoing interest in this matter.

This government decided to solve a local problem locally, and with the community's help we're well on our way to doing just that.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too want to say it's a very important step in moving towards the final solution of this matter. The fact is that it is not yet over. I don't want the minister to feel complacent, to feel that we have done it all and here it is, that we have done a lot of work and there's no more to do.

The site that you have identified, as you know, is a temporary site and you await the federal government now to find its site to move it to. I hope this government does not sit on its laurels and not do anything.

I know the residents of the community, the public liaison committee that has worked so hard on this and the residents of the community who are concerned are pretty happy about this small move. I don't want to demean it in any way, but you must understand that when the Tories were in power they were wrestling with this large issue and couldn't get anywhere with it.

When the Liberals came in, as you know, those 48 homes were purchased by the government and transportation was paid for to resettle these people. It was a huge move to do that. Now this government did not slacken off in any way. They moved on, they continued with the liaison committee, they set up the office in the Malvern Centre and they continued to have this move. We know that the next move from the federal government is forthcoming, maybe in the next 10 years. I think it's a welcome announcement in that respect.

I remember George Heighinton, who was a strong advocate in that group to get this thing moving, received one of Canada's 125th anniversary commemorative medals for his efforts towards this. I'm not sure that he is very happy yet. He as an individual, like the constituency and the residents there, is waiting until all the soil is moved.

I think the event of the day that interrupted our party as government would have moved this thing much quicker. I want to say that it takes a lot of cooperation around the cabinet table. The former Minister of the Environment worked very, very hard at this, Jim Bradley from St Catharines, to make sure the things we were doing were environmentally sensitive, and of course many of his colleagues worked tremendously hard for this to happen.

I want to commend the minister for carrying on the cause, but I'm saying that it's not a lot of action you have done here. I know you can take the praise, and that's how the game is worked. We know you're in government now. You can take all the praise. It doesn't really matter. The people need, very much so, to feel at home and settled within the environment, that there's no more radioactive soil around them.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's a good thing we have Alvin Curling to fight this.

Mr Curling: Yes. And I want to commend the people of Scarborough North for being so patient with me as I wrestled with the government and even my colleagues at the time to convince my present colleagues in the cabinet and the minister here to do that.

I want to say the battle's not over. The temporary site at Passmore is not sufficient. The federal Tories, who sat on their laurels all along and could not give you the permanent place for this, have impeded you enough, so you have taken this immediate position. I want to say we will be here and you will be here to let them talk to their cousins federally for the summer jobs. They have to do something and we hope that something will happen.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Dealing with the statement, I would have hoped that the Minister of Environment and Energy would have also made a statement, when we are talking about the transportation of the soil, to make certain that it is being done in an environmentally safe way, so that all of the residents who have fought so long and hard for this will be assured that the goal they have striven for will be reached in the safest possible manner.

Certainly, I think we have to take a moment to congratulate the member for Scarborough North for the many years he has fought to make this happen. We know the residents around the area certainly are approving of this, but they are also very conscious that it must be done in the safest way possible to the environment.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to respond to the Chair of Management Board's comments with respect to this site. I would like to congratulate him initially on the consultation process. I thank him for having his staff go through with members of our caucus on the process that has been followed. There's no question that you have taken considerable time in working with the people of the area, trying to deal with a very difficult problem. Clearly, it appears that the government has worked with the local citizens and that there has been a certain amount of success.

They have gained success with respect to that. There also has been some sort of confidence in the government in dealing with a very difficult problem.

I will say though, when I look at the statement, the wording of the statement is rather strange. I concur with my friends in the Liberal Party. It is strange that the Chair of Management Board -- I understand why he's doing it, but this is strictly an environmental issue. Why in the world the Minister of Environment isn't making a statement on this whole process is beyond me, particularly when the statement by the Chair of Management Board completely contradicts what the Minister of Environment and his predecessor have been saying since they came into office.

For example, "This government decided to solve a local problem locally." That's a lot of bunk. You're sending all this contaminated material up to Chalk River, and it gets back with the whole process. I'm not pointing to you, Mr Chair of Management Board, I point to the Minister of Environment on the whole issue of waste. Why won't you look at the long rail haul, sending garbage up to Kirkland Lake? You won't even look at that whole process.

The other issue is that it's kind of amazing that you simply say, "We're now going to ensure that the people in communities have a right to a cleaner and safer environment." I'll be looking forward to hearing about how you solved all the pollution at the beaches this summer on Lake Ontario and how you're solving all the pollution that's been floating around this city, which was raised in this House yesterday. This statement is full of complete contradictions.

Although I congratulate the government with respect to the consultation process, it's not like the process in the IWA, in which there's been no consultation. It's a complete sham. The IWA, of course, has not worked in the same process. There is no confidence in this government. In fact, there's nothing but cynicism. I've never seen so many people, thousands of people from 57 sites, who have got upset with this government on its whole process from Bill 143 onwards in choosing, ultimately, three sites, three superdumps, that probably 50 years down the line are going to cause very serious problems.

This problem, I gather, started in the 1940s, albeit it certainly didn't come from a landfill site, but I don't think this government is looking at all the overall solutions: the overall solutions of the long rail haul and of incineration.

What this government is doing is creating three superdumps in the GTA. Does that mean that 50 years from now a Chair of Management Board is going to stand in his place and try to solve the same problems that were caused back in the 1940s? I doubt that very much. In fact, I doubt if the problem can be solved. It's a very serious problem that this government is doing.

Its boasting about how it's solving this problem is a bit of a sham, with the problem it's creating with the IWA and the sole issue of the three superdumps in the greater Toronto area. There's no plan with respect to the creation of the superdumps. They have no idea what it's going to cost and their planning in this whole process is absolutely a joke.

I must say that it makes me annoyed when I see this Malvern remedial project come forward and talk about the wonderful work it's doing, and yet they're creating an even worse problem in the greater Toronto area with dumps that simply won't be solved. It's a prime example of incompetence. I would say that it's absolutely shameful that the government won't take the same type of consultation process, that it's boasted about in the Malvern remedial project, with the IWA. They've done absolutely nothing as far as gaining the confidence of the people of this province is concerned.

I would hope that the Malvern example, the problem that has occurred with the Malvern example, would be a prime reason why this government should stand back and take a long look at what it's doing in the greater Toronto area with the creation of the three superdumps.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Finance. As you are well aware, the Premier over the last few weeks has tried to portray anybody who is opposed to Bill 48 as being opposed to restraint. You will also be aware that yesterday the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto told us that it opposes Bill 48 because it will not succeed in reaching your goals of restraint. In fact, as the Metro board of trade has recognized, your Bill 48 is only going to defer some very significant costs to some time in the future and to some future government.

This is an issue which we have consistently raised, this issue of deferred costs, including the special leave provisions of Bill 48, under which unpaid leave for an essential service category must be repaid after 1996. We believe that provision alone could mean a deferral of up to $3 billion in costs.

The Premier has refused to acknowledge that this is even an issue, and I ask you today, as Minister of Finance for the province of Ontario, will you not acknowledge that Bill 48 is only going to defer significant costs to some time in the future, and that in fact you have not even added up what those total deferred costs are going to be?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Perhaps I would agree with the leader of the official opposition in one sense and disagree with the Premier at the same time, that it is an issue but it's not a problem.

To use the number $3 billion in deferred costs would imply that 50% of the entire savings in the public sector is tied up with the deferment of essential service jobs that would not be honoured during the next three years. I think that really is an exaggerated proposal. To imply that I think is simply not fair.

Secondly, the --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): You know, you know.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: In response to the member for Bruce who thinks I know everything when really I don't --

Mr Elston: You're spot on.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Floyd, you're so modest.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I really don't and --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Time's awastin'.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm trying to answer the leader of the official opposition, but her own colleagues are interjecting in a way that makes it very difficult for me to focus on the very important question she asked.

I should remind the leader of the official opposition that after the three years of the social contract have expired, the days that still must be taken by those in the crucial service areas, or critical areas of service, cannot be taken in compensation. So there's no doubt in my mind but that arrangements will be made following that period of time to make sure there isn't a bubble of compensation that will cost the public sector at that point.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): That's nonsense.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, my colleagues are saying that's nonsense. I have to tell you that quite frankly, I find that completely irresponsible. If you are acknowledging today that this is an issue, how can you say that it is not a problem if you are agreeing that there is a commitment to deferred costs and that you have not even added up what those costs are likely to be?

We keep raising the issue. We keep saying, what is the deferred cost? At least today we have you acknowledging that there is a commitment by law to a cost that some future government is going to pay, and in the name of responsibility, you should be prepared to give us the answer to how much that cost is going to be.

Minister, I would raise another issue of what we believe to be less than responsible financial management in Bill 48. The Metro board of trade again warned that Bill 48 will allow the government to pursue its ideological agenda of eliminating the private sector from providing services on a contract basis to this government.

We have already seen what has happened in health care, where your government is intent on squeezing out the private sector home health care providers at a cost of over 10,000 jobs, not to mention the taxes those businesses now pay. Quite clearly, your government is proceeding with replacing private sector health care services with publicly run services, even though it will cost government more.

Last week, we raised the concern over the contracted garbage services which are now included under Bill 48, and that is another example of this government trying to squeeze out the private sector. The Metro board of trade has said that such provisions have no place in legislation which is intended to reduce the public sector wage bill.

Minister, I ask: Surely you don't believe that squeezing the private sector out of all public services is somehow going to make government more efficient. Do you not understand that this legislation will not achieve your goals of restraint, but is only going to drive up the cost of public service?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am going to respond to the first part of the leader of the official opposition's supplementary, because she chose to continue with her first question in the beginning of her supplementary, and that had to do with the creation of extra costs at the end of the three-year social contract time frame.

What the legislation says is that for those areas of critical service, if the 12 days per year cannot be achieved during this three-year period, they can be negotiated at a subsequent time period and cannot be taken in the form of compensation. Now, if that doesn't tell you that it's not creating a bubble of costs after the social contract has expired, then I don't know what does. If the leader of the official opposition wants to ask her second question again, I'll deal with that as well.

Mrs McLeod: We have raised that question over and over. The wording of the legislation seems very clear to us and I wish, before this passes, because this government is going to force it through, that we could get a clear answer from this government on this issue. I would say again to this Treasurer that this is not a bill that stands in the name of financial restraint. This is a continuation of chaotic financial mismanagement by this government.

I would say again that I believe and have believed from the beginning that you can have restraint without chaos. We have been telling you for two and a half months now that you have two responsibilities: One is to set your financial targets, and the other is to negotiate with your own employees to achieve your targets and to give other public sector employers and employees the tools they need to do the same thing.

I say to you today that this legislation is so badly flawed that it cannot be amended. I ask you, in the name of financial restraint, will you not withdraw this legislation and now provide some leadership that works?

Hon Mr Laughren: It should be a surprise to no one in the province of Ontario that the leader of the official opposition does not recognize restraint when she sees it. When her government was in office between 1985 and 1990, when there were record revenues in the province through natural growth in the economy, when there were record tax increases, it still allowed the debt of this province to increase by 33%. I can understand why she doesn't understand this is a fiscal restraint package.

Finally, she also doesn't seem to understand that what we're doing is attempting to negotiate with our employees to arrive at a solution they agree with, that we as employer agree with, all in the interest of reducing public sector compensation in this province by $2 billion.

If the leader of the official opposition says that her answer to fiscal restraint in this province is to withdraw this bill, that her answer to fiscal restraint is no more tax increases, that her answer to fiscal restraint is no expenditure reductions and that her answer to fiscal restraint is also to get the deficit down, then she's going to have to tell me what language she's speaking or what she's smoking.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: I understand why in this place the government is not prepared to respond to the opposition questions. Maybe outside the House he'll explain to the Metro board of trade why its concerns should not be taken seriously by this government.

RACE RELATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Attorney General. We have all been disturbed and dismayed by the rash of hate crimes we have seen recently. I felt the distress of people who are victims of these kinds of crimes when I visited the shop of a Jewish merchant in Kitchener recently, a shop which had just recently been vandalized. I think probably almost every member of this House can point to a situation or a case in his or her riding which underlies a truly startling increase in racially motivated crime.

As legislators, we all believe that we have a special responsibility to do what we can to prevent these kinds of acts. That is why, quite frankly, I find it disturbing to read that officials of the Attorney General's ministry have expressed some hesitation in proceeding with prosecuting in these situations even when charges have been laid.

It is perhaps even more disturbing to read that you seem to believe that it can be hard to prove whether or not hatred has been wilfully promoted. I ask, do you not understand that any hesitation on your part will undermine the confidence of the police and prosecutors as they pursue these types of crimes? I ask what actions you're prepared to take to ensure that your officials will act in these kinds of situations.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I certainly agree with the opposition leader that all of us in this Legislature are very concerned about the kinds of issues she raises. But she's put two things together, and I think we need to be very clear about that.

The kinds of crimes, the beatings, the vandalism, the kinds of robberies that appear to have some connection with racially motivated crime, are being vigorously pursued by the police. In fact, we daily see the accounts of the arrests that have been made and the efforts to prosecute for those crimes.

Part of the problem is that we do not yet have a capacity within the Criminal Code to have racial motivation as an aggravating factor in those crimes. That is something all the attorneys general are working together with the federal government to try to accomplish. I have said in this Legislature before that I really support that effort, because I think when there is a racial motivation to any kind of crime, it ought to be open to the court to name that as part of the issue and to take account of that in the sentencing.

The one area that is of concern is a

section of the Criminal Code that does indeed talk about the wilful spreading of hatred. It is a difficult area to prosecute, as I'm sure the opposition understands. The law has been there for 22 years and there have been very few charges that have been laid.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have said in this House very clearly that if charges are laid by the police -- and police should be investigating and doing their work exactly as they would in any other suspected crime -- if they have reasonable and probable grounds and lay the charge, we will certainly consider that very seriously. But we also need to be very clear that in these cases they are difficult to prove, given the wording of the law, and we need to be sure --

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- that we have a very good reason to prosecute, or else we might be liable for malicious prosecution.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I do believe that there are steps that you can personally take to ensure that charges are laid in cases of racially motivated and hate crimes and that they are brought to prosecution. I am pleased to hear you say, as you have said in the past, that you believe this to be your responsibility. I would like to call on you today to carry out this responsibility and to make your views very clearly known both to police and to prosecutors.

You and the Solicitor General have the power to issue a directive to the police and to prosecutors that cases of racially motivated crimes should be investigated, that charges should be laid and that the charges should be prosecuted where warranted. I ask, will you commit to issuing such a directive in conjunction with the Solicitor General as soon as possible and in as clear a manner as possible?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Indeed, at the cabinet round table on anti-racism that we have also talked about in this Legislature before, both the Solicitor General and I indicated to the round table that this was certainly our intention. We have arranged some very strong consultations so that the message is clear and is doubly heard from both our ministries. It is one way in which we can reassure those who have unfortunately taken the wrong message from some of the public statements of some of the advocacy groups. We are not reluctant to move in these cases. We must move, however, according to the law as it stands.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, indeed there has been talk about the cabinet round table on anti-racism. There's also recognition that that round table has only met once.

In raising the issue of a directive, I would bring to the minister's attention that there is a precedent for such a directive, as the previous Attorney General also acted -- not in conjunction with the Solicitor General but because he was also Solicitor General at the time -- to issue such a directive in cases dealing with domestic assault.

Minister, I know you understand that this situation is reaching what I would consider to be critical proportions, that people in this province are becoming more and more alarmed and that there is need for very immediate action.

I ask, will you not deal with this as a crisis situation? Will you not look immediately at what other steps you and your government can be taking to deal with this problem? Perhaps you personally, might begin not just with the directive but with making very clear what the changes are in the Criminal Code which you believe are necessary in order to take that kind of effective and decisive action.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I can assure the member opposite that that is certainly what I have been doing and what I intend to do. I do not think it is wise for us to act precipitately without being very clear about how the directive can best be worded, and that's why it's taking a little time. We want to be sure that we are giving the kind of reassurance to police officers and to crowns that they need about how to proceed, and we will move as quickly as we can on that. There are in fact some directives that are already available to them and we need to work to strengthen those.

In terms of the Criminal Code, we are working, through the federal-provincial-territorial means, with our colleagues from other provinces to make some of the suggestions to the federal government about changes that need to be made. We have made suggestions in the past and will continue to do so. In particular, our colleagues in Quebec and in British Columbia and in Manitoba have expressed similar kinds of concerns. There is a working group that will be meeting through the summer, and we expect at our fall meeting of the ministers of justice to be able to take decisive action.

TAX INCREASES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Tomorrow won't be just another Canada Day for the working people of Ontario. In fact, when people get up tomorrow morning, they will feel robbed and broke and demoralized because of the tax grab that begins on July 1 that you announced just over a month ago.

Tomorrow is Black Thursday. Instead of being celebrated as Canada Day, it's Black Thursday for what you've done to the people of the province of Ontario. Tomorrow's the day when you dip into the pockets of working Ontarians and take more money than any other government has taken from them ever in the history of this province. There isn't a person working in Ontario who, tomorrow, won't start to feel the impact of your punitive, draconian, mean-minded budget of last May. Everyone in this province who is trying to make a living and do something is going to be impacted by your budget.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member place a question.

Mr Cousens: What do you have to say to the thousands of families who have no choice but to do with less money?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): In response to the question from the member for Markham, I would simply say that I understand that no one likes to pay more taxes -- that's obvious -- and I appreciate the fact that people will feel it in their paycheques starting on July 1. At the same time, I hope people, when they think about it and when they feel that impact, will understand that this was not simply a year in which we decided to have a big tax increase.

We decided we would reduce expenditures very substantially across the province, and we looked at the commitments made for 1993-94 and reduced our expenditures by about $4 billion. We then looked at compensation of the public sector and reducing that by $2 billion. The third component in order to get our financial house in order was the very aggressive tax increases which start tomorrow.

I acknowledge that it's quite a substantial tax increase. I would simply ask him, as a member of the Conservative caucus, to hearken back to 1981-82 when his government increased provincial income tax by four points in that year. It's not as though we're setting any particular precedent here, although I do acknowledge the fact that this is an aggressive tax package.

Mr Cousens: You still don't face up to the hardship that you're creating for the people who are trying to make Ontario come alive: the entrepreneurs, the families, the working people who are trying to make a success of themselves; the fact that your budget, more than any other single factor, will take jobs away and cause deep, deep hurt to the people of Ontario.

If a family has less to spend, then they won't be going out to eat at the local restaurant, they won't be buying that new car or appliance this year, they won't be calling on the local contractor for renovation work. What makes you think that your tax-and-spend plan will help Ontario when you're clearly strangling our economy?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I wish he'd put it in perspective that if we're going to have a healthy economy in this province and if we're going to be able to continue to have the same kind of living standard we've enjoyed in the past, we have to first of all get our financial house in order. I'm not pointing fingers in that regard, but we've simply got to do that. The result of the recession has truly been devastating on our revenues and we've got to do something about that.

I will point fingers a little bit in this regard, in that when the member for Markham talks about costing jobs, I would ask him to cast his eyes to Ottawa and ask himself whether or not anything we've done could even compare to what the federal government has done with its free trade agreement and its GST.

Mr Cousens: Cast your own eyes to Ottawa. Your Premier is invited to a meeting, and you don't even care about the rest of the country or anything else; he won't even go.

Come on, we're in Ontario, we're part of Canada. We want to see Canada strong, we want to see Ontario strong, and what you're doing is burying us.

Here we have another 4,000 more petitions from the people of Ontario saying to you that they're upset. It's the tip of the iceberg. Once people wake up tomorrow morning, they're going to realize just how rotten a government they've got, that the thieves at Queen's Park have robbed them blind.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Cousens: Where's my question? How can you justify this job-killing investment that you're calling a tax? How can you justify this to the people of Ontario who are trying to make a living? Tell me.

Hon Mr Laughren: I really do believe that if the government had simply brought in a very large tax increase without doing what we're doing on the expenditure side, we would be open for criticism and I would be standing up and agreeing with the member for Markham. But for him to imply that this is simply a tax increase without us doing a lot of other things, very difficult things, on the expenditure side -- it is simply not fair not to approach this in a fairminded way.

For the member for Markham to imply that we could address some of the economic problems of this country by taking

part in a photo opportunity with the new Prime Minister in Vancouver really is stretching the cloth a bit.

The Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Scarborough North.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, on a point of being politically correct, I just wonder if the member for Markham could define for me what "Black Thursday" is.

The Speaker: The member raises a point of order. I would allow the member for Markham an opportunity to respond to his colleague.

There is no response.

FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Are you, as Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance, not at all concerned that Ontario will be the only province not represented at the first ministers' meeting this weekend?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): No. I think the Premier had served notice some time before the invitation was even extended that he was not going to be taking

part in a conference on the eve of a federal election. Surely, the member for Parry Sound, who has been in political life for some time now, understands that on the eve of a federal election, without a mandate to effect any substantial reform of any of the agreements between the federal government and the provinces, absolutely nothing useful will flow from that meeting in Vancouver, absolutely nothing. I would say to the member for Parry Sound that I believe the Premier has made a wise and judicious decision.

Mr Eves: The Premier has been quoted as saying, and the Treasurer just said it again, that this is nothing more than a photo op. I would like to ask the Deputy Premier how it can be a photo op when no self-respecting first ministers would want their pictures taken with Bob Rae?

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps you could ask Prime Minister Campbell that, who's pleading with him to go. Don't ask me that question. She's the one. It's the Prime Minister who wants the Premier to go.

Mr Eves: The Premier's refusal to attend this first ministers' meeting, the only first minister in Canada to do so -- I guess the others are all idiots or wrong, then; I guess that's what Bob Rae is saying.

It's quite obvious. Talk about playing politics. His refusal to go is simply playing politics a few months before the next federal election. Is partisan politics more important to Bob Rae, I ask the Deputy Premier, than putting forward his government's economic plan within this country of Canada and giving some information to the Prime Minister of Canada for our relationship among the G-7 countries? Is that more important, to play politics? That's exactly what you're doing with the issue. You know that. Every other first minister in the country's going to be there and yours isn't. Are they all nuts or are you nuts?

Hon Mr Laughren: In response to the potential federal member from Parry Sound, I would simply say that I believe that all the premiers will make their own judgement in this regard. I don't think that anybody's nuts or crazy if they decide to go or not go. They have to exercise their own best judgement. But I can tell you that the federal government has known for a long time what our political and economic agenda is for the province of Ontario.

They have chosen to ignore it, and for the member for Parry Sound to imply that suddenly now, on the eve of a federal election, the federal Tory party is going to start listening to Ontario's demands at the table, I think is truly fanciful. If anybody's playing politics with this issue, it's not the Premier of Ontario; it's the member for Parry Sound and the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Treasurer, and I come at it from a different angle because I'm not there to protect the Conservative Party federally or anything. But I know that a couple of weeks ago the Treasurer felt it was important enough for himself to attend, along with the other ministers, a federal-provincial conference of ministers of finance of Canada and that he was there to represent the views of the government of the province of Ontario and the people of this province.

Mr Treasurer, your friend the Premier was critical of those who saw fit to leave the negotiating table during the social contract talks, yet the Premier himself will not even go to the table when the federal ministers and the provincial ministers are there.

Would the minister not agree with me that the Premier of this province should comply with the overwhelming wishes of the people of this country to put aside the partisan bickering between federal and provincial governments and join all of the other premiers and the federal Prime Minister to discuss the important economic questions confronting this question and that, in doing so, the Premier would not appear to be petty? We all know the Premier isn't petty, but he would dispel this feeling that he was just being a petty politician.

Hon Mr Laughren: There really is a big difference between this meeting that's been called by the federal Prime Minister and the meetings that have been held on an ongoing basis among the finance ministers of Canada. There were all sorts of agenda items that had to be completed and matters to be discussed on which we'd already started work. I don't believe for a moment that the time that's been set aside in Vancouver for the federal Prime Minister and the premiers to meet was going to be adequate time at all to deal with any matters of substance.

Really, the petty politics are not emanating from this province or from this Premier. If anything, they're emanating from the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr Bradley: I think the Treasurer would agree with me about this concern about a photo opportunity that our friend the Premier has never been known to be a person to shy away from a photo opportunity. In fact, I have seen him during Hockey Night in Canada beside Steve Stavro giving the thumbs-up sign and wearing the Maple Leafs badge. I'm sure he was there just to cheer for the Maple Leafs and not for a photo opportunity, but our Premier is noted for having some of the sharpest elbows in the country when it comes to a television camera within 20 feet. So I don't think that's a concern.

What I want to ask the Treasurer, however, is the following: Does the Treasurer not believe that this action on the part of the Premier sets a rather unfortunate precedent in that in the final year of the Premier's mandate we could see circumstances where a federal government might say, "We're not going to invite Ontario to the federal-provincial conference of premiers because the Premier of Ontario is about to go into a provincial election"?

Does he not think that that would be rather dangerous as a precedent and that it would in the long term not be in the interests of the people of Ontario, and would he not now persuade the Premier to change his mind, to join this team effort of all the premiers, including two New Democrats, to try to confront the financial problems in this country?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sure an NDP federal government would not do that, to start with.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): We will never know, will we?

Hon Mr Laughren: Never mind, never mind.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the interjections, Mr Speaker.

I don't believe the analogy is an appropriate one. The Premier said a long time ago that, with the election perhaps weeks away, nothing substantial was going to happen at a first ministers' conference at this time. I can't imagine what they're going to do in the limited number of hours available to them that could have any impact on either federal-provincial negotiations or on the economy of this province.

The federal government has had lots of opportunity to respond to our demand that we be treated differently when it comes to the transfer payments that are owing to this province and it has chosen not to respond in a positive way.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Deputy Premier as well. Approximately three weeks ago, before our new Prime Minister was elected to that position by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, there was a meeting in Vancouver of all the trade ministers from across this country. That was in Vancouver as well. Can you tell me why there were only two provinces that were not represented by their ministers at that particular meeting, one being Saskatchewan, an NDP government, and the other being Ontario?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): No, I cannot answer that question. I just assume there were other commitments that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade had. So I cannot answer the question.

Mr Sterling: That particular meeting dealt with dropping trade barriers across this country so that people would have the opportunity of crossing borders to work and have the opportunity of trading across the borders.

The question comes to mind to the Deputy Premier: Is your government more interested in being involved in the federal election than it is in maintaining the interests of the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: Hardly. I believe the member for Carleton knows full well that the Premier has spoken many, many times on the way in which this province has been treated by the present federal government. He knows full well that no one has been more outspoken in the interests of this province than this Premier has been, and it's been particularly difficult with the federal Tories in office in Ottawa.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Everyone will know that we have announced the expansion of the Rouge and the park that will be created in that area, and it's been announced on more than one occasion by Pauline Browes, the Tory member in Scarborough, that we would be getting $10 million. Now that she is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, can we expect that the Tories will stop turning their backs on their promises and start delivering on this $10 million?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I know this is an important question for all of those people who live in the eastern part of Metro Toronto and in the Durham region generally.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): The place you are going to put a dump in, Howie. It's very important because you are going to put a dump there.

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

Hon Mr Hampton: The federal government has announced on a couple of occasions, and has indicated otherwise on a couple of occasions, that it is interested in making a contribution to the Rouge Valley Park, and in fact, spokespersons for the federal government have indicated that they would be prepared to make a $10-million contribution to the park.

I have had a meeting with the federal MP for Scarborough Centre, who is now the Minister of Indian Affairs in the federal government, and we are hopeful that the federal government will soon come forward with the $10-million commitment. It would indeed be a meaningful contribution to the park, and we're very hopeful that they will live up to the statements that they have made over the past six or seven months.

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary concerns the federal government's ownership of the land in north Pickering that was expropriated 20 years or so ago from the residents to create the Pickering airport. The question deals with the land that is in the northwestern

section of the provincial preserve, which is abutting the southwestern

section of the federal preserve, which is at a crucial link between two river systems that is necessary to create an ecosystem or a corridor between those two so that there could be a natural wildlife corridor.

My question to the Minister of Natural Resources: Have we got any commitment from the federal government that they will do as they did in British Columbia and create a large wildlife reserve corridor between these two sections so that we can preserve the natural habitat in the north end of Pickering and in the

section of Markham?

Hon Mr Hampton: The member is quite correct: The federal government owns a great deal of land which is immediately adjacent to the land which the provincial government has set aside for the Rouge River park. We have indicated to the federal government that if they were to add some of this land to what has already been set aside by the province for the park, this would indeed create a park which would be a leading example of an urban park for all of North America. We have impressed this upon the federal government. We are hopeful that they will act soon, again, to live up to some of the statements that they've made in the past.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, your ministry plans to spend some $339 million on your Jobs Ontario Training program this year, and I believe that the people of this province have a right to expect that the huge sums of money that you are pouring into the Jobs Ontario Training program are in fact spent properly.

I'm sure you are very much aware that serious problems have come to light with the spending of Jobs Ontario Training funds through the broker in Brantford, and indeed I have a copy of the letter that was dated June 1 that was signed by the assistant deputy minister of Jobs Ontario Training, Joan Andrew. The letter confirms that Jobs Ontario Training officials are now admitting an operating loss of some $640,000 by the Brantford broker. The letter also outlines a deep concern about the lack of management and financial control over the expenditure of public funds through the Brantford brokerage.

Minister, I understand that this particular situation is under investigation. My question today is not about the Brantford situation. Our concern is that this may in fact be the tip of an iceberg. I ask you today: What steps had you put in place prior to the Brantford problem coming to light to ensure that the Jobs Ontario Training funds were being properly spent by brokers on the Jobs Ontario Training program?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it's important to understand that the way the concerns at the Brantford broker's office came to light was through our regular auditing of the broker. That's the way this whole issue came to light. It didn't come any other way; it was through our regular monitoring of the broker. When that occurred, then we went through the next steps. As you know, we've moved in, we're now actually running that particular broker with people from I believe the ministry, but we're supervising it directly.

So, yes, we take it very seriously. There are a lot of brokers right across the province, so it's a massive job, but we're regularly looking at each of the brokers. I think it's a credit to the service that we're the ones who discovered the problems through our auditing, and then the further investigations continued.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Minister, you have said that you do regular auditing and monitoring through Jobs Ontario Training. But the truth is, before this Brantford instance came to light in February, this was not true and you were not doing this across the province. In fact, Minister, when I went to a briefing in your very office with your staff and Jobs Ontario employees, I asked the specific question of what was being done for accountability and to ensure it was being done. At that stage, that was one month after you were being briefed about the Brantford incident.

Your ministry officials said to me, "No, we have regularly monitored," but you did not have it prior to the Brantford incident.

Why don't you admit that this program was done in such haste and was politically motivated and that a year after this program was announced, you still did not have any accountability mechanism in place to ensure that Jobs Ontario brokers were spending the money on Jobs Ontario Training programs?

Hon Mr Cooke: I don't know how to answer a question from an opposition member who says, "You don't have any monitoring in place," when I just said that it was because of our regular monitoring, through the auditing that we do with the brokers, that we discovered the problem. This wasn't something that the member for Eglinton discovered and reported to the government. This is something we discovered because we're concerned that public money is spent wisely.

Now, when we've got a lot of brokers involved and thousands of jobs being created across the province and thousands of employers involved, then obviously there are going to be instances where there will be some difficulties. When those instances are discovered, it's our responsibility to get them investigated. As the member knows, the case in Brantford has been reported and is being investigated by the OPP. So it's being dealt with appropriately, aggressively, and I think to the credit of the ministry.

GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, are you aware of the fact that when casino gambling was introduced into the state of New Jersey, horse racing attendance and wagering fell by a third? What steps are you taking to make sure the same thing doesn't happen here in the province of Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We have looked at many studies associated with casino gambling and horse racing, and there are different results in different studies, depending on certain circumstances. At this point in time, we are talking about one casino, a pilot project in Windsor, and we are working very closely with the track in that area, which has been experiencing some difficulty for a while. We'll be working closely with them to see if there are some ways the new casino and the track can work together to draw patrons.

Mr Eves: Lotteries, sports betting and now casino gambling are taking increasingly larger slices out of what was a very viable industry in the province of Ontario. At the same time, the parimutuel tax in the province of Ontario is the highest in North America, with the only exception being the California thoroughbred racing program. At 5%, your parimutuel tax is exactly 900% higher than it is in the state of New Jersey, which is 0.5%, and where they also have casino gambling, by the way.

You need to create a level playing field here in the province of Ontario. Will you make a commitment that you will lower that tax to give the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario a chance to succeed?

Hon Ms Churley: It's impossible to take at face value all of the statistics that come in around the levels of taxation, because in many of the states in the United States there are hidden costs that the industry has to pay for, which I'd be happy to share with the member later.

Mr Eves: You're the minister. You're supposed to know this stuff.

Hon Ms Churley: But certainly we have been working with the horse racing industry because it has suffered somewhat as a result of the recession --

Interjections.

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

Hon Ms Churley: As the member knows, if he would like to hear the answer, the government --

Mr Eves: I have a question for you, David. Is it open today and will it be open six months from now?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound, please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: The member did not listen to one word of my answer and I really don't think he is interested in hearing the answer. So I would be happy to speak privately later with anybody who would like to listen.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Peterborough.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): This question is for the minister responsible for automobile insurance --

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker -- I did try to do it before the member had started her question -- I would like to give the House notice that I will be filing a notice of dissatisfaction with the Minister of Education's answer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): If all members would file their dissatisfaction outside of question period.

Ms Carter: This question is for the minister responsible for automobile insurance reform. Many seniors in my riding of Peterborough, many of whom are on fixed incomes, have raised concerns about premium increases that will result from Bill 164,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act. Can the minister tell this House what impact Bill 164 will have on the cost of automobile insurance and how this will affect seniors in my riding?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I thank the member for Peterborough for her question. It's a timely one, because, as members will know, during the debate on Bill 164 the insurance industry started with wild predictions of 25% increases in rates, then they were 20%, then they were 15%, then they were 12%.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Is that as wild as your no-fault public automobile insurance?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Burlington South.

Hon Mr Charlton: Members may be interested in having noticed an interview with Cliff Fraser, the regional vice-president of State Farm Insurance, in Thompson's World Insurance News the other day, where Mr Fraser now applauds the whole process around Bill 164 and admits, even from the industry's perspective, that the increases associated with Bill 164 from the insurance industry's perspective will be between 6% and 7%.

We still stick to the original comment that we made about Bill 164, that the costs associated at maximum will be between 3% and 4%.

Ms Carter: I'd also like to raise the issue of the classification system for drivers and its impact on low-risk drivers. Many seniors have driven for many years without accidents. Can the minister tell us whether Bill 164 will penalize drivers who have long records of safe driving?

Hon Mr Charlton: Bill 164 basically gives to the government the authority to move in the future to deal with the classification system, and we intend to do that after sitting down with the industry and redesigning the classification system.

But specifically with respect to drivers who have good driving records, it is the intention of reform in the classification system to make bad drivers pay for the problems in the system, to reward good drivers across the system, so that good drivers, whether they're 18, 47 or 72, and bad drivers, whether they're 18, 47 or 72, are in fact dealt with equally and appropriately.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Transportation, who is getting ready to give one of his famous answers. Last week the Premier announced that two private consortia are being formed to prepare bids to finance and build Highway 407. The Premier also said that these two groups will get $1.5 million each to prepare their submission.

The public wants the 407 built and would like it built as soon as possible, and if that involves the private sector, I think that's great, that's good. But the public also wants to be assured that its hard-earned tax money is being spent wisely and well. Minister, why is the Ontario government paying $3 million to the private companies so that they can prepare a bid for a government contract?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The question is valid indeed. The sentiment, the element of competition in the marketplace is alive and well because the two consortiums represent fully 80% of active transportation players, people who are building in the province of Ontario.

The responsibility and the obligation of the government are to make sure that the taxpayers get value for money. Each consortium will be getting $1.5 million, but they will put in much more money in order to arrive at their specs. But competition is alive and well. We see it as the essence, that element in the marketplace, and it should ensure that the taxpayers get a fair shake.

It will also mean that for the first time the free-enterprise system is involved at the infrastructure level, right at the beginning, so they can bid on a bigger piece of the action. The bigger the piece of the pie, the more savings for the taxpayers and better value for money.

Mr Daigeler: As I indicated, I am all-supportive of the fact to have the private sector putting forward some ideas and being involved in this project, but so far all you have really said is that the government is putting out money so the private sector can prepare its bid. I'm not really assured at all that the taxpayers' money is well accounted for, and in particular after the issue that was just raised during this question period by my leader, when we know that Jobs Ontario money apparently seems to have been misdirected in Brantford.

Can you assure me and this House and the Ontario public that the whole bidding process and the eventual awarding of contracts surrounding the 407 will be open for the closest public scrutiny and for intense examination by this Legislature?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Absolutely. We have an obligation to make sure that everything is aboveboard. But to go back to the essence of the question, 26,000 direct jobs: This government is putting the machine in drive. This project, that will be approximately $3 million, will not be built in seven years but will be built faster so the jobs will take place faster. That's the crux of the matter. In terms of due process, you will find that this administration has nothing short of an immaculate record.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. July 1 is going to be the beginning of the end of the forest industry in Ontario. The employees and the employers are both going to suffer badly. This is the most damaging tax hike in the history of the province of Ontario. You have doubled both the area charges, which have gone from $51 to $102, and the stumpage fees, and this will kill hundreds of forestry jobs throughout eastern and northern Ontario. How do you justify a 100% tax increase on jobs in the forest industry?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I wish that the member would not use language which, if I may, says that all is doom and gloom, because I think that if you look at what has happened in the area of lumber prices over the last year and a half and if you look at some of the other actions that have taken place in the last year, you would find that increases in stumpage fees are in fact in order.

All we have done is that we have equalized the base stumpage rate that sawmills pay so that it will now be equal to the base rate which pulp and paper mills pay. While that may affect some individual producers, I have indicated in meetings with the lumber manufacturers that we will be prepared to work with individual producers to ensure that they have a period of adjustment. With respect to the area charges, the fact is that the changes in the area charges will contribute very little to the delivered cost of wood. In fact, the greatest portion of the delivered cost of wood comes from all the other factors.

Let me just say this: I want to ask the member where he was and where his party was when the current federal government hit all sawmill producers with a 15% export tax based on the final price of lumber.

Mr Jordan: I have a letter from Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd. The total effect of these increases to CP Forest Products is expected to be in the range of $2.2 million in 1993. This is probably conservative, as it is impossible to factor in additional costs of purchased wood attributable to the increased stumpage rates. I would expect the 1994 cost increase to be in the range of $3.3 million. The company is stating very clearly that it cannot cope with that increase. If you needed it, it should have been phased in, not a 100% increase.

Here we are with the small, non-integrated loggers. Those are the ones that do not have a union, the non-integrated ones, the small business people, and they make only $8 a cord on the wood.

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

Mr Jordan: They make only $8 a cord. He's increased it by $10 a cord. How do you expect them to stay in business? There are 163 --

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mr Jordan: This is my question. There are 163 employees in the minister's riding who will be out of work. I ask the minister, would he please, for the sake of the small, non-integrated loggers, remove that increase in the stumpage fee?

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, I would urge the member to take care in some of the figures that he's using. I too have seen the letter from Canadian Pacific Forest Products, which has at least two very large forest management areas. They also have a number of third parties that work on those forest management areas. It may be the case that if there is a $2.2-million increase in costs, this $2.2-million increase in costs will be shared among a number of operators. I think it's just going a bit overboard to say that somebody is going to have to pick up all of a large cost.

The fact is that on those very large areas of forest land, many people are harvesting, many people are hauling. There are many third-party agreements.

Finally, let me say to the member that we acknowledge -- I acknowledge -- that based upon the business relationships that some individual operators have, they may have some difficulty. I have already indicated that we are prepared to work with those companies that are in a strained position. We have done this before by means of deferring stumpage fees. I would simply say that through the very difficult period over the last three years, we were able to work with sawmillers.

I wonder where the federal government has been through all of this. Nowhere have they been anywhere in sight helping those sawmills or those loggers.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've sat patiently throughout question period and, prior to that, ministerial statement period, waiting for the Minister of Health to inform the House of her rather important flip-flop that she announced yesterday regarding user fees for seniors' drugs.

The Speaker: There's nothing out of order. The member knows full well what the standing order is with respect to ministerial statements. Petitions?

Mr Jim Wilson: Point of privilege.

The Speaker: A point of privilege, on a new matter, I trust.

Mr Jim Wilson: I feel that my privileges have been made null and void, and certainly abused, with respect to the fact that that government was elected on a sanctimonious platform with respect to no user fees in the health care system.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the energetic member for Simcoe West please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It sounds as if the member for Simcoe West indeed has material for a question for question period, and if there are more question periods, then indeed he may rise in his place and pose a question.

The member for Brant-Haldimand with his petition.

Mr Jim Wilson: I'd ask for unanimous consent that I could place that question.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to ministerial statements?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I hear at least one "nay."

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition as follows:

"Your assault on the education of the children of our province is intolerable. We ask that you immediately cease the social contract cutbacks and advance to the boards of Ontario the funding that they require."

This is signed by 882 separate school board teachers from the regional municipality of Waterloo.

A second petition with the exact same wording, petitioning as follows:

"Your assault on the education of the children of our province is intolerable. We ask that you immediately cease the social contract cutbacks and advance to the boards of Ontario the funding that they require."

That's signed by 2,163 teachers employed by the Waterloo county public school board.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition here that's signed by over 100 names, which we have been receiving each day, 100 or so, and it's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I have also signed this petition.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, Ontario, is a facility providing housing, medical care and recreational/educational services to mentally handicapped, and in some cases also physically handicapped residents. These residents require 24-hour supervision and medical care.

"Parents and relatives of residents at Huronia Regional Centre are concerned about the process of staff cuts taking place and wish to ensure that the quality of care to residents does not decline as a result of a widening ratio of staff to residents. There is further concern that resident medical doctors are being cut from staff and/or retiring and not being replaced.

"We, the undersigned, being parents, relatives or friends of residents at the Huronia Regional Centre, Orillia, Ontario, respectfully request that the government of Ontario impose no further staff cuts at this facility until such time as suitable alternative living arrangements are secured for the residents."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

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

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): 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 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 support this petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly. I've presented several of these over the last several weeks. This will be the last presentation of petitions in relation to Bruce A and I would like to read the full petition.

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

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

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

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

"In addition to the undersigned, this petition is endorsed by the following municipal, business and labour groups:

"Councils: Bruce township, Huron township, Kincardine, Kincardine township, Owen Sound, Port Elgin, Ripley, Saugeen, Tiverton;

"Chambers of commerce: Kincardine, Port Elgin, Southampton;

Business associations: Kincardine, Port Elgin, Bruce County Realtors Association;

"Labour groups: CUPE 1000, the Society; Grey/Bruce Labour Council," and several other organizations;

"Riding associations: Bruce NDP, Bruce Provincial Liberal Association, Bruce provincial Progressive Conservatives;

"Bruce County School Board and Grey/Bruce Community Industrial Training Advisory Committee."

Well over 15,600 other people have signed this petition. I support the petition and have added my name.

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that your new tax on brew-on-premises home brew is unfair, unwanted and unreasonable, we are concerned that it will eliminate jobs without increasing government revenue; and

"Whereas this new tax is inspired by big, multinational brewing corporations whose only desire is to keep us from enjoying home brew;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament to scrap the tax before it begins tomorrow."

That's signed by 240, and I affix my signature.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): As you know, Mr Speaker, the tradition of the House does not allow a minister to read a petition, so I am reading this petition on behalf of Brian Charlton.

"We, the undersigned, are concerned about the ramifications of passing Bill 164. It is our understanding that the bill will result in an increase in auto claims costs and therefore result in an average increase in insurance premiums of 20%.

"We are particularly concerned about the increase in rates for low-risk groups. Enough data has been collected to prove that women and senior citizens are in a low-risk group. We have fewer accidents and thus we make fewer claims. We do not feel it is fair for people in low-risk groups such as women and senior citizens to pay higher rates to subsidize the higher risk drivers.

"We would like Bill 164 to be stopped."

It's signed by a number of people in the Hamilton area.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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 but dates from God's creation and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people, both physically and spiritually. We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

It's signed by 54 residents of the Brant, Norfolk and Oxford areas. I have affixed my signature.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

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

"Whereas the NDP party have always stated that they were against user fees;

"Whereas the NDP party have now decided to renege on this position;

"Whereas the NDP party have decided to impose user fees on the drug plan for our senior citizens;

"Whereas our senior citizens feel cheated by the NDP government and find the promises of this government to be hypocritical, sanctimonious, absurd, and to absolutely fly in the face of anything they said in the last election;

"Therefore, we ask this government to resign, as they have lost the trust of the seniors of Ontario."

That's signed by the member for Carleton, Mr Sterling, by many of the members of my caucus and other good citizens in this province who still believe in principle and still believe that what you say in an election campaign is what you do after you're elected.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition to present that's been sent to me by the women of Sandgate, a women's shelter in Georgina. They've done a remarkable job of collecting this petition. As you can see, it's been signed by thousands and thousands of people. I'll read this petition.

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

"Whereas Brian Kavanagh will be eligible for parole on July 22, 1993, after serving only 20 months (one sixth) of his sentence, that this travesty of justice be addressed immediately by whatever means available and that are within your power to prevent the premature release of this person from custody.

"On January 31, 1991, Ellen Sands Kavanagh was stabbed 32 times in her back, hands, ear, eyes, cheek, neck, chest and stomach with a fishing knife; her head was bludgeoned twice with a 15-pound axe, fracturing her skull in three places and breaking her jaw. Her neck was slashed with a saw. Her estranged husband, Brian Kavanagh, was convicted of manslaughter in November 1991 and was sentenced to 10 years in a federal prison.

"On July 22, 1993, Brian Kavanagh comes before the National Parole Board. On that date he is eligible for unescorted temporary absence and day parole. He has already applied for a halfway house in the city of his choice and will only have to report between the hours of midnight and 6 am to that location. The victim's family lives in terror at the thought of his release. We, the undersigned, wish to loudly proclaim that:

"This is not our concept of Canadian justice."

After witnessing on the news last night the family speaking, I think they very much would like to see this supported. I know there are thousands of people who have signed this, and it certainly does send an overwhelming message to the government. I have signed my name to it.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there is a grave concern about the recent proposals affecting the Ontario drug benefits program; and

"Whereas this statement has caused a great deal of anger and frustration among the seniors of this province; and

"Whereas seniors do not prescribe their own medication and feel that the government should address the origin of the problem more carefully;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, are opposed to user fees for seniors' drugs and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to accept the list of signatures on the attached document and request the government to work closely with seniors to develop an alternate plan."

This is signed by Doug Schnurr and Shelley MacKay, and actually covers a list of names which was not quite in proper form but includes Irene Dosman, Hilda Dustow and others from the Mildmay area who form part of a seniors' action committee designed to protect the integrity of programs that have been heretofore considered sacred trusts to the people of Ontario. I attach my signature to this petition.

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that your new tax on brew-on-premises home brew is unfair, unwanted and unreasonable, we are all concerned that it eliminates jobs without increasing government revenue; and

"Whereas the new tax is inspired by big multinational brewing corporations whose only desire is to keep us from enjoying home brew;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament to scrap the tax before it begins."

CHILD CARE

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'd like to present this petition on behalf of over 1,000 signators, supporters of the Rainbow Village Childcare Centre.

"We, the undersigned, are board members, staff and parents of the Rainbow Village Childcare Centre. We feel it is unfair to assess a non-profit child care centre for property taxes. We feel that Rainbow Village Childcare Centre is a seminary of learning and should be exempted from property taxes."

I affix my signature of support.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have another petition that deals with the drug benefit program:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is a grave concern about the recent proposals affecting the Ontario drug benefit program; and

"Whereas this statement has caused a great deal of anger and frustration among the seniors of this province; and

"Whereas seniors do not prescribe their own medication and feel that the government should address the origin of the problem more carefully;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, are opposed to user fees for seniors' drugs and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to accept the list of signatures on the attached document and request the government to work closely with seniors to develop an alternate plan."

Along with Karen Fariello, the people in Formosa have signed this, and they're represented by their president, Theresa Schnurr, and several others, including Sister Elsie Deemert and Sister Dorothy Middleholst, and I have added my signature in support of their request and the request of the seniors of the area to guard this sacred trust.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendments:

Bill Pr9,

An Act to revive Kirbryn Holdings Inc

Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting the Village of Merrickville

Bill Pr42,

An Act to revive Hellenic Orthodox Community of Kingston

Bill Pr54,

An Act to revive Paragon Financial Corp

Bill Pr55,

An Act to revive Philmanser Investments Ltd

Bill Pr80,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Eddy from the standing committee on social development presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill 4,

An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education.

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

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Committee of the whole.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed; committee of the whole.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

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

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la municipalité régionale de Durham

Bill 102,

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

Loi sur l'équité salariale

Bill Pr1,

An Act to revive 506548 Ontario Limited

Bill Pr2,

An Act to revive the Women's Counselling Referral Centre

Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Veterinary Technicians

Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting the City of London and Covent Garden Building Incorporated

Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association

Bill Pr11,

An Act to revive Chua Di-Da (Amidatemple) of Toronto

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting the City of London

Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting The Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation

Bill Pr17,

An Act to revive Aga Ming Property Owners Association

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting the City of Gloucester

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Town of Gravenhurst

Bill Pr21,

An Act to revive John G. Todd Agencies Limited

Bill Pr26,

An Act respecting Cambridge-Guelph Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr27,

An Act respecting Georgian-Simcoe Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr29,

An Act respecting Picton-Trenton Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting Stratford, Huron and Bruce Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting Waterloo-St Jacobs Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting Waubaushene Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr34,

An Act to revive Rosalind Blauer Centre for Child Care

Bill Pr36,

An Act to revive Canindo Development Limited

Bill Pr37,

An Act to revive P.O.I.N.T. Incorporated

Bill Pr38,

An Act respecting the Township of Atikokan

Bill Pr69,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa

Bill Pr74,

An Act respecting the City of North York

Bill Pr77,

An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill

Bill Pr84,

An Act to revive Maranatha Christian Reformed Church of Woodbridge

Bill Pr85,

An Act to revive The Optimist Club of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Bill Pr87,

An Act respecting the Township of Aldborough and the Village of Rodney

Bill Pr88,

An Act respecting the Cruickshank Elderly Persons Centre.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

Consideration of Bill 48,

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

The First Deputy Chair (Mr Dennis Drainville): I recognize the honourable Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I wonder if you'd allow me to invite a couple of members from the staff to sit in front of me, in view of the complexity of some aspects of this legislation.

The First Deputy Chair: That would be fine.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Chairman, we believe the Finance minister needs all the help he can get, and we'd be pleased to assent.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you'd allow me, Mr Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that members of the assembly recognize Graham Stoodley, who is director of legal services for the Ministry of Finance, and Craig Slater, who works in Management Board, who have been of enormous assistance in drafting the amendments and dealing with this legislation.

The First Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable Treasurer for those introductions.

We begin with

section 1. Questions, comments or amendments? The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We will not be proposing amendments specifically to this

section of the act. In fact, we will not be proposing amendments to any

section of the act. Our position on this legislation, and I think it speaks to the purposes set out, is that this legislation itself is probably the worst piece of legislation we've seen, that it sets up an impossible process so that the purposes that are set out in these sections in fact cannot be achieved, and it also commits future governments to unmeasured financial liabilities.

We also believe that this legislation is likely to paralyse this government because of the legal challenges this government will face as a result of presenting and passing this legislation, should that be the outcome of this debate.

In our view, this is fundamentally flawed legislation and it is not susceptible to amendment, which is why we will not be proposing amendment.

We understand that the third party intends to present some amendments, although there is some confusion as to just exactly how and when and what amendments it's going to be presenting. As we understand it, the amendments that the third party presents are not likely to be amendments at all, but are in fact the substance of a new bill, and we will ask, as this process continues, that you give your attention to the legitimacy of amendments.

The position that the third party has presented today reflects a whole different set of alternatives from those that the third party has up until yesterday claimed were the best alternatives on which to proceed. In fact, I believe the amendments the third party will present are simply a way of trying to put a better face on the fact that it has supported a very bad piece of legislation, a piece of legislation which will not achieve the purposes set out in

section 1 of this act, which will not achieve restraint, which will in fact defer significant costs to a future government. The third-party amendments will simply add complexity to chaos.

It is for that reason that we are not proposing amendments to this

section or to other sections. We do not see that the government amendments which have at this point been tabled are going to do anything at all to address the issue of whether this legislation can be made workable, and do not address the very real, long-term problems that this legislation creates. In our view, this legislation should be withdrawn, not amended, and if it will not be withdrawn by this government, it should simply be defeated.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chair I think one of the things we often do as we begin bills is to have some idea if all of the amendments have been tabled by both the government and the third party. As you know, we will not be moving amendments. It is our information that there may be others that have not been made, but I wonder if we might not have a recitation now of the amendments which you have received. I think that is customary, and if we could do that before we move into other parts of the debate on

section 1, it would be of some help.

The First Deputy Chair: The suggestion has been made by the honourable member for Bruce that we have a recitation of the amendments that have been brought to the table to this point in time. That is a customary proceeding, as I understand, in the House. Are you rising to object to that, the honourable member for Markham?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Chairman, the leader of the Liberal Party has made an opening comment -- more like an opening salvo --

Mrs McLeod: And intended as such, thank you very much.

Mr Cousens: We love you dearly, except what you say. I just don't want to see you spend all the time -- as long as I get a chance to speak here, because the problem we have is that the Liberals get up and make all kinds of pronouncements and statements and --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Just don't blow a gasket like you did in question period.

Mr Cousens: You never know what's going to happen, and that's what happens in the House. I'm willing to defer to that. I would like to comment as well, before I make my opening remarks, that all our amendments are not tabled. We have tabled a number of them and we have certain others that we may, depending on how this debate evolves and develops, bring in. I'm just not sure; therefore, I do not want to begin to say that all the amendments from our caucus are on the table.

The First Deputy Chair: We have had the request that we go through the amendments, and I would recognize the honourable Treasurer. Do you have amendments, sir, and could you please indicate which ones they are?

Hon Mr Laughren: We have tabled our amendments with the table. I don't know whether the official opposition wanted me to list the sections.

Mr Elston: Just a note of the sections.

Hon Mr Laughren: We are moving amendments to sections 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 39, 40, 41 and 47.

If I have the floor, I was going to make a couple of comments on

section 1.

The First Deputy Chair: If we could just get all of them recorded, then we'll go on to the -- I believe there are no amendments from the Liberal Party, so I would go to the third party. Do you have any amendments?

Mr Cousens: Indeed we do. It's rather peculiar that the government comes in with so many amendments. If they'd done some drafting in the earlier stage, we wouldn't expect as much catch-up at this point. It shows the haste with which they're operating, the panic by which they're driven and the obvious lack of preparedness that they are --

Hon Mr Cooke: What

section is this?

Mr Cousens: What

section is this? Let me answer the question to the honourable Chairman, who isn't always so honourable.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Get it right, Don.

Mr Cousens: "Get it right," says Elinor. Go and enjoy Canada Day. It's a black Thursday for you and me.

Interjection: Alvin wants to know what he said.

Mr Cousens: Alvin wants to know -- never mind. There is such a thing as a white Christmas, so I don't know what he has to say about that.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: And you celebrate Christmas, too, so never mind.

Subsections 11(3) and (5) of the bill, subsection (4) --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Twelve.

Mr Cousens: Chris, I'm doing this.

Section 12, as Mr Stockwell just indicated, and I very much appreciate his help; subsection 23(2),

section 24.

Interjection: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

Mr Cousens: That's right: The whole of

section 24 will be impacted by what we're talking about. Sections 25 to 32: We will have major changes to propose on that.

Hon Mr Cooke: Couldn't you get it right the first time?

Mr Cousens: We had to respond to what you gave us and it's been pitifully hard. Subsections 33(3) and (4); subsection 36(1) of the bill; subsection 36(2). So let's just say

section 36 has a considerable amount of change.

Section 37: We have a number there. We will close off with the new

section 49 of the bill. We're replacing what is there.

Section 49 of the bill will be amended by adding a new section.

The First Deputy Chair: If I might question the honourable member for Markham, we have in our possession here at the table an amendment for

section 39 and we also have --

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I was just getting my help here from the honourable member from Etobicoke --

Hon Mr Laughren: You were in trouble before that.

Mr Cousens: It's great, you know. We've got a team, which is something more than you've got.

Section 39 and

section 37 and

section 41.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Although they have not yet been introduced, I've noted that the Conservative amendments to subsections 11(3), (5), (4), (12) and subsection 23(2), along with the amendment proposed or tabled for subsections 33(3) and (4) are all, to the extent that they propose to strike out sections, it's my view, out of order. In fact, you require a vote against those sections and, as a result, those amendments are out of order and should be removed from the list.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order --

The First Deputy Chair: Hold on for a second. Let me just respond to that before we have any more points of order. I would say to the honourable member for Bruce that we've just received these at the table. I will make a ruling on those amendments as we come to them in the order of the proceedings. The member for Etobicoke West on a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: What you're saying is, as we proceed to those sections, you'll make your ruling, allowing us to --

The First Deputy Chair: Of course.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, thank you.

The First Deputy Chair: Before we continue, unless you're on a point of order, the honourable member for Markham?

Mr Cousens: No, I would like to take the floor, following the opening statement of the honourable leader of the Liberal Party.

The First Deputy Chair: We still have received these amendments and the honourable Treasurer wants to comment. Then, if you wish to comment on the amendments as well that you've put forward, that's the procedure we'll follow at this very instant. So I would say to the honourable Treasurer, if you have some comments relating to the amendments.

Hon Mr Laughren: Very briefly, Mr Speaker, I took issue somewhat with the official opposition in that I do not regard the Conservative amendments as attempting to rewrite the bill; I think that they're legitimate amendments that simply try to cast the bill in a way that is more in keeping with what they believe it should be. I don't think that because they do that there's anything wrong with that. I think that it's well motivated and that we will deal with those.

I do regret the fact that the Liberal opposition has taken the easy way out and has decided that they're not capable of making decisions on a bill like this and they're simply going to vote against it, either because they think it's perfect the way it is and that therefore they're not going to move any amendments. I think the people in the province are getting a little weary of seeing the Liberal opposition not making any decisions at all, simply opposing everything that the government or anybody else does.

The First Deputy Chair: I think we'll take comments from the honourable member for Markham first on the amendments that have been placed before the House.

Mr Cousens: I want to combine some remarks. I mean, the games keep changing.

The first thing I want to say is that I don't want to be here right now. I can think of so many other places I'd rather --

Interjections.

Interjection: Why don't we go to Bob's cottage?

Mr Cousens: It's true. I think it was Perrin Beatty who said, "If Bob Rae wants to be out at the end of a dock this weekend, there's nothing wrong with that, except that maybe he should be in Vancouver or Ottawa, where the Prime Minister's called him."

But to be here in the Legislature today dealing with this bill and the amendments that are before us, first of all, I want to make it very, very clear that the Conservative caucus is not thrilled with this bill or with the social contract.

The problem I have is that I keep on having the revisionist Liberals trying to interpret our actions and our stands and our positions without giving us time to at least explain what it is we want to do. I think it really has to be repeated here, and I'll repeat it again and again just so that there isn't any doubt as to our intention --

Hon Mr Cooke: You're going to vote against it on third reading.

Mr Cousens: Our intention --

Hon Mr Cooke: We knew that at first reading.

Mr Cousens: You don't have any control in this House, Mr Chairman, I can tell you.

Mr Stockwell: That's not for sure.

Interjection: You better check the numbers on second reading, David.

Mr Cousens: Even my own members are barking away. It's just terrible.

Mr Elston: I see some pretty determined faces behind you. They'll support you.

Mr Cousens: I've got the floor, and if it takes me a few minutes to explain what thoughts are up here, I'm going to do it.

The point that I want to make is that in our coming through second reading of this bill, our purpose in giving approval as a caucus to second reading was the intention of the government to try to reduce the public service costs, and a $2-billion level was at least a meaningful level that began to make the Ontario fiscal and monetary policy somewhat viable.

We're into tough economic times. You'd never know it by the way the Liberals act, because the Liberals have consistently said, "We don't want anything," without coming forward with any kind of responsible options. What we're trying to do is say that at least the government, in coming forward with its expenditure control plan and the social contract, has tried to find some ways of reducing the costs of government.

Now, that's a first. You're talking about a New Democratic government that, when it came to power, it was "Spend the way out of the recession." For some reason, and we haven't had a full explanation on how the honourable Minister of Finance came to this awakening, the government has now accepted the fact it can't continue as a government to spend as it did, so there's a stake in the ground where the government says: "From this point forward, we're going to try to reduce our spending. We're going to try to do something on the costs of just salaries through the whole public service of the province."

Our caucus in supporting those two initiatives did so in the blind faith, at that time, that there would be something that could come forward that we could work with that leads towards a good reconciliation of the competing needs of the province, not only the various unions that make it up but all the people who are part of this sectoral interest.

Our desire then is, if the government is going to do this, to find ways of doing it responsibly. Try to find ways so that as we make amendments you're not going to end up three years from now worse off than you are today. That is the problem with it, because it's going to be not unlike Pierre Elliott Trudeau with wage and price controls. He brought those in back in the 1970s, and as soon as the wage and price controls were lifted, it was a surge upwards. The cost of everything escalated quickly.

The amendments that are being brought forward by our caucus are ones that we hope will begin to deal with the three-year period we're in, not just create a need for more increases afterwards, deal with the situation honestly and hope that the government is able to work with us in opposition to find some ways of reconciling these very serious objections we have.

We have major objections with this bill, major objections, and in spite of those, the intention of the government to reduce the amount of money being spent in the public service by some $2 billion is a meaningful step. We feel, as responsible members of the opposition, that it's one thing to just stand back and criticize, criticize, criticize and not come forward with any kind of constructive amendments that can take us forward into the next three years in a better way than we are now.

We are in a crisis. The Treasurer has said that, and we accept it. We believe there is a role that we can play in opposition to try to bring forward meaningful amendments that will change the bill, hopefully reduce the impact three years from now, hopefully find the $2 billion, hopefully do it without causing large numbers of people to lose their jobs, hopefully ease the pain and suffering that this bill is coming in with in such a way that we can remove parts of that. You don't remove all of it. Not for a moment can one say that when you're into a $2-billion saving of this nature you're going to make everybody happy. But at least be responsible.

Indeed, that's the kind of leadership our leader, Mr Harris of the Ontario PC Party, the member for Nipissing, has been voicing for the three years since he became leader of our party. In saying this now as a beginning comment, it therefore means that our amendments are important; they're important to us, and they're important to the large general public service out there.

We hope that the kind of thinking expressed in our amendments, which -- I know that the Liberals have voted against everything. I mean, that's one thing they're consistent on. They have voted against everything this government has done, because they're still not over what it was like to have government at their fingertips when they were in power.

It's one thing to be opposition; it's another thing to be responsible in opposition. At least our own consciences are clear. I'm not going to talk about the consciences of the Liberals because who is to say how much conscience there is in their hearts, minds, souls or beings. That is not relevant.

As we lead into this, I would be pleased if we're able to deal rather honestly and fairly with each amendment and see some significant change come out of this bill and not just play with it. Let's try to move forward in such a way that we can do something with it.

We have our amendments, and I trust that we'll have opportunity. There has not been any agreement on time for discussion of this bill. Indeed, that could create a problem because we have no desire to filibuster this. If there's any fairness in it, then we can proceed

section by

section through the bill and seek to have this done.

The point is, and I said at the very beginning, I don't want to be here right now. I'd rather be elsewhere. The House should be recessed at this point. We were three weeks late coming in; we're now staying on into July. I just think it's important that we try to clean this up and have whatever is going to be done in place as soon as possible rather than just protract further discussions. Hopefully, through these discussions we can lead to some kind of improve