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

June 1, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

COR BAL

COURT REPORTERS

HEALTH CARE

INJURED WORKERS

EASTERN ONTARIO

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

VISITORS

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

FOREST INDUSTRY

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

FOREST INDUSTRY

BUDGET DEBATE

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

ASSISTED HOUSING

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

INSURANCE TAX

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EDUCATION POLICY

RECOGNITION OF TORONTO BLUE JAYS

TOURISM INDUSTRY

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

LIBRARY GRANTS

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

GAMBLING

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL VICTORY BOND PROGRAM

GAMBLING

GAMBLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GRAVENHURST OPERA HOUSE

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA

BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

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

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

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to make a brief chronology of the underserviced area shemozzle that we've witnessed the last few weeks.

Early in May there was an announcement by the Ministry of Health concerning the doctors in underserviced areas which were not included for northern Ontario. There are only five regions and counties of southern Ontario that were included in that underserviced area program. Within a few days, though, ministry officials said at least 60 to 70 family physicians were needed in northern Ontario.

On May 12 I asked a question in the House to the Honourable Ruth Grier why northern Ontario was not in the underserviced area program.

Friday, May 21, CBC Radio had received a list from the ministry which included northern Ontario locations which needed doctors, and these doctors would be fully compensated.

Following this report, two of my staff spent all afternoon trying to locate that list to confirm what had been reported on CBC. The underserviced area program could not confirm the contents of the list but would only say that the list was being revised and that it would be available on Tuesday the 25th. Two doctors called my office to confirm that they had been told they would be covered by this list.

The very next day, the Saturday Star of May 22 carried an ad advertising for doctors and asked them to call the underserviced area program. In northern Ontario now, 111 doctors' positions were identified in 25 municipalities.

It's unbelievable that the media were given that information but our offices, which were inundated with calls from interns and residents and concerned parents, could not get that information. Obviously the government was more concerned in making this information available to the media and not to the taxpayers.

Obviously, from all of this, it is apparent that the government is developing policy on the fly without employing the long-term planning that the people of Ontario deserve.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Do we have a quorum?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Table, a count, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is present, Speaker.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Recently, Mary Munro and John McClellan, two hearing officers and members of Ontario's Environmental Assessment Board, produced a five-year review of the Niagara Escarpment which I found to be fair and objective. In fact it confirmed many of my own views and verified much of what we in Grey have been saying for years.

We have long believed that, while we must preserve the escarpment land, the commission is a biased, undemocratic body which has no even standards when rendering decisions. The report agrees, saying that the commission staff do not seem to be able to appreciate views different from their own and that the commission is seen as distant, impersonal and insensitive to economic and personal needs. The report goes on to say that the commission tends to ignore the ecological nature of a property when making a decision and attempts merely to preserve a visual landscape, a failing which we in Grey have witnessed time after time.

I am pleased that someone has finally told the people of Ontario the truth about the NEC's administration of the plan, but I am sorry that although they exposed the commission for what it is, they did not recommend its abolition. Therefore, today I will be introducing, once again, a private member's bill to redefine the area with the consent of local municipalities and put the final decision for any development on the protected area into the hands of the people in this House. The commission would then be unnecessary, thereby saving millions of taxpayers' dollars while still preserving our environmental land in a fair and more equitable fashion.

COR BAL

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I rise today in the House to recognize a great achievement of one of my constituents, Mr Cor Bal. Earlier this month, Mr Bal won the Ontario Waste Minimization Award given to the outstanding individual in minimizing waste. Mr Bal, also known as the Honey King, was nominated for the award in recognition of the significant contribution he has made in promoting the 3Rs.

Focusing on the reuse of the 3Rs, Mr Bal, who had a number of baby food jars piling up in his trailer, knew there must be a more productive use for these jars than putting them into the recycle bin. After removing the labels from these jars, he thoroughly cleans them and fills them with nine different flavours of honey obtained from a local bee-keeper. Mr Bal then relabels the jars and arranges them in wooden racks as gift packs for sale in assorted flavours. Even the wooden racks are made of reused material. Each one is handmade by a retired carpenter in Waubaushene.

Mr Bal sells the gift packs mostly to museums and hospital gift shops, some as far away as Toronto. Mr Bal realizes that he could simply buy new jars cheaper than reusing the old ones, but he says, "It's done for the sake of the environment."

In closing, I would like to once again congratulate Mr Bal for winning the outstanding individual award in waste minimization and hope that more people will follow his lead in making our environment a cleaner place.

COURT REPORTERS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): These days you can hardly pick up a newspaper without reading about the social contract hearings where the government is attempting to eliminate some of the debt by trying to avoid layoffs, and yet in the bowels of the Attorney General's department, without notice to anybody, unilaterally they are in fact carrying out plans that may result in some 700 to 800 women being laid off.

I speak of the court reporters. Many of these women are single parents. They are in fact going to cut them off from the support for their families.

I suggest that they're implementing a program that was tried in British Columbia and failed miserably. It has also been decried by a Court of Appeals judge in New Jersey, saying that this can have an impact in terms of safety, in terms of fairness, in terms of ensuring that people are not allowed to walk away from perhaps very serious criminal trials because a transcript that is faithfully reported presently by reporters is being reported by that great machine in the sky.

I suggest to the Attorney General that perhaps she should look at this issue. I wonder if she is aware of the fact that this is in fact going to impact, as I said as I started, on some 700 to 800 women in this province who have not had the benefit of sitting around a table, as others have had, with the social contract but in fact are going to find their jobs slipping right out from underneath them, and perhaps at the great detriment to society not only in terms of fairness but in terms of safety for the justice system.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On Thursday, May 27, I had the privilege of meeting with the University of Western Ontario clinical clerks, medical students, interns and residents to discuss the government's proposal to penalize new physicians for practising in Ontario.

The proposals suggested by the government to significantly reduce billing fees among new family physicians, paediatricians and psychiatrists by 75% have raised serious concerns among Ontario's medical students. The proposals leave hundreds of young students and physicians in residency training in Ontario medical schools in a most precarious position regarding their future careers.

The faculty and departments of family medicine, psychiatry and paediatrics are similarly demoralized. They recognize and support the need to reform the current system of health care in order to create a system which adequately addresses the needs of our population. However, they are very disappointed that the minister did not discuss the 75% fee cut with the OMA and the fact that these proposals do not effectively address the real problem.

It costs $2 million to educate and train one doctor. The government's draconian decision to slash fees to new physicians by 75% will lock out 2,500 doctors in training and 400 physician graduates this year. The government should seriously reassess this policy.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): On June 1 of every year, injured workers from across this province have gathered outside of this assembly to remind us of their plight. These workers have invested their lives and their bodies in our economy. After months of hospital stays with broken bodies and spirits, their recompense takes far too long and they go through a humiliating process to achieve it.

I know particularly of the hard work and dedication of the Durham Region Union of Injured Workers, many of whom I see regularly and who carry the pain of the struggles they have fought through. Here today in the members' gallery is Fran Standing Ready, who is the president of the Durham Region Union of Injured Workers. They would like to see an office for the Workers' Compensation Board in Durham region, and every year at this time I stand up to make that point. My letters are unanswered. Their letters are unanswered. Their concerns have only partly been heard.

They are pleased with many of the reforms that we've been able to accomplish and they know what the alternatives are, but still there is much, much left to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr White: Thank you very much.

Simple changes in how services are offered could help them access retraining for permanent new jobs.

In the speech from the throne we made employment a priority. It is important that we not minimize the contribution of these workers and separate them from their due recompense and the retraining that they need.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Last week I addressed a crowd representing over 1,000 union members who were protesting the NDP government's plan to cut jobs in Cornwall and area through the social contract negotiation process. Ten local presidents of OPSEU stated, "Not only has the Ontario government failed in its promise to assist the community in recovering from the devastating recession; they are in fact planning to make things worse by cutting back on public service jobs."

Members of this House will recall that it was only a few weeks ago that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings had the nerve to stand up and say that Cornwall and area was crying wolf about economic losses due to the recession. The picketers in Cornwall know the real story of more than 3,000 jobs lost and more than 20 plant closures in two years, and they are saying that they don't want to be the target of this government's fiscal mismanagement any more. If Bob Rae doesn't want to listen to the opposition, he should do well to listen to the 12 local union presidents.

Again, I insist that the Premier consider locating one of the crown corporations in Cornwall and area and prove that he does really care about eastern Ontario.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): As of today, seniors who rely on daily supplies of oxygen will have their coverage severely cut under the Ontario drug benefit program.

Ted Kelleher, a Burlington senior, was informed yesterday that today the NDP Health ministry will cap oxygen costs at $475 per month. The rest is now up to him, without regard for his ability to pay. Like many seniors, Ted is on a fixed income. His life-sustaining oxygen bill, personally to him, will now be between $18,000 to $20,000 a year. The NDP budget decision to cut oxygen services came without any prior consultation or prior warning. He is now in fear for his future, as he wonders how he will pay for the oxygen supplies that he needs to live.

If there is one phrase by which Ontario seniors will remember the NDP and its treatment of their health care needs, it will be, "Cut and delist until they're at risk." Seniors have already suffered the delisting of vital drugs and Bill 101, the long-term care legislation, will delist extended care from OHIP. Is this the real NDP plan for community-based health care and long-term care services for seniors?

Ted's first option now will be to spend the rest of his life immobilized on his back in order to save money. Is this the NDP version of independent living? Why doesn't the government investigate why oxygen costs about $100 a pound in Buffalo, New York, and the same amount of oxygen costs about $400 in Niagara Falls, Ontario? Why doesn't the government investigate this on behalf of consumers instead of just ripping the programs away from seniors?

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm pleased to ask members to join with me in celebrating June as seniors' month in Ontario. Today's seniors were here before the pill, before penicillin and polio shots, antibiotics and frisbees. We were before frozen foods, nylon and dacron, Kinsey, credit cards and ballpoint pens.

This year's seniors' month theme is "Sharing Our Experiences." Time-sharing for us meant togetherness, not computers, and a chip was a small piece of wood. Most seniors got married first and then lived together. Closets were for clothes and not for coming out of, and a bunny was just a small rabbit. We'd never heard of McDonald's and we thought fast food meant abstaining for Lent.

In our day, cigarette smoking was fashionable, grass was for mowing, Coke was a refreshing drink and pot was something you cooked in. We were before Batman, DDT, vitamin pills, disposable diapers and instant coffee.

Through sharing memories of their life, seniors bring an important dimension to today's Ontario.

I encourage all seniors to take

part in the activities taking place around the province during the coming weeks. I believe tomorrow evening the Lieutenant Governor is going to be in the Legislature, downstairs with the Minister of Citizenship, to honour seniors in this province. I encourage all seniors to be there and I encourage all seniors to show in the month of June what we're made of.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a former member who served for 15 years in this assembly, representing the riding of Wellington, Mr Jack Johnson.

I would also like to invite members to welcome to our assembly and indeed to our country, seated in the Speaker's gallery today, a visiting parliamentary delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I rise today to provide details on a new program for community economic development called Jobs Ontario Community Action. This initiative, which was announced in last month's budget, is an integral part of the government's 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work. As the Minister of Finance announced in his budget address, this new initiative will build on the success of Jobs Ontario, and I want to take a moment to review the progress we've made so far.

As you know, Jobs Ontario Capital created or maintained over 8,000 jobs last fiscal year and will invest $700 million in 1993-94, creating or maintaining 12,000 jobs.

Over 24,000 positions have been created by employers to date through Jobs Ontario Training; 10,000 workers are completing training and are already on the job. Last fiscal year, $98 million in training assistance was provided through this program, and this number will more than triple to $329 million in 1993-94, underlining our commitment to put Ontario back to work.

In 1992, Jobs Ontario Youth created 9,500 summer jobs. Our target for this year is 10,000 summer jobs.

Finally, Jobs Ontario Homes is supporting the construction of new homes and will create nearly 3,000 jobs this fiscal year.

Our initiative to support community economic development will build on the success of our other Jobs Ontario programs. Called Jobs Ontario Community Action, this initiative aims to give local communities the resources and the tools they need to undertake economic renewal initiatives.

It will empower communities and support job creation by encouraging economic development activities on the part of those who best understand what is needed, the communities themselves.

The new Jobs Ontario Community Action initiative will support building a strong foundation for long-term community growth and jobs. It will stimulate investment in urban, rural, regional and northern communities across the province by helping communities to help themselves.

Community economic development will foster self-reliance in communities, allowing them to sustain economic growth through local planning and investment in economic activity.

It will create greater cooperation in communities and it will support new partnerships. It will also allow new groups of people to play a

part in community economic development. Along with local government, labour, business and educational institutions, our initiatives will also include community groups, cultural groups, credit unions, cooperatives, equity groups and other interested citizens.

Jobs Ontario Community Action will further empower women's groups, ethnic organizations and aboriginal people in the economic planning and development decisions that affect their communities.

Community economic development will promote the growth of local enterprises using locally based financing and help to create new jobs in communities across the province. During the first three years of the program, we will invest $300 million in community action initiatives.

The funds for this program will come from a consolidation of a number of previously existing programs with support from Jobs Ontario Capital. Commitments made under these previously existing programs will be honoured.

This new approach will use government funds in a different way to better meet the needs of communities. Instead of ministries designing and administering many different programs to meet diverse needs in various parts of the province, we will pool our resources and put communities in control. They will decide on the economic priorities they want funded by the provincial government, not the other way around.

Consolidating many of the capital grant and economic development programs that previously existed will provide simpler access to the financial assistance and a speedier response to community initiatives across the province.

To further improve access, regional teams have been put in place to provide Ontario communities with a local single window to the program. The teams are made up of representatives from the ministries of Culture; Tourism and Recreation; Municipal Affairs; Agriculture and Food; Citizenship; Northern Development and Mines; and my own Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Other ministries will be brought in as needed.

While these ministries have all been involved in economic development activities in the past, the key difference is that now our efforts will be more closely coordinated on a regional basis. All stakeholders will be informed about how to contact the appropriate regional team to gain access to the program.

The role of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines will be unique in recognition of the special needs and community development issues in northern Ontario.

Jobs Ontario Community Action will allocate 25% of the funding to community development initiatives in northern Ontario. Two of the five regional teams will be established in northern Ontario, chaired by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and report through the minister, the Honourable Shelley Martel.

Jobs Ontario Community Action represents a new way of government doing business with communities. This is a cooperative and corporate government-wide approach, involving many different ministries working together as a team. We're changing the way we do business in order to better support communities in their empowerment, and we're working to strengthen our partnership with communities across the province.

This new way of doing business also presents communities with a new way of working together. It gives them a chance to harness and build on the experience of everyone in their communities.

I'm confident that this new comprehensive approach will result in not only better service to our customers, but a more effective use of our resources.

Jobs Ontario Community Action has three major components: community development, community financing and community capital.

Under the community development component, assistance will be available to help build the capacity of communities to come together and to set long-term priorities and to identify ways to turn local plans into actions. In order to ensure that projects are community-owned and community-driven, all partners in the community must be involved in economic development decisions.

This will allow participation by people who may not have been involved traditionally in economic development decisions. It will also ensure, and this is very important, that the social, environmental, cultural and economic objectives of the entire community are addressed in the economic development process.

It will provide support for leadership and organizational development, community-based strategic planning, special research and marketing activities, as well as innovation or unique community economic development projects that contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of the community.

We'll be announcing more details on this component of the program at a later date.

Community financing will help communities mobilize their financial resources for economic development and growth.

Too often, community members with a desire to invest in their own communities have been frustrated because financing has not been available from traditional sources. Community financing will introduce two specific measures to facilitate local investment.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Ed Philip, will introduce legislation enabling the creation of community loan funds and community investment share corporations later this week.

A third component, community capital, will provide financial assistance to capital infrastructure projects. Projects could be such initiatives as community-sponsored training facilities or renovation of public or non-profit community facilities.

In the past, communities pursued funding for local projects from a variety of ministries and programs. As a result, government funding did not always go to the projects that had the highest priority for that community and, because government didn't have programs to fund everything, some good projects didn't get the support they deserved.

We think it makes more sense to let communities draw up their own economic development blueprints and set their own priorities first. Then government will use its economic development tools to support and fund the community's priorities.

We are also very aware that communities are anxious to begin work on specific economic development initiatives.

To address this immediate demand and respond to the initiative already shown by many communities, I am pleased to announce that as part of the $100 million that will be spent this year under the Jobs Ontario Community Action initiative, up to $31 million has been set aside to fund capital projects that can begin this summer.

This will not only provide immediate job creation, but it will address the pent-up demand from communities which have applied for project funding under the old programs that we are now consolidating.

These funds will be aimed at supporting projects submitted for consideration under earlier programs, as well as for any project that would have ordinarily been submitted to previous existing capital programs related to community economic development.

Proposals that can be shown ready for startup within 120 days of funding approval will now be eligible for consideration under this first phase of the program.

We will provide up to one third of project costs, up to a maximum of $3 million, and smaller communities will be eligible for up to 50% provincial funding.

To be eligible under this fast-track process, projects must be financially viable and not for the purchase of land or to support for-profit enterprises. Eligible projects must also have all the appropriate land use, environmental and other relevant approvals. In most cases, applications submitted under this process will be considered and processed and responses to the communities before August 15, 1993. In this way, we hope to be able to address the immediate needs of communities.

Jobs Ontario Community Action is a brand-new approach. It is a partnership with government and with communities designed to help communities help themselves.

Within those communities, it will involve new partners in the process of economic development. For example, community groups, cultural groups and other interested citizens will have a voice and a role in setting their community's economic development priorities.

When those priorities have been set, this initiative will provide those communities with the tools they need to realize their plans. Community development will help build the capacity of communities to tackle economic development projects. Community financing will provide the communities with the financial tools they need to fund their economic priorities and to create jobs. Community capital will provide support for the capital infrastructure projects that meet the community's priorities.

I am confident that we will help build the capacity of our communities and to put in place those strategic plans for economic development. It will give those communities the tools they need to build a stronger economic future for Ontario.

Together with other Jobs Ontario initiatives and the government's economic renewal programs, Jobs Ontario Community Action will help put Ontario back to work.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to share some good news with members of the Legislature. Last evening, H. Jager Developments Inc of Calgary announced it had selected a site in northeastern Ontario for its proposed oriented strand board, or OSB, mill. The site selected is the community of Limer, located 32 kilometres east of Wawa.

This announcement sends a message to investors across Canada and the world that Ontario is open for business and is an excellent place to invest. We are committed to putting the people of Ontario back to work in high-technology industries that can compete effectively in global markets. I welcome this announcement and congratulate the company on its further progress towards establishing this new $90-million plant to produce OSB, a plywood substitute. The plant is expected to be operating by January 1995.

This economic boost to northern Ontario is yet another sign that industry is gaining confidence in Ontario's economy and in the economy of northern Ontario. Now that the site has been selected, the company can go on to work with the province to finalize details of its business plan, such as wood supply allocation, while providing confirmation of its equity and debt financing.

In its announcement, the company indicated that the project is expected to create 170,000 person-hours of work during the construction phase and 114 permanent production, maintenance, supervisory and management jobs in the plant thereafter. In addition, it is expected to generate 270 jobs in logging and transportation and upwards of 600 spinoff jobs in the supplier, service and tourism sectors.

Moreover, the Algoma Central Railway, the province's trucking industry and the region as a whole stand to benefit greatly from the volumes of timber and finished products being transported to and from the plant.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is committed to a forest product sector that produces valuable goods and wealth for the province, employees, company shareholders, as well as for the communities within which it operates. Therefore, we are working with the forest industry to establish new business ventures.

For this project, for example, the Ministry of Natural Resources has conditionally committed to Jager an annual wood supply of up to 600,000 cubic metres of hardwood in several areas. The mill will consume an underutilized supply of hardwood and turn it into high value added products. This is also an example of how we are finding new markets for trees that in the past were believed to have little or no commercial value for the existing forest industry.

Finally, the proposed mill will be located in an area of Ontario which offers many opportunities for new investors: sustainably managed natural resources, an able workforce and an effective transportation structure.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I wish to reply to the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources. Of course, we in the opposition share his view and we're very happy that H. Jager Developments of Calgary has chosen Ontario as a place to employ Ontarians.

I will say, though, that this has to be put in some context. This has to be put in the context of a northern Ontario that is experiencing in excess of 15.2% unemployment. In the rural north, the part of the north we're talking about here, the unemployment rate would be far higher. While the minister talks about the jobs that are being created, in this particular instance he does not speak to the 250 jobs that the north has lost directly as a result of his ministry not going to Haileybury or the Mines ministry not going to Elliot Lake. I find that when you put this announcement today in context, the people of northern Ontario will not be particularly impressed.

I want to talk about the message that the Bob Rae ministry is sending to the people of the north. The ministry has said and is tending 50% less in the forests of Ontario today than it did in 1990. The ministry is mulching 11 million trees this year. The ministry is planting 25% less trees in the province this year than it did just three years ago. As opposed to that, they're increasing stumpage fees by 43%, they're increasing the timber licences by 100%, they're obligating industry in this province to spend $600 million to meet environmental regulations and they say, "But yes, we will give you $10 million to help."

This is the kind of Ontario that this minister talks about being open for business. Well, we as northerners find this ministry to be unacceptable.

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'd like to respond to the minister's statements on Jobs Ontario Community Action. The minister uses great words, "community economic development," "renewal initiatives," "empower communities" and "support job creation," and who wouldn't support that?

But this is just the continuation of the Jobs Ontario shell game. It's not the new approach she claims it is. In fact, this isn't new money. This is the recycling of old programming and old funding and they're calling it a brand-new approach.

The minister also boasts about Jobs Ontario Capital. Well, last year, Jobs Ontario Capital too was announced as a new program and yet you know what happened, Mr Speaker? Funds were taken from one ministry out of their capital budget, only to reappear later as Jobs Ontario Capital. There was no new funding. They just took with one hand and gave with the other.

She talks about Jobs Ontario Homes, which is to create 3,000 jobs this fiscal year. How many did they create last year when they promised the same thing? Not one single job.

Jobs Ontario child care: They promised 20,000 and they delivered 300 last year. Shame.

Jobs Ontario Training continues to be their largest public relations scam. They spend $700,000 on promotion, they spend $1.5 million on advertising, and yet they only met two thirds of their modest target of 10,000 jobs last year. They talk about 24,000 positions. Their own statistics showed they only created 7,600 jobs last year by March 31, and the 24,000 they claim is pure camouflage. They're not long-term jobs; they're not highly skilled jobs. This whole program is a sham.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I read with interest the statement of the minister, and I'm reminded of the classic definition of a consultant, which is a man who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is.

This is a program that is using local enterprises, using local-based financing, using financial resources of the community, and the government is proposing that it is going to mobilize this for those communities. I would suggest that given this government's record, it is not in a position to set an example of how communities should be mobilizing their resources.

I also have some very grave concerns with the method of approval. They say that eligible projects must also have appropriate land use, environmental and other relevant approvals, and this all to be done by August. This is June 1. To suggest that will ever happen this summer is absurd.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to comment on this initiative by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Unfortunately, what this is is a broken record. Around and around we go, tax and spend.

Here is a minister who stands up and talks about creating, I think, 12,000 new jobs at a time when a budget killed 50,000 jobs; $2 billion in new taxes killed 50,000 jobs. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said the number one problem for business today is taxation, so they come in, tax and spend, create 12,000 jobs, spend $700 million on this program when they killed 50,000 jobs in the last budget.

Where was this minister when the decisions were being made about this budget? She sat there and said nothing. Now all the jobs are being lost.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you, on page 2 she talks about empowering. People don't want empowerment; they want employment.

This is a government that stands up with platitudes. They are killing jobs in Canada today. During this recession, Ontario has lost 80% of the jobs. This has been an Ontario-led recession, and this minister, who came in as the saviour from the Ministry of Health -- she was going to save it -- sat there while this Treasurer introduced 50,000 job losses with the last budget and she said nothing.

Now, if she was a minister who sat in the back benches and didn't have much authority, we could understand it. Where was she at the cabinet table when jobs were being lost in the province of Ontario? She sat there and said nothing: $2 billion in tax increases, 50,000 jobs are going to be lost, and she stands up in this Legislature and talks about an increase of 12,000 jobs.

On page 2, she says we're going to have communities with local single windows to the program. I think the only way we're going to get jobs in this province is when we throw this government right out the window.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I would like to make a few comments on the Minister of Natural Resources' announcement today, and I would like to start with a question: why he feels the announcement of a new industry in the Minister of Environment and Energy's riding is a statement -- I would consider that a straight news item --

whereas a policy change is just a news item. I would suggest that the minister assess what is policy and what is news. We've had this trouble with this government for some time now, where when it's a statement of policy they give it to the press, and when it's just something as a news item they bring it into the House.

I refer to the minister's news release. The minister's news release says he welcomes this news release and congratulates the company on its further progress towards establishing a new plant. Now, I don't know how long under the previous minister this plant had been negotiating to be established near Wawa, but certainly we're glad that the plant is being established and that it is going to bring employment to the area.

Going back to what the minister considers a news release, we feel it's a statement. They're now going to ask the forest industry to regenerate the forests. They say it's negotiable, but the people in the actual business have no idea what they're talking about. They already collected $70 million last year from the forest industry on stumpage fees and taxes and others, and now they're saying, "You're going to have to be responsible to regenerate the forests." We need clarification on that.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): While I'm pleased that something in the north is finally happening, I don't want you guys over there to start clapping your hands on your backs right now. Don't start thinking you're doing something great. If you're going to do something like this -- you talk about how the trucking industry will benefit -- first you'd better get some roads up there that you can travel on before you're going to do that.

The second thing is, they brag about the 600,000 cubic metres of hardwood that they will be delivering to this mill. All we can really hope in Ontario is that the Premier and his colleagues are out of the province at this time, because if they're not, they'll probably be chained to these logs.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Last May 19, the Treasurer introduced his budget whereby the people of Ontario are being taxed $2 billion. The following week, all of us in this House left this place and went back to our constituencies, to consult with our constituents, to listen to them speak on various items that were mentioned in the budget, to read their letters.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): You travelled the province? Margaret travelled the province.

Mr Tilson: Yes, we did travel. We travelled all over this province to listen to people on this topic.

My problem is that constituents in my riding and around this province have expressed great alarm on this $2-billion tax grab. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition spoke for an hour and a half on this topic, on the budget. This was followed by the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party speaking on the budget. Then a member from each of the parties spoke on the budget, and that was half an hour each.

In the past, the total number of days that were spent on budget consideration was considerably more than what is being allowed, because the House leader of this government has announced that he is not scheduling any further days for budget debate in this place. I will say that in 1985 there were eight total days spent on the budget; in 1986 there were nine days; in 1987 there were seven days. In 1988 -- and this was the budget when this group of people shut down former Treasurer of the Liberal Party Nixon and wouldn't even allow him to read it -- 13 days were spent on that budget.

In 1991 there were two days spent. This year there has been a total of two speakers for each party who have spoken on this whole topic.

I promised my constituents that I would come back to this place and I would speak on this budget, and this House leader has forced me to break my promise. I will tell you, Mr Speaker, that my privilege has been challenged because I'm simply not allowed to speak in this place on a $2-billion tax grab.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

I certainly appreciate the member's interest in debating the budget. There are two matters which the member should consider. First, we have not reached orders of the day. We are, in terms of routine proceedings, at oral questions. Secondly, it is the prerogative of the government House leader to call forward the business of the day. There is nothing in our standing orders which identifies a particular number of days for debate on the budget, and so hence there is nothing out of order.

It is time for oral questions.

A point of order? A new point of order? The member for York Mills.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): York Mills.

The Speaker: That's correct: the member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, on the same issue, I would point out that in 1988 the NDP made the Liberal government of the day, when it brought in a budget of approximately half what the NDP has just brought in -- they would not allow the government even to debate it on the floor, to read the budget. It was tabled in the Legislature and then it was read outside. This is the same government, and with the pressures that came, there was a total of 13 days that ensued from that particular budget.

We have had no chance, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. He will know there is nothing out of order.

The House leader, the member for Parry Sound.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound.

Mr Turnbull: This is just plain hypocrisy.

The Speaker: Perhaps the member for Parry Sound's colleagues would allow him to speak.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I asked the member for York Mills to come to order so that his very own colleague could place his point of order.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: The member is asked to take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If the member refuses to take his seat, he will be named.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will again ask the honourable member to take his seat. If the member refuses to show respect for this chamber, he will be named.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I name the member. Mr Turnbull, you are named. You must leave this chamber and not participate in the sitting of the House for the remainder of the day. Sergeant?

Mr Turnbull left the chamber.

Interjections.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege with respect to the same matter: You have, I think, quite correctly pointed out that there is nothing in the standing orders that stipulates the number of days on which budget debate will be scheduled. There's also something in this province called tradition, which this government doesn't seem to understand.

I find it more than ironic that the very person who's the Premier of the province today led his party in 1988, when Mr Nixon, who was then the Treasurer, was going to introduce the budget in this House that called for a $1.3-billion tax increase. His party would not even permit the Treasurer of the day the courtesy of introducing the budget in the House and ended up with 13 days of budget debate on a budget that increased taxation by $1.3 billion.

How soon we forget. In 1993 the same guy introduces a budget that increases taxation $2 billion and he wants to sweep it under the rug in two days.

I ask you, is that fair to the members on this side of the House and maybe even to some of his own backbench colleagues who might have the intestinal fortitude and backbone to stand up and be counted once in a while?

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Parry Sound, I am certainly not unsympathetic to the concerns which he raises, but I must tell the member that ordinarily it is the practice in this House for the three House leaders to determine on a weekly basis what the business of the House will be. Perhaps it's a matter which the three House leaders can reach some agreement on.

The only role that I can fulfil is in trying to uphold the standing orders. There is nothing in the standing orders which will be of assistance to either myself or the member for Parry Sound in attempting to accomplish what he wishes to accomplish. I can only suggest that the three House leaders perhaps can discuss this matter, and as always, if there's some way in which I can be of assistance in that regard, I am more than pleased to do so. But I regret that there is nothing in the standing orders which is of assistance to the member.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): A point of privilege, Mr Speaker: There is absolutely no piece of business more important to all Ontarians, to the constituents of all members of this Legislature, than the provincial budget. That's why we're elected. We're elected to deal with the spending, the taxation, the programs, the deficit; all these are contained in the budget.

If you go back in time, the Legislature used to convene for the purpose of dealing with the budget and then it adjourned. Then in the fall it would convene if there were any legislative changes required. That might have been a week or two or a month. But primarily I suggest to you and submit to you that we are elected to deal with the budgetary policy. That's why we're here.

I realize the standing orders will not find comfort for 10 million or 11 million Ontarians. There will not be comfort in the standing orders for those of us who were elected to represent their views on the most important piece of business that can possibly be done in the Legislature. It impacts every other piece of legislation. Whether you have the money to enforce laws, whether you have the money to have fairness, whether you have the funds and the programs to have social justice, it's all impacted in the budget.

Mr Speaker, you offered the assistance of your office, and I am asking you and making a direct appeal to you, particularly now for the people of York Mills who have been denied the opportunity of having their member speak on their behalf --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Right on.

Interjection: Turnbull denied himself that opportunity.

Mr Harris: Yes, the member from York Mills is not in the chamber today, but he was elected to represent the viewpoints of the people of York Mills, and he's being denied that opportunity.

I would ask you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us, because this Legislature and the standing orders have evolved among a certain goodwill on behalf of all parties that you will not violate some principles of fairness, of time to debate, of time to represent your constituents' viewpoints on important issues. That has been violated by the government House leader. He's given clear direction that there will be no more time for any debate: "Two days and that's it. We're cutting it off. Bang, bang, bang. That's it for the members and the 10 million taxpayers." That's what Bob Rae and his House leader say.

I would ask you if you would convene a meeting of the three House leaders and express on behalf, particularly, of the minority in this House and all the constituents we represent that it is unacceptable that the most important document of the year is being limited to two days' debate.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Just to add to what has already been said, I think it's important to know that historically the budget debate has been one of those things which has allowed the broadest possible latitude for any of the members in the House to speak to the issues of their constituency, along with the pressures of the budgetary policies of the day. I think it's interesting that in the last two years -- and I here differ just a little bit from my friends to my left, because it is quite clear that the New Democratic Party, a long time ago, decided that the budget is not to be debated in this chamber.

The previous House leader gave us one day last year. This House leader is following along in that tradition. It seems to me that having changed that tradition, it is within the power, at least the ambit of the power that is associated with the Speaker, to make sure those traditions are not thrown out. In fact, where things are not written we go to convention and tradition in this House, and we look to the Speaker to bring those back to the attention of the people who serve here, particularly the people who serve in executive capacity, because it is, because of the necessary pressures of the day, easy to forget about the people's chamber.

The executive role sometimes takes the heads away from those people who used to speak almost incessantly about the rights of Her Majesty's subjects. Now they seem to think of little else than the rights of Her Majesty's executive council, and that means that those of us who are not members of Her Majesty's executive council are not allowed to speak in this chamber about the real policies as they have been developed and presented to this table to consider.

You know, Mr Speaker, that the reading of the budget is for but one purpose, and that is the purpose of introducing those budgetary policies to Her Majesty's subjects and to then have a debate upon those policies, to have an understanding of what each of the constituencies feels about those policies as they are tabled here before Her Majesty is allowed to proceed to implement the taxes and other programs which are put forward under the budgetary policies by the Minister of Finance, as he is now known.

Mr Speaker, I urge you to use your authority and the position that you now hold in this House to ensure that the minority -- that is, those people who are not members of the executive council or NDP or independent members who support the NDP -- are allowed to actually debate the budgetary policy as is required by the legislative mandate of this chamber. The people's chamber is to allow a thorough discussion of the primary document of this government. That is the budget.

Mr Speaker, just before you rise to cut me off, and you should, I think you should understand that before you do that, this could all be taken away from any controversy at all by having the government House leader -- and I invite him through you -- stand now and allocate us a number of days to deal with the budget. That would be the best way and the short way of dealing with this problem.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The members opposite have done some yelling and ranting about traditions that are being altered. The members perhaps are correct. There are a number of traditions that have been altered around this place in the last two and a half years.

I have at no time said to either of the opposition House leaders that there would be no more debate on this budget. I have, though, said that the government has a priority agenda, legislative and budget agenda, and that based on progress through that agenda, we will be able to

schedule more days of debate on the budget.

If we want to focus on some of the traditions that are being altered around this place, during the five years of the Liberal administration we spent an average of 14 minutes on third reading debates. On most bills we had none. During the Tory administration prior to that, the times were less, not greater.

If the members across the way have a desire to waste time in a consistent way around debate on third reading, once bills have been through second reading and through committee and through committee of the whole House --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Debate is not a waste of time in a democracy.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- then it will distinctly limit their ability to debate other items.

Mrs Caplan: How dare you.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Mr Elston: Point of order.

The Speaker: Members please take their seats. Just take your seat, please.

First, although I had already ruled on the alleged point of order, I was pleased to listen to the three House leaders, primarily because there is obviously some impasse with respect to this item.

Before we begin question period, however, I wish to let members know that it has been a custom in this House to spread out debate on the budget over a matter of time. I notice also that while we don't specify in our standing orders -- certainly in Ottawa they limit debate to six days, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that's what we should be doing here, but we do not place a limit on it.

I also note that the Chair is not privy to what will be announced as business for the House, and we have not reached the point in routine proceedings where the business of the House is to be called.

Lastly, in reaction to the leader of the third party's suggestion, I have on other occasions and I again today offer my services, if it will be of any assistance at all, to the three House leaders in trying to arrive at a consensus on how to have this chamber operate in as smooth a fashion as possible and to have ample time for debate. If there is some way in which I can be of assistance, I am delighted to do so.

It is time for oral questions and the Leader of the Opposition. A new point of privilege?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think it's important that you recognize that within our standing orders, under 41(a), we provide six days of debate on our throne speech. During the negotiations to change the standing orders, in which I was involved on behalf of my party, there was a debate over putting in a specific amount of time with regard to the budget debate.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that the response to the idea of putting in a limit of six days with regard to the budget debate was that it would not be nearly enough to deal with the normal budget debate, which was a custom or a tradition of this House. In other words, the whole idea of putting a limitation or even an amount or a time within the standing orders was seen as being a limitation, even though it was going to be a bottom limit.

Now, I think what is very, very important here is the fact that the government House leader has said traditions are changing. Traditions may change or policy may change with regard to the government, but traditions in this House should not be unilateral dictatorship by the government House leader and by Bob Rae as to what happens.

The Speaker: To the member, I've dealt with the point.

Mr Sterling: It is up to you to protect the tradition of this House which has been established for over 100 years for all the members of this House.

The Speaker: Would the member for Carleton please take his seat.

Mr Sterling: We are entitled to speak on the budget of the government of Ontario.

The Speaker: The member for Carleton, please take his seat. I appreciate the point he's raised. I have dealt with the matter. It is time for oral questions. I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker --

Mr Stockwell: Point of privilege.

The Speaker: No, stop the clock.

Mr Stockwell: What do you mean, no?

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, if the clock is running, it is very difficult --

The Speaker: To the member for Etobicoke West, this had better be something different. Is this on some other matter?

Mr Stockwell: No, it's not about some other matter.

The Speaker: Is it on some other matter?

Mr Stockwell: No, Mr Speaker, it's about the matter at hand.

The Speaker: There is no point of order. There is nothing out of order.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, with all due respect, how do you know I don't have a point of privilege until you hear it?

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition. We start the clock at 60 minutes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Mr Speaker, although it's difficult to ask questions, given the disruption. I certainly understand the disbelief that greets the government House leader talking about changing traditions in this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Etobicoke West to take his seat, please. Members will know that a point of order was raised. I have dealt with the point of order. There is nothing out of order. I would suggest that the member should not be engaged in challenging the ruling by the Chair. The clock has started. The Leader of the Opposition has been recognized to place a question.

Mr Stockwell: What are you ruling?

The Speaker: I ask the member for Etobicoke West to come to order or else he will be named. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I will ask a question of the Premier on another issue of growing public concern.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I would ask that you stop the clock until order is restored in the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Stockwell: Point of privilege. I have a point of privilege.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is asked to take his seat. The member will recall that I asked the member for Etobicoke West if what he had to raise was related to the point that I have dealt with. He responded yes. I have dealt with the point of order. The clock continues to run. If the member insists on causing disorder, he will be named.

The Leader of the Opposition with her question.

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I would ask that you stop the clock. I think it is important that we get our only opportunity for --

The Speaker: I know. I appreciate the unruly behaviour of certain members in the chamber is depriving the Leader of the Opposition of her rightful time, and I will do my best to adjust for that. I do not want anything to happen in here that would have a negative effect on the opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to pose her questions. I am very mindful of that. The Leader of the Opposition with her question.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If certain members refuse to allow the Leader of the Opposition to place her questions, then they must consider that they are causing disorder and so must be named, one by one. I am determined that the Leader of the Opposition will have her opportunity to place a question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I again share the frustration that all members of the House feel when the government House leader simply tells us that we will only get time to debate the budget if we behave ourselves.

Having said that, I will appreciate your adjusting the clock to recognize the importance of a full hour for question period and I will place a first question to the Premier on another issue of growing public concern.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, yesterday your chief negotiator, Michael Decter, admitted for the very first time that he is not optimistic about the future of the social contract talks, that he himself is concerned about the talks breaking down. The union of public employees has said that it may pull out of the talks today, and your negotiator said yesterday that he simply does not know what to do to keep the process going. It does sound as though you yourself have a plan, if we can follow the Toronto Star headline which proclaims, "Settle or Else, Rae Tells Unions."

Here we have the situation in Ontario now: the Premier of this province reduced to inarticulate threats. So, Premier, why do you not tell us what you have in mind. "Or else" what?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): What I said yesterday --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Are those your notes?

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. I just forgot the Toronto Star here.

What I said yesterday was, quote -- and I want to read this out because it shows the Leader of the Opposition that it is fairly important, I think, for her to look at what I actually said as opposed to what some headline writer writes, because I think there's often a distinction.

I'm sure she's found in her political life that there are times when she says things and headline writers then write something else. We all know that in the newspaper business the headline writers are one group of people and the reporters are another group of people, so I want to stress that Mr Walker -- I'm not saying for a moment that I've been misquoted. I wish occasionally that I was misquoted but in fact I rarely am.

Unfortunately, I said these powerful, compelling and apparently dramatic words, "'The government is aware of its responsibilities in terms of the need for us to get the $2 billion out of the size of the public sector payroll,' he told reporters" -- "he" referring to myself.

Out of that, I thought, rather mild-mannered, mealy-mouthed phrase --

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

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Weasel words.

Hon Mr Rae: -- which my colleague from Nickel Belt refers to as weasel words, an energetic headline writer put in a provocative headline. That's show business but it has very little to do with what's going on at the Royal York Hotel.

My understanding is that people are meeting, that there are discussions under way. We are encouraging those discussions that are now under way to reach a productive and positive agreement. I know that the leader of the Liberal Party will want to criticize the talks as they go on --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- and then take credit if they are successful and blame us if they are not successful. But all I can say to her is that we continue to want to work away at what we think is a more productive way of trying to find a solution than any other. As difficult as it is, we still think it's worthwhile and we continue to fully support the efforts of our negotiator.

The Speaker: Please take your seat. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: I was not asking you to defend yourself or your statement. I'm giving you an opportunity to be absolutely clear on an issue of the utmost urgency. I would tell you, as you surely, surely know, that nobody can negotiate in an atmosphere of good faith when intimidated, which is what you and your House leader seem to understand best.

I would say to you, Premier, if you have a plan, if you have alternatives, if there is an "or else," then you must put your alternatives on the table right now. Your Finance minister, in Hamilton last week, told the Hamilton Spectator that no work was being done on legislation, but the suggestion in today's press is that you are ready to act and that you are prepared to do so in this Legislature before the House rises on June 24.

It appears very likely to us that if you are going to bring in any kind of legislation, it's going to be drafted in haste. It's going to be presented, certainly, in an atmosphere of incredible confusion and distrust.

You need to be clear about your alternatives, and I am asking you, what kind of legislation are you contemplating, what impact will that legislation have on the collective bargaining process now and in the future, and what opportunity will we have in this place to debate that legislation? Will we have more opportunity to debate your legislation on the social contract than we have to debate your legislation on your tax increases?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is doing exactly what I think one shouldn't do in the circumstances, and that is to, in a sense, create a sense out there in the public, as well as at the negotiating table, that the government is acting in any way other than in complete good faith. This government, the resources of this government, the resources of everything we're trying to do are focused at one critical point at the moment, and that focus is on the success of the social contract discussions.

I can tell her that there are no other plans being devised. I can say to her that obviously the government is prepared, in the sense of, are we prepared to take on our responsibilities whatever happens on June 4? Of course we are. But are there any plans being drafted in terms of alternatives? No, there are not, and I will say that very explicitly to her and to everyone.

We are working away at a social contract process, which is difficult enough as it is without making it more difficult by any kind of provocation. I don't intend to do anything other than be as constructive and as positive as I can to the people who are on the negotiating team on behalf of the government and on behalf of all those people who've devoted a great deal of time to trying to find a solution, the practical people among all our social partners, who are now coming forward with some practical ideas. I want to focus all my efforts and resources in supporting that team of people and in not provoking anybody.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, do not lecture me. You and only you have created this no-win situation for this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: Let me tell you, Premier, what you and your government House leader refuse to recognize --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition take her seat, please. We didn't get off to a terrific start today, so perhaps the government benches, as well as others, could relax a little bit. The Leader of the Opposition with her final supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Let me tell the Premier that as concerned as we are about the chaos that's being created at the potential collapse of his social contract talks, we are equally concerned about some of the deals he might be reaching in order to have those talks reach some conclusion. We are only now beginning to see some of the implications of what were very last-minute decisions that were made in arriving at the expenditure control plan, and we are very much afraid that exactly the same thing is happening again this week.

We wonder, for example, whether anybody is looking at the long-term costs of offering voluntary early retirement to large numbers of employees. We wonder whether anybody has thought what the cost is to students of giving teachers holidays instead of professional development days. I ask the Premier in all seriousness, is anybody looking at the long-term impact of either your alternatives, which you won't discuss, or the deals which you are now proposing?

Hon Mr Rae: Obviously, we are considering, as we have considered and will continue to consider, the impacts of any of the proposals that we make, as other governments have had to do. The government of Manitoba, I understand, has reached some agreement with the teachers with respect to unpaid professional development days. Other agreements have been reached in other parts of the country. There's hardly a large organization in the country, indeed a large organization in any of the OECD countries, large bureaucratic organization, whether in the private sector or in the public sector, that hasn't recognized the need for some kind of early retirement proposals.

I'm astonished that the Leader of the Opposition would now be coming out against the possibility of voluntary early retirement as a method of dealing with these issues in a way that's fairer and that has less of a social impact and less of an impact in terms of its effect on younger families and on younger employees and on new employees than the alternatives. If that's now the position of the Liberal Party, that it would rather see wholesale layoffs rather than the kinds of tradeoffs we're proposing, that's very interesting.

I say to the honourable member that I listen very carefully to what she's suggesting. She responds to every headline that's there, she responds to every statement that's made on a daily basis --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- and tries to ride the headlines on to a social policy. You can't ride the headlines of the Toronto Star on to a sensible social policy for the people of the province. We don't intend to do it.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: I would just remind the Premier, he is the one who keeps talking about unprecedented negotiations, unprecedented social contracts. We simply ask, at what cost?

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I recognize that all of us tend to be preoccupied with the events of this week and the social contract talks, but we are going to continue to raise another concern, and that is our concern with the growing crisis of unemployment among our young people.

You have said, when we've raised this question in the past, that you recognize the problem of youth unemployment, that you've responded with a $180-million commitment to programs for youth. We recognize, however, that the bulk of that budget quite properly is spent on counselling and training programs, such as the Futures programs, established by a previous government. We continue to believe that those are important programs.

The fact is that only about $25 million in additional funding through the Jobs Ontario Youth program has been provided by your government in new programs for youth. That is welcome, but I am saying to you today that it is not enough, because the reality is that since you've taken office youth unemployment has risen by 8%, to the unprecedented level of 19%. The situation is truly critical. Young people are out there in every community of this province looking for the jobs that they're not finding.

In my own home community, the employment officials are saying that this is the worst summer they have seen in at least seven years. There are fewer employers looking for students for job placements this summer, partly because of the economy, partly because of government job program cutbacks. There are also far more people, laid-off older workers, competing for the jobs.

We've made a number of proposals suggesting that as you redirect some of your Jobs Ontario money, you redirect it particularly to summer job opportunities for youth. I ask you, will you not take immediate steps to address this crisis in a real way? Would you not start by redirecting some additional dollars for summer work opportunities for our young people?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The first thing I want to say is that at the meeting in Ottawa yesterday the Minister of Finance -- I know, because he discussed it with us beforehand -- discussed with his colleagues and with the federal Minister of Finance the need for a national strategy, which obviously we would be very interested in participating in, to deal with what is clearly a major challenge and a major problem for us.

I think she will admit that this problem has a national dimension in terms of its impacts. We certainly feel very strongly that the kind of money we've put into the programs the last two years clearly indicates our commitment. We're willing, obviously, to do as much as we possibly can. I've asked my officials to look at the proposals that have come forward from the leader of the Liberal Party and see whether there isn't a way of our improving even on the $25 million that we've put in.

I'll say to the honourable member that of course we will consider her proposals, recognizing that if you take money out of that particular portfolio, that will mean there will be less money for other programs under the Jobs Ontario programs, which has to be considered. We're looking at her proposals, as we will look at all reasonable proposals that will help us. But it seems to me it would be useful to have some signs of commitment from the federal government with respect to what she would agree, I would hope, is also a national problem.

Mrs McLeod: A national strategy is hardly what I call an immediate response, and it's certainly not going to help all the young people who are being turned away on a daily basis from the youth employment centres.

When you talk about priorities, we keep wanting you to make some linkages, to understand again what you're doing to make matters worse.

Let me give you just one example. The tourism industry, I think you would agree, has always played a large role in creating jobs, and particularly summer jobs for young people. Your budget contains $30 million in new tax measures that are targeted specifically at the tourism and hospitality sectors. I met with representatives of both the tourism and hospitality industries last week, and they told us that they have no choice but to cut student jobs because of the impact of your budget. These were the same people who were hoping to see some recovery this summer, who were hoping they would be able to hire more people, not less, and you have killed that hope.

I ask why you have targeted these sectors that employ youth through your budget at the very time when our young people need those jobs.

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps I could ask the honourable member to clarify exactly what tax measures she's referring to, and then she can tell us what the position of the Liberal Party is with regard to those tax expenditures.

I want to hear what her definition is of the taxes that we've put in, because if you look, for example, at the impact of the commercial concentration tax alone in terms of the hotel industry in this province, in this part of Ontario, if you look at the impacts of the costs that were imposed by her government on that industry, if you sit down and talk with the hotel industry about the impact of measures that the Liberal government took, then you'll look at them. You tell me what your position is with respect to the other tax changes that were made. You tell me.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not surprised that the Premier needs some clarification in understanding his own budget. He thought it didn't even hurt business, for goodness' sakes. But I'm not going to take the time to clarify. I'd be happy afterwards to talk about the Ontario incredible tax rebate which the government can do by regulation and doesn't even have to bring it to the Legislature, or about the business deductibility, because I want to ask if the Premier is aware of another factor that is influencing jobs for young people this summer.

Representatives of the city of Windsor have approached us with their concerns about the impact of the expenditure control plan and the social contract talks on student jobs. The city of Windsor, as one example, usually employs 510 students. They fund 300 of those positions directly. This year, because of cutbacks and their uncertainties about the social contract, they are hiring only 93 directly; they've placed a freeze on hiring any new students.

Let me recognize that they do have 178 student placements funded by Jobs Ontario Youth, but city representatives have told us that because of the terms of their local collective agreement if they are forced to lay off even one municipal employee due to spending cuts, all of the students they have hired will have to go first.

Will you acknowledge that your expenditure control plan and your social contract will result in even more job losses for students this summer, that your Jobs Ontario Youth program will not help, and will you will us what action you will take now to prevent this crisis from becoming even greater?

Hon Mr Rae: I'd say to the honourable member that obviously, when we reduce transfers, as we have had to do and as we have done with respect to the municipalities, they are faced with the same sorts of difficult choices as we are. I would suspect that there are members of the Liberal Party who are on city council, as there are members of our party who are on city council and members of the Conservative Party on city council, who are having to make difficult choices in terms of the balance that is struck in every municipal budget.

That's the same balance we have to strike, as she knows, when you have to take responsibility for these things. The kinds of tradeoffs that we're looking at, indeed even at the social contract table, are precisely designed to deal with these kinds of questions.

I just want to get a handle on what the Liberal Party is saying. They're saying, "Reduce the deficit, don't raise any taxes and don't cut any government programs."

It is very difficult, and I don't say this lightly but I will say this directly to the Leader of the Opposition, if you look at what other governments are having to do across the country, the Liberal administration in Quebec, the Liberal administration in New Brunswick, and here we have the Liberal Party in Ontario saying, "We want you to do all these things, Premier: We want you to reduce the deficit, freeze taxes and don't cut any government programs, and voilà, you'll have solved the problems of the province."

I just think the Liberal Party is talking out of every single side of its own hat.

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Premier, the Globe and Mail today reported that legislation is being drafted in the event that social contract talks fail. It also reports government advisers saying that others would prefer simply to cut back all the transfer partners. I wonder if you could tell us if draft legislation is currently being drafted in the event the social contracts fail, and if so, what's in it.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): You can tell the difference between Liberal research and Tory research. The Liberal research relies on the Star, the Tory research goes to the Globe, and we wish them both well. I would simply say that the answer to his short question is no.

Mr Harris: I'm happy to use the Sun and the Star and anywhere I can get the research. Other headlines say that its settlement is 6 o'clock Friday "or else." Or else what, Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: Or else we will have to find some other way to take the $2 billion out which we're committed to getting out.

Mr Harris: Do you not think that the talks would go better if you told those at the table, if you were honest, if you were upfront and told them what the "or else" is? Is it legislation? Is it cutbacks on the transfer partners? How are you going to get the $2 billion if the talks fail? Do you not think you'd have more successful talks if you would be a little more honest and upfront with them and told them what the "or else" is?

Hon Mr Rae: If he's keep asking for my judgement as to how you help the negotiating process --

Mr Harris: The talks aren't going very well.

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member -- he shouted out just now that talks aren't going very well -- he may have access to information that no one else in Ontario has; I don't know. My sense is that, given the alternatives which are in front of us, which are, I think, as a province, in terms of the choices between tax increases and expenditure cuts and how else do we get the deficit under control, the methods that we have proposed are fair. They're not easy, but they're fair. My sense is that that realization is growing at the Royal York Hotel, and I remain determinedly optimistic that we're going to find a successful solution to this problem.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. Three months ago, the Provincial Auditor and the standing committee on public accounts asked her deputy for basic financial information about the non-profit housing program.

We finally received some of that information a few days ago, but the auditor has been told that many answers won't be ready until November: nine months later. Even worse, this ministry is withholding information it does possess.

For instance, the ministry won't provide updated estimates of the cost of non-profit housing subsidies, yet when I requested the same information two years ago, I received it the next day. Minister, this is a disgrace. I ask why you and your deputy minister are withholding information from the auditor and the public accounts committee.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member is making an accusation which is not correct. There is no information being withheld whatsoever. The request for information which came as a result of the hearings of the public accounts committee was for very detailed accounting that goes back through the books over years, accounting for the figures within the subsidies provided to non-profit housing corporations.

What the ministry has provided to members of the committee and to the auditor and has discussed with the auditor is the timetable that the ministry is setting out to undertake the quite detailed work which will be involved to provide the definition that she is looking for, that members of the public accounts committee sought and which the ministry is happy to provide and will provide as soon as the work can be done.

Mrs Marland: Maybe what this minister's really saying is that the auditor is lying. The reason I say that is that this answer proves this minister does not have a single clue about what's going on in her ministry.

I'll tell you something else, Madam Minister: If you had been in the public accounts committee you might have heard the auditor say that information he had asked for he was not going to be able to get from your ministry until November.

We know the Ministry of Housing is withholding information, because during the budget lockup a Finance ministry official provided some of the answers in the lockup. For instance, this official said that in 1993-94 the average monthly subsidy for non-profit housing would be $854 per household. If the Ministry of Housing is unable to provide basic financial information until November, it clearly doesn't care about the cost of doing business. You don't care about getting value for taxpayers' money.

Minister, will you take the reasonable step of halting all further approvals of non-profit housing until your ministry complies with the requests of the Provincial Auditor and the public accounts committee for basic financial information?

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's not difficult at all to provide information at the level that has been quoted by this member, citing information from the Ministry of Finance. That kind of information is available quite readily. What was sought and what is agreed to by the ministry -- it will take a lot of work to do -- is to provide extremely detailed information, which means reconciliation of figures going back, in some cases, to 1986. Now, this is a task we are willing to take on. We have said to the committee that the ministry will do it. It will take extra resources and we are devoting people to do that.

Mr Speaker, I very much resent her suggestion that I am calling anyone, let alone the Provincial Auditor, a liar. Mr Speaker, I think you should ask her to withdraw that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Just relax. I understand the concern raised by the Minister of Housing. I listened very carefully. The member for Mississauga South did not make an accusation against a member of the House and instead made an accusation by someone who is not here. There's a difference.

Hon Ms Gigantes: If you look at the record, I think you will find that she was suggesting I was calling the Provincial Auditor a liar. Mr Speaker, there was nothing I said that implied --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry; I'll be quite pleased to listen to the point when the House has come to order so that I can hear the point.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, what was being suggested by the member, and I hope you will take a look at the Hansard, was that I was calling the Provincial Auditor a liar. I did no such thing, nor would I. I think she should have to withdraw that accusation.

The Speaker: I'd be pleased to take a look at Hansard, but the member for Mississauga South, her final supplementary.

Mrs Marland: Minister, you know what I resent? You just told this House what you resent. I resent the fact that you will not defend a program in terms of value for money for the taxpayers in this province today. That's what I resent.

You stand in this House and you piously protect your non-profit housing program. Well, I want to tell you what your non-profit housing program costs the people in this province: It costs $854 a month to subsidize one household in a non-profit housing building. In contrast, the average monthly shelter subsidy for welfare recipients is $354 a household. Think about it. With the same amount of money we can help two and a half times more people with a shelter subsidy than with non-profit housing programs.

Minister, you know that government-owned non-profit housing is anything but affordable for the taxpayers of this province, and you know it so well that you will not give the figures. You don't even know the cost of doing business in Ontario today. You won't give those figures to the auditor.

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

Mrs Marland: I will, Mr Speaker. I can say to the minister when I ask this final question: I can understand your not wanting to answer a question of the opposition, but the fact that you won't answer a question of the Provincial Auditor -- I simply say, finally, why won't you cancel the non-profit housing that you haven't built yet and use that money to help the thousands of families on waiting lists, the quarter of a million families in this province that are core needy, with a shelter subsidy and put your money where your mouth is?

Hon Ms Gigantes: First of all, I will repeat again for the benefit of the member, who doesn't seem to hear very well, who's not listening very well, that the ministry has in fact said to the Provincial Auditor that all the information that was requested during the course of the hearings will be provided, has given a detailed plan to the auditor, which, as far as I understand it in conversations between the deputy of Housing and the Provincial Auditor, is a successful and acceptable way of working out the work plan for the provision of this very detailed information, which will be available to the members.

The member for Mississauga South says that I'm unwilling to defend the non-profit housing program. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a program which gives value for money. We spend $2.5 billion a year in shelter allowances through the social assistance system in this province.

Interjections.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, Mr Speaker. We spend $2.5 billion a year in shelter allowances in the social assistance system. That is a rental subsidy program which is much too big. We wish very much that we didn't have to be spending that kind of money, but it's there to assist people who need help in the private market.

We have to increase the supply of affordable housing. The only way to do that is to do non-profit housing which provides a long-run investment in affordable housing in our communities, and it provides jobs while it's getting built.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. In October 1990 the previous Minister of the Environment reinstated a regulation that at least 30% of soft drinks be sold in refillable containers. You will remember that this announcement was proclaimed with great fanfare as your government's first environmental initiative.

I've received the latest refillable figures from your ministry. They are: October 1992, 6.4%; November, 6.3%; December, 7.8%; January, 7.4%; February, 8.2%; March, 7%.

My question: Minister, do you support the enforcement of the 30% refillable quota?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank my colleague for the question. It's a very important one. He's quite correct: The ratio is well below the required 30% level.

The government supports the 3Rs hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle, as he well knows, and the government is reviewing several options with regard to maximizing use of refillable beverage containers and the recovery of all soft drink containers. This is not an easy matter to deal with because the industry has been struggling with this, as well as environmental groups and consumer groups, but I would say that we are actively involved in discussions with the industry and representatives of environmental groups on how we should proceed. Specifically with regard to the question of enforcement, we are actively pursuing that question and we'll be moving forward on that very soon.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, on May 4, in response to a question from the member from St Catharines on your commitment to enforcement of regulations, you said, and I quote, that "the cuts we have made have been made in such a way as to ensure that we will carry out our mandate for environmental protection and to ensure that the responsibilities of the Ministry of Environment and Energy are met." You went on to say, "The enforcement branch...is indeed independent and I expect that it will continue to carry out its mandate as it has in the past."

Could you please explain to this House, though your investigations and enforcement branch monitors this situation and is independent, why no charges have been laid since June 1991? Why and who has given the orders to block prosecutions?

Hon Mr Wildman: The question of charges is one that has been considered carefully and the decision was made some time ago and that decision is under review, that we should try to negotiate agreements that would make it possible to resolve this issue without charges if that were an appropriate way to move. However, we are actively considering a number of options.

As the member may know, the ministry has taken a number of initiatives. We've commissioned a study, which was undertaken by Price Waterhouse, on the feasibility of a differential deposit system similar to the one in place in New Brunswick. The study is now being finalized and the results are expected soon. If we cannot arrive at an agreement with the industry that is satisfactory and ensures that we are in fact recovering refillable beverage containers, we will move forward on the question of acting upon the findings of that study.

INSURANCE TAX

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Premier. As part of the government's recent budgetary tax grab, the government managed to hit Ontarians at every turn. They've increased personal income taxes and surtaxes as well as taxing individual benefits. After all that, when beleaguered taxpayers manage to make it home on their reduced paycheques, this government will tax the insurance they need to drive their cars with and the insurance that protects their homes.

Last week, when the Team Harris tour went across Ontario, our colleagues and I met with insurance brokers --

[Applause]

Mr Cousens: Thank you. We were out listening to the people of Ontario, and insurance brokers are confused and concerned about the implementation of this tax. They don't know how, when or where to implement this tax on insurance, but if they fail to collect it, this government can revoke their ability to do business.

Will you agree that the complexity of educating the insurance industry, as well as allowing them to revamp their entire business practices, requires more time than the time you've given them, and will you agree to extend the collection date from July 1 to August 1 so that this tax can be collected with a minimum of confusion and error?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): In congratulating the member in his successful rise to the role of Finance critic, in what I understand was a bloodless coup within his caucus, I'd like to refer this question to my colleague the Minister of Finance.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It was a bloodless coup, Bob.

Hon Mr Rae: I heard it was bloodless, anyway.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the referral. To the member from Markham, we did send out what's known as a bulletin detailing the tax change to the industry. As a matter of fact, the industry was quite helpful in turn, getting information out to its clients, brokers and so forth, so I think the changes are well understood within the industry. If the member opposite has some information otherwise, I'd appreciate it if he'd let me know because it's my understanding that the industry does comprehend the changes and will be able to effect the changes by July 1.

Mr Cousens: The problem is that there are well over 2,000 agents that have a problem. If it had started out that you as the government had consulted with the industry prior to announcing this tax, it's possible that we would not be facing the kind of confusion that the insurance industry feels today. If you had talked with some of these people, you would have realized that by applying the tax to all payments after July 1, you would be taxing those individuals who are often least able to afford large premium payments.

Was it your intention to make people pay tomorrow's tax on yesterday's insurance? Would you agree with me that this tax should not be applicable to premium payments for policies which renewed before July 1?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite asks a good question. It was something that I considered, because if someone takes out a new policy after July 1, there is a tax on that premium. On the other hand, if they had a policy before then, or even perhaps before the budget date, the payments that are made on a monthly basis, or a quarterly basis even, would be taxed after July 1, as opposed to people who paid it all first, before the budget date.

I did consider that dilemma, but in the end decided that it was best to leave the tax the way it is. Premiums after July 1 will be taxed even if it's on a monthly or quarterly basis.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I've been quite disturbed by recent media reports on comments made by some municipal officials that Ontario's welfare system is too rich and that it should be brought in line with neighbouring American states.

These states, as you may recall, are those which have cut back on eligibility for single employable recipients despite the fact that these individuals have little or no prospect for jobs in a recession that has ravaged both the US and Canadian economies. One municipality has directed its staff to investigate changes in the welfare administration in Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Rather than having municipalities across Ontario independently spend valuable staff time and public dollars on such research, could you please clarify for me and for our local governments what measures you are taking to reform and improve the delivery of social assistance in this province and clarify whether it's responsible to harmonize our social assistance system with that of the United States?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm happy to answer that question and say that, first of all, certainly we understand and agree that one of the problems that we need to tackle and that we are tackling in our reform of the social assistance system is to deal with the growing costs. But to suggest for a minute that to resolve those problems in the way that some municipalities are suggesting or, for that matter, what we've seen in some states in the United States, which is to simply arbitrarily remove people from the welfare rolls, is not the solution.

The solution, in our view, rests in assisting people to get jobs and hold jobs and to assist people in a fundamental way in that process. Our intent is to continue with the reform package and to build, quite frankly, through that reform package on some of the initiatives that are already under way, such as the Jobs Ontario Training programs which are getting people off social assistance and into jobs and which are being supported by such initiatives as the Jobs Ontario child care, with the introduction and addition of 20,000 subsidies over the next few years.

Mrs Mathyssen: You've referred to some important things about job creation and helping people in Ontario in a real and practical way. You also mentioned social assistance reform. I'm wondering, Minister, could you please elaborate and explain to me exactly what you have in mind in terms of social assistance reform? Will it be more equitable? How will it be more effective?

Hon Mr Silipo: I hope that in the next number of weeks we will be able to outline in the white paper that we will be making public a document which will set out the government's position on a package of reform, giving a clear indication of the basic framework of a system which we believe needs to be much more active than the passive system that we have in place now, and active in assisting people from the very beginning in getting reoriented towards the workforce, getting back to work, getting the skills that they need, if they are lacking those skills, to get back into the workforce.

We know that's the kind of approach that can achieve both: dealing with the cost issues but, quite frankly and fundamentally, dealing with the basic issue of assisting people to become more self-sufficient and independent and therefore, that way, to be able to look after themselves.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, I wonder if you're familiar with this memorandum which was sent out by the two vice-chairs of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, Mr Forder and Mr McMurdo, to 26,000 business around the province, most of which are small businesses, I might add, outlining to them that they're "pleased to announce health and safety legislation which will have an immediate effect on your organization."

They go on to outline very briefly on the first page the program involvement here and then they say, and I quote from this letter: "Employer liability for violations of the act has increased significantly, possibly resulting in fines of up to $500,000 for corporations and up to $25,000 or imprisonment for individuals."

They go on to outline some of the requirements in the health and safety and the training requirements, a bill, I might add, that was brought in for the purpose of improving health and safety in the workplace, not for the purpose of creating the boondoggle that these two gentlemen are creating with this particular letter and with their implementation.

The concerns I have are that they are intimidating. It borders on thuggery for these people to send a letter out to the business community --

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

Mr Mahoney: -- many of whom are trying to find out ways of reducing below the 20-employee level so they can avoid the implementation of this training requirement. Do you agree with the letter that they've sent out, and if not, will you ask the Workplace Health and Safety Agency to send out a following letter apologizing for the tone they've used, for the threats they've issued in this document to the business community, and showing them how they can implement these procedures safely.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to say that I'm sure the member across the way understands that one of the problems we've had in the province of Ontario as well is that we've had too many injured and killed workers on the job, and one of the things we've done as part and parcel of trying to deal with that is stepped up our enforcement and our charges. I presume that's a part of it. I am not running the agency itself and I haven't seen the letter that the member is referring to right now.

But one of the things that we have decided upon, and it's been a policy for the last several months, is that if we can have better enforcement and the threat of charges -- you can't cover every case that comes to your attention -- we can more effectively assure that workers are covered and that unsafe conditions are not allowed to exist in the workplace.

Mr Mahoney: That answer somewhat corroborates the suggestion that the next step following this is for training police to be sent out throughout the province going after these business people who are trying to survive the ravages of your Treasurer and your government. You're just going to pile more requirements on top of these people.

One of the requirements in the training in the very first session that has been laid out -- and bear in mind, this is for occupational health and safety -- is that they will spend a morning learning how laws are made in the Legislature and how to run committee meetings. I don't understand what that has to do with occupational health and safety. It appears to be a complete waste of time for the business community. On top of that, they have to pay $535 for the one-week program.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Move on and ask a question.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, you tend to want me to speed up. You allow everyone else to take their time. This is important to the business community, which is being intimidated by this government.

They are required to spend $765 for the two-week course and $1,000 for the three-week course. They're going to learn how to pass laws in the Legislature, not how to prevent accidents in the workplace, which is the intent of that legislation.

My supplementary to the minister is, even though you say you're not running it, clearly your government is responsible for the implementation of this legislation by this agency. Will you talk to the co-chairs? Will you ask them to back off and to work cooperatively with the business community so that they know they have two years in which to implement this program and have them help the business community improve health and safety in the workplace?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm a little surprised at the member across the way. I've heard him as well express his dissatisfaction with injured and killed workers in the province of Ontario. One of the jobs of the agency was to set in place certification programs so that one worker and one employer were involved in each one of the committees, so that they went through a training process and so that they had the authority to deal with the issues of workplace safety in their plants. The program that was set up, incidentally, was set up, as I'm sure the member knows, by a joint worker-employer committee that set it up and put it in place and is now putting it into practice.

There are 100,000 additional health and safety workers in place in Ontario now and we are already seeing some results in terms of a better health and safety atmosphere in the workplace. I think that's in the interest of workers in the province of Ontario.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Mr Minister, the Royal Commission on Learning has been given the mandate to assess and make recommendations about the goals, standards and programs to guide Ontario's elementary and secondary schools into the 21st century.

Given that you are already proceeding with destreaming, curriculum reform, grade 9 testing, junior kindergarten and integration, separate from the work of this commission, why are you prepared to wait 18 months for the commission to report?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): All the initiatives that the member has referred to are initiatives that have been in the works for quite a period of time, with the exception of the grade 9 testing. But certainly the destreaming and the junior kindergarten initiatives were actually being worked on by the previous government, so they've been in the works for quite a period of time.

The purpose of the commission is to take a look at trying to develop a consensus around some of the other questions in education, like governance, like the whole question of philosophy of education in Ontario and the direction the system might go in. That's the purpose of the commission, to take a look at some of the broader questions, the broader questions of accountability, to try to develop a consensus, or as much of a consensus as possible, for future directions in education.

Mrs Cunningham: Given the minister's response, I think I'll ask him the same question but in a different manner. I think that really what we're concerned about is a duplication. We have all of these programs moving forward. We appreciate that the minister feels it's important to do this. We also have a problem in getting ourselves coordinated and streamlined around such issues as destreaming and junior kindergarten. Grade 9 testing would be a good example, the whole issue of testing.

If in fact we have, already, five studies completed since 1986, and the minister is very much aware of those recommendations, and if in fact everyone agrees that we're drowning in a sea of reports with regard to education, the question is this: If in fact you do have some work done in these areas, if in fact the commission is ready to report, will you ask the commission to report, at least, on the issues of destreaming, special education, grade 9 testing, the whole issue of testing, before the 18 months are up?

Because they in fact will report on the testing issue next spring and we could at least get that issue satisfied without waiting perhaps two years and into the next election, would you at least ask them to report on some issues earlier than the 18 months?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think she will understand that the commission is appointed under the Public Inquiries Act, that the commissioners are appointed by order in council and that the commission is in fact an independent commission.

Certainly, when I spoke to the co-chairs of the commission, I indicated to them that if they wanted to proceed with interim reports, we would be more than happy to receive any interim reports and specific recommendations before the 18 months. But in the meantime, we are already taking some actions.

The grade 9 testing is only one part of the whole evaluation package that was announced on that same day, the testing in mathematics and so forth that's taking place at grades 3, 6 and 9 under the package that's associated with the common curriculum. We've moved forward with the rewrite of the common curriculum. I think there are a lot of issues that we can move forward and need to move forward on anyway --

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

Hon Mr Cooke: -- and I think the member would agree with that.

I think the member would also understand that one of the criticisms that we've received, and strong suggestions, is that we should not stop any reform of the education system, that we should continue to move forward and not use the commission as an excuse to stay still. We don't intend to use the commission as an excuse.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Cooke: We intend to bring in reforms while the commission continues to operate.

RECOGNITION OF TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Mr Speaker, you will note, as will every other member in this place, that our dream team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, is being honoured today at Nathan Phillips Square for the wonderful season that it had this year. Regrettably, they just came short of winning the prize.

My question to the minister has to do with the other team that's in Toronto, the Toronto Blue Jays, who last year had a wonderful season. I'll have you know, Mr Speaker, that these teams are ambassadors for this city.

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

Mr Perruzza: Yes. These teams do honour to us when they travel abroad, and they advertise our city and our province and they draw much in the way of tourism. However, it is time that we do some honour back to both the Blue Jays and the Toronto Argonauts.

My question to the minister is, why, almost a year after winning the World Series championship, is there no signage and is there no recognition that Toronto is home to the Blue Jays, the World Series champions?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): We did, in the collective, agonize a bit, because our Leafs did very well, and I, for one, being a native Montrealer, was looking so much forward to the first game. I understand the first game of the final is tonight. It will be played in the temple in Montreal and I too was looking forward to this great finale. One team that did better, did us proud, was the Toronto Blue Jays: for the first time ever, at the major league level, world champions.

I must remind, with respect, the member for Downsview that the city of Toronto has not yet requested the kind of road signage that the member for Downsview is asking for. The Ministry of Transportation will be meeting with city officials, and it's a good opportunity to discuss this matter. Until that time, obviously I will not -- I cannot -- commit myself to any signage to a facility, a club, an organization and, unfortunately, not even the Blue Jays, but maybe in the future.

Interjections.

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

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): If I could have her attention, my question is the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview on a point of order?

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, wouldn't I be entitled to a supplementary question?

The Speaker: In the interest of balance, the member will recall that at the beginning of question period we lost a considerable amount of time, not your fault or the fault of the opposition. I would draw the member's attention to the standing order that speaks of urgent public importance.

I listened carefully to his question. It would seem that it did not require a supplementary. Instead, I am recognizing the member for Quinte with a question, but no supplementary. The member for Quinte would please place his question.

Mr O'Neil: Actually, Mr Speaker, I had a supplementary too. I'll try to work it into one question.

The Speaker: A point of order?

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, I listened closely to your explanation and I can't in any way, shape or form see how you could anticipate what my supplementary question would be. In being able to rule or advise me that my supplementary question is not required, I find that rather awkward.

Mr Speaker, the past several days -- and this is further on a point of principle, a point which I should have raised earlier today. You will note, if you check today's Hansard, by way of a point of principle now, that yesterday as the House was adjourning, the member for Scarborough North asked that the House retire early. The Speaker in the chair at that moment ruled and asked for unanimous consent.

After having checked Hansard today -- and I note that I objected vehemently to giving unanimous consent -- at that time, my objection to adjourning the House was completely neglected and in fact is not even recorded in Hansard today. So I'd like to get that objection on the record, and in light of that --

The Speaker: The member for Downsview, just --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just relax.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The last thing that members want is complete disorder in here. The member for Quinte will have his question. The member for Downsview is obviously exercised about this. He feels that his supplementary is of urgent public importance. I ask the member to succinctly place his question and trust that it will be of urgent public importance.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, you will know that everything we do is of urgent public importance.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Perruzza: My supplementary question to the minister is, will he engage the mayors in the city of Toronto as quickly as possible and apprise them of the fact that our ambassadors abroad, people who sell this city and sell the people of this city and this province and advertise us abroad -- will the minister get in touch with the mayors to ensure that the people who are ambassadors abroad are properly recognized as such?

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I share in your dilemma, for I too find the question to be important and certainly issue-related and therefore relevant.

We will be meeting this month. These are the people from the Ministry of Transportation. They will be meeting with the municipality of Toronto and with the municipalities that form the greater Toronto area, and the opportunity will be at this meeting to prepare a program that will highlight the successes and hence the possibility of telling the world, in fact, that the Toronto Blue Jays were indeed the 1992 world champion.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect, I think it would be easier on members in this chamber if there was some consistency in your rulings.

Earlier today, you denied fundamental democratic and parliamentary rights to my colleague the member from Etobicoke West. Yesterday, you wouldn't allow a supplementary to my question, even though the time for question period had just expired a second before I was to get up and give my supplementary. Today, you allow a supplementary and a point of order and a point of privilege and I guess a point of principle from the member from Downsview which I think was of dubious public importance.

You would not hear the point of privilege by my colleague from Etobicoke West. You deny my supplementary. Now you're letting the Liberal Party have a supplementary well after the time, several minutes after the expiry of the normal time for question period.

I'd simply ask you to check your drinking water, Mr Speaker. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in your rulings.

The Speaker: To the member for Simcoe West, I certainly appreciate that all members who are on the question period list wish an opportunity to ask their questions. He will note that at the beginning of question period some seven minutes elapsed while certain members in the chamber did not allow the Leader of the Opposition to place a question. I said at the time I would attempt, in an effort to provide balance, an opportunity to recoup some of that time. It was not possible to recoup all of the seven minutes, by no means.

The member for Downsview was concerned that he had asked a question and before the time had expired he was not going to be allowed a supplementary, so therefore I allowed a brief supplementary. I have told the member for Quinte he can place a question but no supplementary, in order to try and provide some balance.

Quite frankly, had there been order and decorum in this chamber at the beginning of oral questions, it would not have been necessary for the Speaker to try to find a way to provide balance so that all sides have an equal opportunity. Such was not the case today. Hopefully, the situation will improve for tomorrow's oral questions.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm going to tell you I don't do this lightly, but I take great exception to the remarks that you just made. If this party and this government and this government House leader would have some respect, one ounce of respect, for 126 years of tradition in this country and this province, we wouldn't be in the mess, and I can tell you tomorrow will be worse than today unless he smartens up. Enough said. It's a bunch of bullshit.

The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound, I understand his concerns and that's why twice earlier today I offered to try to be of assistance with the three House leaders so that we can have a more constructive atmosphere in this chamber. I understand his point full well.

The member for Quinte.

Mr O'Neil: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and, hopefully, I'm that balance.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a question for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation in her capacity of handling the tourism business in the province of Ontario. Minister, on May 19, the NDP budget dealt a devastating blow to tourist operators and small businesses already reeling from the recession. By bringing down the biggest tax grab in Ontario's history, the NDP budget's $2-billion tax grab hurts tourism, hurts small business and kills jobs.

Interjection.

Mr O'Neil: Mr Speaker, if the Treasurer would keep quiet, I'd finish my question.

Tourism has been, and I stress "has been," Ontario's fourth-largest export industry, generating more than $16.9 billion in revenues for provincial coffers, and it is the province's biggest service sector employer. Yet it has lost more than 62,000 jobs in the last three years and in 1992 bankruptcies in the Ontario tourism industry increased by 39%.

Minister, Ontario's tourist operators -- and I believe you know this -- and the small businesses throughout the province were looking to this budget for a sign of hope. This budget gave them no hope. How do you propose to assist these small business people and especially those people in the tourism business, and how do you propose to assist them right now?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'm happy to inform the member from Quinte that I had a meeting with the executive of Tourism Ontario yesterday, and I believe that at the conclusion of the meeting they were left with a much stronger feeling of the kind of hope that in fact I have with this budget, that in fact it does mean good news to the tourism industry.

I want to share with the member from Quinte two clarifications I was able to give to the members of the executive of Tourism Ontario. First, in terms of the visitors' rebate program, it will continue with regard to the purchase of goods where a single receipt shows the purchase of over $625 on that one receipt. Also, in terms of the reduction of the entertainment tax deduction, that applies only to incorporated businesses, which means that effectively for small business that is still very good news and therefore good news in the tourism industry.

Further to that, in terms of the positive aspects, I was able to share with them the fact that the elimination of the commercial concentration tax means $13.5 million, effectively as a tourism program, injected not only into the Metro economy, because of what that means to hotels and restaurants, but because Metro is a gateway for tourism to the province, it also means effectively a $13.5-million tourism program to inject into the tourism industry in th