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

May 17, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

JEAN LITTLE

LEGISLATIVE AWARDS

CHILD SAFETY

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

ROOMING HOUSES

FRUIT GROWERS

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CORRECTION

FLUOROCARBONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

HEALTH CARE

TAX INCREASES

GAMBLING

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

HEALTH CARE

CLEANUP OF INDUSTRIAL SITE

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

DAY CARE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

GRAVENHURST OPERA HOUSE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

BICYCLING SAFETY

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

PROVINCIAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CONSULTATION POPULAIRE À L'ÉCHELLE PROVINCIALE

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE PLAN D'INVESTISSEMENT

CHRONIC CARE PATIENTS' TELEVISION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSTALLATION DE TÉLÉVISEURS APPARTENANT À DES MALADES CHRONIQUES

VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES VICTIMES

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

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Undeniably, unemployment is a problem across the province. Just as secure employment is a challenge for permanent workers, opportunities are as scarce for summer students. I am pleased to report, however, that the community I represent recently pulled together for a celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Canada Employment Centre for Students.

Area businesses not only encouraged the hiring of summer students but also contributed to the 25th anniversary celebrations. They include: Wilma's Kitchen, Herb's Deli, Mister C's, Maynards Independent Grocer, Mexicali Rosa, Pepsi-Cola Bottling, Coca-Cola, Rosemarie McAlear, and Jim and Pat Brunt.

I know that the supervisor, Carolyn Sayyeau, and the entire Canada Employment Centre for Students will be working hard throughout the summer to find as many jobs as possible for the students.

Together we can invest in our future by giving our youth the hope, jobs and education they need.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Recently, the Lanark County Mutual Aid Association provided a ceremony acknowledging the efforts of firefighters in Lanark county. The fire marshal of Ontario and the regional manager were present to recognize 12 retiring firefighters with service amounting to 355 man-years.

At the same time, 18 new volunteer firefighters were accredited for having completed the 100-hour volunteer course. This course, offered for the first time in Smiths Falls, provided 1,800 man-hours of training for volunteers who will use these skills for the benefit of all and to help train their colleagues.

I would like to recognize the tremendous contribution volunteers make in Lanark county. The average county in Ontario depends upon volunteer firefighters for 72% of their firefighting services. In Lanark county, 96% of our firefighters are volunteers. Out of the 13 fire departments in Lanark county, 11 are entirely dependent upon the contributions of volunteers.

Each of these individuals should be duly recognized for their dedication to the community. It is this spirit of volunteerism that binds the community together. Lanark county's new volunteer firefighters warrant special consideration, for in their service to the community they often face many dangers as they try to save the lives of others.

JEAN LITTLE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Today I'd like to join the people of Guelph in congratulating children's author Jean Little. Jean is a long-time Guelph resident who was recently admitted to the Order of Canada.

In her 30 years of writing, Jean has published 20 books and has six more in progress. She has won several literary awards. Her popular novel Mama's Going to Buy You a Mockingbird was adapted for television.

In Guelph, Jean has personally brought hours of listening pleasure to many children, visiting libraries and schools with her guide dog, Ritz.

Jean is a strong defender of meaningful literature for all children. In the 1960s when Jean was working with children with cerebral palsy, she saw a need for stories that dealt in a realistic way with the issues facing physically challenged children. Five of her books feature children with special needs.

Jean has modestly said that this award is a recognition of the new-found status of Canadian children's literature, but those who know her work credit her with being one of the pioneers in this field. Her first books were published in the 1960s when there were no Canadian children's book editors or publishers.

Along with everyone in this Legislature, I'd like to congratulate Jean Little.

LEGISLATIVE AWARDS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Speaker, I am sure you, like many others throughout our province, have been watching the hockey playoffs.

Debates rage as to who will be the award recipients for the past season and for these playoffs. Although we in this Legislature continue to debate the issues of the day, we cannot help but gaze skyward, wondering who is going to win the Ontario Legislature awards.

I am in receipt of a confidential memo which identifies the award recipients and I feel duty-bound, as a member of the Legislature, to make publicly known information heretofore only privately held.

The Don Cherry award for understatement in the face of fact goes to the Minister of Finance, Floyd Laughren, for his predictions on the 1992 Ontario deficit.

The Don Cherry award for overstatement in the face of fact goes to the Minister of Finance, Floyd Laughren, for his prediction on the 1993 Ontario deficit.

The Don Cherry award for straight fact goes to -- no one in the Ontario government qualified.

The Chicago Black Hawks award, which recognizes the group effort in placing first and then being knocked out in the first round, goes to the NDP caucus.

Finally, the John Ziegler award, the award which recognizes the non-attendance of an individual holding the highest office in an organization, goes to the Premier, Bob Rae, in recognition of his many days of absence in this Legislature.

Congratulations to all.

CHILD SAFETY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): The second annual Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign commemorating National Missing Children's Day will be May 25.

Green is the symbol of the Child Find organization and is the colour of hope. It epitomizes their quest for the safe return of all missing children.

Child Find Ontario is a member of Child Find Canada, a registered non-profit charitable organization established in 1983 to educate the public, and particularly children and their guardians, on the topic of abduction prevention and to assist in the search process for missing children.

Each year in Canada, police receive reports on thousands of missing children who are classified as runaways or the victims of parental or stranger abductions. The Green Ribbon campaign is designed to draw the public's attention to the issue of missing children in Canada.

The loss of a child affects not just the family and friends but the entire community. A missing child is everyone's responsibility.

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Mr Speaker, you'll remember that last Wednesday evening a group of members of this Legislature and representatives of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind met in the legislative dining room in order to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Better known, I guess, as the CNIB, it was founded by Lieutenant Colonel Edwin A. Baker, and he lived from 1893-1968. What I didn't know until I went to that meeting was that Lieutenant Colonel Baker was born in my constituency. He was born at Parrotts Bay in Ernestown township just west of Kingston.

It was very interesting to me to find out about him and to know that he had been wounded in the First World War and because of damage to his eyes could no longer see. He along with six other individuals founded the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

I want to say too that Mr Baker was an outstanding individual and that all those people who represent the CNIB certainly deserve a great round of applause and certainly a great recognition for what they've done. But as an aside, I'd like you to know too that he had a son named Phil Baker who is presently a judge in Kingston, and a little bit of trivia that not many people know is that Rob Baker is a member of the group from Kingston that is becoming quite well known, known as The Tragically Hip.

ROOMING HOUSES

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): On December 23, 1989, 10 people died in the Rupert Hotel fire, one of the worst blazes in Toronto's history. Tomorrow in my riding at 11 am a plaque will be unveiled at the corner of Queen and Parliament streets to commemorate the victims of this disaster. In attendance will be Bob Keele from the Rupert House Coalition, Dale Parsad and other former residents.

As you know, the Rupert House Coalition brought together 35 legal, church and service groups. The ceremony will also be attended by tenants of many neighbouring rooming houses.

It has been nearly a year since the government released the Lightman report on unregulated rooming houses. Let us not forget that nearly 50,000 people in this province use these facilities for housing, which is a substantial number of people and represents a community the size of Barrie, my home town.

The residents of these facilities are relying on this government for reforms in this area, and people in my riding are concerned about rumours that the Minister of Housing in her submissions to cabinet is diluting those recommendations. I would call on the minister, since the minister is scheduled to be in attendance at tomorrow's unveiling, to do the right thing and announce the changes that the government will be making to better the lot of the residents in rooming and lodging houses.

FRUIT GROWERS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): As the Minister of Agriculture and Food will know, most apple growers have been paying into a tripartite insurance plan for the past 10 years along with federal and provincial governments. Because of national averaging, there have been no payouts in Ontario for the last four years even though our producers have suffered from low prices, drought and frost injury to their crops.

The returns in 1991 were certainly low enough to trigger a payment. In 1992, returns are estimated to be 30% less than those in 1991 because of miserable weather which produced fruit with a reduced sugar content and record low prices.

This province's apple growers are suffering badly. Many have had to borrow simply to pay into an insurance scheme which offers no support. Because they have not received as much from this plan in the past as producers in other provinces, they feel there should be a surplus in Ontario's portion, and they would like to receive it. They maintain that a national tripartite scheme has hurt them. They feel that a regional scheme would be of far more benefit and would not drain Ontario's budget.

Our apple industry has a proud tradition and an excellent reputation. In my view, it deserves to survive, but it will die if we do not do something immediately to assist it. The apple growers are asking for nothing more than fairness. I urge the minister to listen to their request and to move quickly to establish a regional plan to help those struggling farmers.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On the weekend, I had the opportunity to renew some old thoughts and old feelings that were there, and one of the old thoughts and old feelings was around free trade. About six busloads of Chathamites and Kent countyites joined the buses, everyone from the small business community to farmers to auto sector workers and workers of all sectors, as we entered the buses and travelled our way to Ottawa in a deal that was called the North American free trade agreement, which we were protesting.

One thing about my community is that it has understood what the free trade agreement has done to it and what NAFTA will do to it in the future economic policies of the Tory government. As we entered the buses and took our trip down the 401, we were met by a number of colleagues throughout Canada, everywhere from Vancouver to Newfoundland and all around Ontario. Almost 100,000 people joined the front in Ottawa to protest NAFTA. We were joined by a number of our colleagues. I know the Minister of Housing was there, as we met on the streets. It was a pleasure.

It brought back a lot of memories, memories of what we told people the effects of free trade would be and how devastating it would be to our communities. But one thing we did notice, as I looked around the front lines, is that there were more and more people. More and more people have understood the effects of free trade and will understand the effects of NAFTA.

One of the important parts was that my international colleagues were there, because one thing the northern United States is doing is using Ontario as an example of what NAFTA will do to its communities. It's important for us to kill the Tory policies and to kill NAFTA.

CORRECTION

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the statement that I just gave recently, I erroneously said that it was the 100th anniversary of the CNIB. Indeed, it's the 75th anniversary of the CNIB, the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lieutenant Colonel Baker.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FLUOROCARBONS

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): On Earth Day, April 22, we heard that the ozone levels over the northern hemisphere were at their lowest in 14 years. In the upper atmosphere, ozone acts as a shield that protects all forms of life on earth from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation.

Even today, as a matter of interest, the ozone level in Toronto is 6.9 on an overcast, rainy day like this. Most people will know that 7.5 is considered dangerous.

But because of the release of synthetic chemicals, commonly known as fluorocarbons, the ozone layer is shrinking. Ontario is taking the lead in Canada to reduce ozone-depleting substances. Today I'm introducing a draft regulation to prevent the release of fluorocarbon refrigerants. These include chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons, used in refrigerators, freezers and air-conditioning systems.

Under this regulation, venting of refrigerant CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs will be prohibited. As of January 1, 1994, only certified persons will be allowed to handle, service and repair refrigeration equipment containing fluorocarbon refrigerants. All equipment to be dismantled, destroyed or disposed of will have to drained of CFCs and tagged accordingly. As of December 31, 1995, new model cars will no longer be fitted with air-conditioning units that contain CFCs and HCFCs.

This regulation is the most comprehensive for refrigerants in Canada. It was developed following consultation with industry, labour and environmental groups. Ontario is the only province regulating CFCs together with HCFCs and HFCs.

In the coming 30 days, we invite public comments on the draft regulation. We're working with potential partners to provide an ozone depletion awareness training and certification program for people who service equipment that contains fluorocarbon refrigerants.

While the fridge in your kitchen or mine may not release a huge amount of CFCs, the cumulative effect of millions of fridges, not to mention the millions of home and car air-conditioning systems, has an enormous destructive potential to the ozone layer.

We all must bear the responsibility to properly maintain this equipment and to ensure that fluorocarbon refrigerants are not released. The small cost to consumers will bring a tremendous savings to human health and to the planet.

Protecting the environment can bring in economic benefits as well. With Ontario's technological knowhow, we are in a position to develop innovative processes that will not only deal with CFCs but also create jobs and stimulate the growth of our green industries.

These industries are the province's fastest-growing economic sector. Helping to build and maintain Ontario's leadership in this field is part of the government's 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work. I look forward to continued cooperative efforts as we work together to address one of the most serious environmental issues we face: the depletion of the ozone layer.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): In response to the statement, I want to begin by indicating to the Legislature that in October of last year, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment issued a report outlining the national action plan for recovery, recycling and reclamation of ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs. The plan committed provincial governments to acting on CFC recycling and recovery initiatives by the end of 1992. Here we are in 1993, with nothing announced today except further consultation. I think many would say that the announcement today could be characterized as too little and too late.

It is interesting to note that a press release was issued by the internationally renowned group Friends of the Earth which grades the effort of the Ontario government in addressing this important environmental issue. I think we should take a moment to take a look at where our province stands with respect to this group. Are we ranking high or in the middle?

I happen to have a copy of that report. An A-minus was given to Manitoba, a B-plus to British Columbia, a B to Saskatchewan, a B-minus to Nova Scotia -- this is not being done alphabetically -- a C-plus to New Brunswick and a D to Ontario. The province of Ontario ranked lowest of any province in this country with legislation.

The report notes that Ontario has not acted upon the conditions of the national action plan. It notes that the regulations that do exist are inadequate, incomplete, and have failed to be enforced. This record is even more deplorable considering that the province of Ontario releases the majority of Canadian ozone-depleting substances, accounting for approximately 60% of the national total.

The government promised to implement an immediate ban on CFCs in flexible furniture foam and rigid foam insulation, with a complete ban by 1995 of all ozone-destroying CFCs, methylchloroform, halons and carbon tetrachloride. This announcement today contains no announcement, no action on your promise.

I believe the minister should have stood in his place today and indicate to the Legislature whether -- strange as it may be -- they have changed their position on promises previously made. Are they going to be implemented? If so, when and how?

With respect to the halon issue, you claim in your press release today that with this action, 90% of the sources of ozone-depleting substances will be controlled. I disagree with that percentage. The release of halons, which are used in fire extinguishers, among other places, accounts for up to 40% of the total source of ozone-depleting substances in the province. The regulation, the consultation around regulation, the discussion around consultation dealing with regulation, that has been announced today does not address the use and release of this environmentally dangerous substance.

Ozone depletion is a serious environmental problem for Ontarians. This announcement of further consultation is wanting in the extreme. But if this government is slow off the mark in this area, then what about ground-level ozone?

I have a press release from Pollution Probe, and the date is today. It states that Ontarians experience the worst summer smog problems in the country and everyone is asking the Minister of Environment to clear the air. Ground-level ozone is the principal component in urban smog. It is also the pollutant which most frequently exceeds Health and Welfare Canada's acceptable levels at Ontario air-monitoring stations. A survey of Ontario hospital records has shown increased admissions for respiratory problems on days with polluted air. People are pointing out that British Columbia is actively fighting smog. Ontario is still without targets, time lines or an action plan for clearing the air.

In the absence of real control actions, the government's smog alert program will merely tell Ontarians when they should hold their breath: "Don't inhale." People are asking the Ontario government to commit to clear time lines, put some teeth into policy, tighten regulations, establish new programs, hold talks on initiatives to prevent the forming of smog.

Minister, get on with the job full-time of protecting our environment.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Responses, third party.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to comment on the Minister of the Environment's announcement today.

I think all of us congratulate the minister in taking the actions he has. I think we've been waiting for it for some time. There's been more and more concern about skin cancer and the danger from the sun, and every day we hear of the fear for the ozone layer.

To be critical, obviously we have to refer to the little chart that the Liberal critic read to you. It is a little late. Manitoba presented legislation back in 1992; British Columbia, if only in February of this year; Saskatchewan, January 1991; Nova Scotia, February 1991; New Brunswick, September 1992. So it is a little late bringing this forward, particularly with the serious concerns we have. For the first time, this year there are going to be gauges telling us about the dangers of being out in the sun too long for our children, which you mentioned in your press conference this morning. So this is something that's been coming up and up. Why have you taken this long to do that?

There are other issues you haven't dealt with: the issue of acid rain. That is another topic that has been going on for a great number of years, and you've failed to deal with that.

One of the concerns I have is that this government has spent all of its time on the landfill issue. It isn't looking at other issues. Although Bill 8 was introduced several weeks ago, although it didn't give all of the answers, it did introduce recycling issues.

The other subject, of course, has to do with the landfill sites. We're concerned about our water in this province, and the government continues with its policies destroying the water in this province, destroying the agricultural lands in this province, by putting superdumps on these area.

I will be very brief in simply saying that I congratulate the minister in putting forward this paper at this time. It's a little late, and I think he's going to have to spend a little bit more time making it quite clear as to how it's going to be paid for. Certainly it's something that needs to be done, but the cost of it is going to be high. Once again, this province isn't going to pay for it; you're going to put it on the backs of private enterprise. I think that's something your government's going to have to have a long look at.

I encourage you to do more. I encourage you to do more in saving the water of this province. I encourage you to do more in solving the acid rain of this province.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Why has it taken so long? Does it take a crisis, to reach the state that it has now in the province of Ontario, to finally have the Ministry of Environment and Energy wake up and realize that it may almost be too late now? There isn't a parent who isn't concerned about the welfare of his or her children, or should we stop and think about the consequences of going outside and being exposed to the sun's rays without the ozone layer to protect us.

Here you are now, pontificating as if you're finally doing it all. It's only the beginning. You haven't done anything about the acid rain abatement. You haven't even looked at the air, you're so busy working with the IWA and landfill and wrecking York, Durham and Peel. You haven't done a thing for us yet.

So talk is cheap. Let's come along a year from now and see what you've done. It's probably not very much. You're good at the talk, Minister, but you're not good at the action. We're sick of talk, talk, talk. Make it happen.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It leads one to think that what this government and this minister spoke of in opposition was either simply hot air or they weren't really interested in what they were saying. The suggestion in opposition was that these problems could be solved very simply, very quickly, with legislation introduced in this House by previous administrations.

It's astounding that it's taken nearly three years, a few months short of three years, to bring this kind of announcement to this House. It shows that, ideally, this government either couldn't implement what it said was so simple in opposition, or it simply wasn't interested.

I would say too that this ministry has been so bogged down in this internal project to find a landfill site in the Metropolitan Toronto area that practically all important issues on the environment have been put on the back burner.

Hon Mr Wildman: Oh, don't be silly.

Mr Stockwell: They're saying, "Don't be silly," but it's three years, Mr Minister. You know, you sat there barking at every critic who stood up and commented on this announcement; three years for something you suggested was so simple and legislation could be written, when you were in opposition. Clearly, either you're not committed or what you were saying on this side of the House simply wasn't doable. My prediction is, what you said on this side of the House wasn't doable and you're learning every day when you're the government that it's not quite as simple as you suggested it was.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We will all remember that when this government was elected to office, it promised a new spirit of partnership with the municipalities. The municipalities are now learning that the partnership has been thrown out the window and replaced with an atmosphere of chaos management and complete distrust.

When the government first announced its expenditure control plan, it sort of led municipalities to believe that the cuts would only be in the range of about 2%. We knew, of course, and said so, that the cuts to unconditional grants were actually more in the order of 11%. Last week the government confirmed the municipalities' fears. It admitted that the cuts could be up to 12.9% of unconditional transfers for many municipalities.

But in announcing this double-digit reduction, the government also promised that smaller municipalities in rural and northern Ontario would be protected. We can't understand why, if this was the plan, a small rural municipality like Wallace township, for example, with a population of less than 3,000 residents, is facing a full 12.9% reduction in its grants.

I would ask the Premier, why would your government say that it promises to protect small municipalities if that's not what's happening? Is this in fact not just one more example of the complete lack of planning and the complete chaos that your government's last-minute expenditure control plans have created, and, I ask, how you can expect municipalities across this province to continue to cope with this kind of chaos management?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would say, with respect, to the honourable member that I'm sure she can bring forward whatever examples she chooses. I would simply say to her that there is a cap on the impact of the reductions. It's a 3% cap as a percentage of municipal operating revenues.

The formula that has been put forward by the ministry is intended to deal as fairly as possible with a circumstance in which it is simply quite necessary for this province to include our social partners in the realities of the day. For a period of time now, we've been transferring subsidies to the municipalities, and the province was borrowing in order to effect those transfers.

I would say to the honourable member, if she thinks it is sound, fair or reasonable for us as a province to continue to borrow to transfer subsidies to municipalities and to others that are simply going to have to be paid for by future generations, I think that's pretty unsound. We're carrying forward on a basis that we think is fair and reasonable, and there is a cap in terms of the impact on any groups affected.

Mrs McLeod: It seems to me that the Premier had a rather descriptive term for the federal government when it engaged in a similar kind of downloading. "Absconding debtor" is the phrase that comes to the minds of most of my colleagues around.

The Premier will know well the caps on operating budgets of the municipalities don't stop the constant downloading of costs to the municipal level that this government is currently engaged in, and we can see no rhyme and no reason in the kinds of figures that the government has presented to try to manage that expenditure control plan. In fact we can't understand why the Premier has refused to meet with the municipalities to even discuss their concerns with them.

The Premier has talked over the last weeks about the importance of the disentanglement talks as an example of how the municipalities and the province can work together. He will know that last week the Association of Municipalities of Ontario turned down the disentanglement proposals because they say that this government's chaos management approach to offloading costs has eroded the principle of any supposed partnership.

The municipalities are concerned that the disentanglement process is going to be just one more step in the offloading of costs to the municipal level of government. The disentanglement talks failed, Premier, because of the atmosphere of distrust and chaos which your government has created, and I ask you now, what are your next steps?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member was a member of a government at a time when its revenues were increasing in double-digit numbers, double-digit increase in revenues to the cabinet of which she was a member, and it froze its transfers to the municipalities. We're dealing with a situation where, in real terms, our revenues have been falling in this province for the last three years and where we've made a very real decision to say to the municipalities, "We have to inject an element of reality into the fiscal relationships that exist between us."

I am disappointed, obviously, by the decision of the AMO executive with respect to disentanglement. All I can say to them and say to the honourable member is, this government intends to proceed with social assistance reform; we intend to proceed with a fairer system as it relates to the taxpayers of the province. Of course, we'd much prefer to do it on a cooperative basis with the municipalities, but the reality of social assistance and reform and the need to make those reforms is very, very clear.

We must proceed on those reforms. The people and the taxpayers of the province are interested in that, and I think they're also interested in getting on with things and not simply pointing fingers from one level of government to another.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Frame that quote.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You haven't lost your sense of humour.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Final supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, words are taken away when the Premier uses that particular rebuttal. I do want to suggest to the Premier, though, that in the past municipalities might have looked for at least clear and consistent budget statements and not constant changes in the middle of their year, when they've already levied the taxes, when they've already set their budgets, and that's why the municipalities are particularly concerned. They're concerned when what is an 11% cut is somehow presented as something that won't really affect their budgets, won't really affect their taxes.

I say to the Premier, the expenditure control plan is creating chaos, the disentanglement talks have broken down and you are still looking for $2 billion in savings to be achieved in social contract talks that are going nowhere.

I take you back to these same municipalities, Premier. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario insists that it cannot and it will not take

part in the social contract talks. The municipal association insists that, like other provincial employer and employee organizations, it simply cannot speak for the hundreds of municipalities in this province. The municipalities understand what your government seems to fail to learn, and that is that your attempt to negotiate over 9,000 individual collective agreements at one table has no hope of being successful.

Will you not listen to what the municipalities are so clearly telling you? Will you not take the responsible act of sitting down and negotiating with your own provincial employees and let the municipalities negotiate their own restraint measures with their own local unions?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member, if she's now saying that she's encouraging the municipalities to stay away from the talks or she supports the municipalities in staying away from the talks, I'm very surprised that would now be the position of the Liberal Party. I would have thought that the position of the Liberal Party would be, better to have serious discussions and negotiations with all the partners at the table, all sharing the same information, than for her to be saying, "No, we support the municipalities."

I support the hospital association, which said last week that it felt the government's proposals were the beginning of a serious dialogue. That's exactly what we're trying to establish. I would say to the honourable member, obviously, we believe that it's important for us, in order to effect the kinds of savings that have to be effected this year, it's crucial for us to have the partners at the table.

I would have thought the municipal governments would benefit from that participation rather than from being absent. Obviously, it's a judgement for them to make, but I can't see that being away is in their interests. To me it makes less sense than the alternative.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My second question is to the Minister of Health. In the last few days the government has put before the talks a detailed set of expenditure control proposals affecting medicare and health and hospital services in the province. I have a copy of that document in my hand and I'm sure the minister, though she has not presented it to the House, is quite familiar with it.

My first question to the Minister of Health is concerning this expenditure control plan that targets medical and hospital services and expects to save over a quarter of a billion dollars this year. Among the proposals -- and there are very many interesting proposals in this document, but let me start with one of the proposals -- you plan, as a government, to propose the elimination of the right of medical residents to bill the Ontario health insurance plan. There is no question that should you achieve that end, this change potentially will have a very significant effect on rural and small hospitals right across the province.

Madam Minister, can you indicate to all of us who represent rural communities like I do in Renfrew, like the Minister of Transportation does in northwestern Ontario, what alternative you are going to be able to offer the residents of communities like Barry's Bay and Manitouwadge since you plan to eliminate the right of medical residents to directly bill the Ontario health insurance plan?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The objectives of the expenditure reductions as well as the issues that we're discussing with the Ontario Medical Association are to contain the costs and the rapid expansion of OHIP expenditures that have gone uncontrolled for many years as well as to provide a more equitable service throughout the province and in all regions of the province, particularly in the rural areas. We certainly look forward to discussing with the OMA ways in which that objective can finally be achieved.

Mr Conway: We all understand what the objective is, and the Minister of Finance tabled now almost a month ago a specific program that indicated that, on the payment to physicians this year, you plan to reduce that payment by $275 million. I understand that.

You have now put before your partners a very specific, very interesting detailed set of proposals as to how you're going to achieve that this year. It's your plan. I am asking you on behalf of my rural constituents -- they want to know -- how you are going to, in rural communities, replace the right of medical residents to bill the plan, which replacement I understand.

If you're going to take that away, how are you going to provide an alternative that is going to maintain a level of good care in all of these small rural hospitals across eastern, central, western and particularly northern Ontario? We know what you want to do. How are you going to do it?

Hon Mrs Grier: We intend and we have very fortunately in this province a mechanism to discuss with the Ontario Medical Association, which represents the physicians of this province, how in fact we can best accomplish what we are totally committed to, which is a containment of the costs of OHIP billings. We are more than happy and in fact intend to discuss with the OMA the details of how those reductions will be accomplished.

Mr Conway: I just have to say, as a final supplementary, this is your proposal that is to fit into this budgetary policy. This is on the table. I would tell my honourable friends across the House, if you haven't seen this, you'll want to read it, because this is dealing with the integrity of medicare and this is going to --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Oh no, it isn't.

Mr Conway: I tell you, this is full of very interesting proposals, having to do with a whole range of very important health services. It's your plan; it's not my plan. You've put this on the table and you have said this mechanism is going to achieve a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of savings in this year, a fiscal year which began seven weeks ago.

I understand what your objectives are. I want to know, but more importantly, my rural constituents in places like Deep River and Barry's Bay served by community rural hospitals want to know how you're going to provide the alternatives to ensure that those practitioners who are not going to be allowed to access the plan through traditional means -- fee for service -- can provide health and medical services to people who rightly expect them.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member is correct. There are a number of proposals that have been put forward by this ministry, proposals that we wish to discuss in their detail and in their implementation. What is clear is that we have to reduce the amount of money that is currently expended for OHIP and we have to contain the costs of our health care system. But what is not up for discussion is the commitment of this government to medicare, the commitment to protect and to preserve medicare and the commitment to access and equitable health care services in communities large and small around this province.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, this morning's Toronto Star reports, "Rae says he has no option but to raise taxes to help reduce the deficit." Premier, you and I know that you have many other options, so I don't know why you continue to try to fool the public by saying that you have no option.

This past weekend, you and I were both in Thunder Bay. The message that the chamber of commerce gave was quite clear to all three leaders -- we were all there in Thunder Bay this weekend -- and that was that if you expect them, the private sector, to create even one new job this year, if you expect that, there must be no new taxes in this budget you're bringing in. That's what I've been telling you and the Liberals for the last four years. That's what economists and investors have been telling you ever since you won the election.

I would ask you this, Premier: Given that you hiked taxes in your first budget and you hiked taxes in your second budget, and both of those two budgets for job creation in the private sector were absolute disasters, and given as well, Premier, according to you, even after you hiked taxes in both budgets, you got less overall revenue -- you said your revenues are going down -- what is it that makes you think that in this budget, hiking taxes will either give you more money or will create one single job?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Let's just say that the member and I have a difference of opinion. I think to talk about Canada being able to deal with a $600-billion problem without looking at revenues is, frankly, completely unrealistic.

I'm talking about Ontario as well. With respect to our own jurisdiction, I would say to him very clearly that the emphasis of the budget on Wednesday is going to be jobs. The thrust of what we've been doing has been jobs.

Let me say directly to the honourable member, the honourable member talks about the impact of last year's budget on jobs. The fact of the matter is -- the Treasurer will be able to show this very clearly in his budget on Wednesday -- that there are more people working in Ontario today than there were at the time of the last budget. Employment has increased, job creation has increased, and this pattern is one which we want to encourage, having a realistic talking out of the same side of one mouth at the same time.

I'm not going to go into the business community and say, "Yes, we have a deficit problem, but there's no way that you're going to be able to contribute to it on the revenue side." I think that's unrealistic. I think it's equally unrealistic to go to public sector unions and say, "Yes, we have a deficit problem, but you're not going to have to make a contribution to deal with it."

The message from this government is quite consistent. In order to create jobs on the investment side, in order to encourage the creation of new jobs, we have to have a realistic approach to public finances.

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

Hon Mr Rae: That requires a contribution from everyone in our society who has the ability to contribute, and that's the philosophy and the position of the New Democratic Party government of Ontario.

Mr Harris: The Premier continues to say that that's his philosophy. The Liberals said the same thing. Hike taxes; that's their philosophy. You continue to say everybody must share the burden of deficit reduction. Premier, for the last eight years, Liberal and NDP governments have asked the taxpayers all by themselves 55 times to share deficit reduction to the tune of $8 billion in new taxes. They're the only ones who were asked, for eight years in a row, 55 times.

I say to you, and the business community, taxpayers, union members, everybody is saying to you, "It's now time for the government to play a little catch-up," because for those same eight years government kept spending and spending. In the last eight years it's been taxpayers all alone 55 times. Now what we're simply saying to you is, you've got eight years and 55 cuts of catch-up before you go back to the taxpayers for one more cent.

I would ask you, given that there are many other options, many alternatives, will you look to those alternatives of government spending instead of going back to the taxpayer for the ninth year in a row?

Hon Bob Rae: I'm obviously not in a position to discuss the budget on Wednesday, but I think if the honourable member is here on that day he will see very clearly, and I think the public will see very clearly, that this government is going to be doing more to deal with the question of expenditure and government spending than any government in the last half-century. That is, I think, a fact which needs to be brought to his attention.

In addition to that, we are also going to the public sector and saying that there has to be some recognition of the extent of the problem, in terms of restructuring the public sector. We're saying as well that in order for us to have a realistic job creation/debt reduction strategy -- and the two go together -- there have to be increased taxes.

I'm not pretending this is the popular thing to do. Sure, it doesn't take a whole lot of guts to go into the chamber of commerce and say, "I promise you no new taxes ever." That's not exactly the charge of the light brigade. I'm saying that when I went to the chamber I said, "We are looking to a real reduction in the level and pace of debt increase in this province; we're looking at a serious attempt to deal with the public sector restructuring."

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

Hon Mr Rae: We're also going to be asking the people out there for a contribution, by way of taxes, on the basis of their ability to do so, which is the foundation, I think, of any fair tax system.

I think this is a sound approach. I think it will lead to the strongest possibility for job creation for the future of this province. We can't do it on another basis.

Mr Harris: Premier, you and treasurers for the last eight years have tried to do it on the basis of 55 tax hikes, to the tune of $8 billion. Each time you did that, you destroyed jobs.

We've outlined for you many options other than hiking taxes. In the Progressive Conservative minority report on the budget this year, for example, we gave you the option not to spend millions to drive the private sector out of day care. We gave you another option which the Canadian Federation of Independent Business gave to you as well. They say it will save you $500 million each year for 30 years if you freeze the expansion of the failed government-owned housing programs started by the Liberals. You have an option to crack down on welfare fraud that the auditor told you of and on health care fraud that has been pointed out to you by the auditor and by our party for the past year.

Premier, even some of the options that we have given you will wipe out completely the need for any tax grab on Wednesday. I would ask you this by way of final supplementary: Given that 55 times you and the Liberals went to the taxpayers over the last eight years, why will you not consider some of the proposals that are given to you by our party, by the CFIB, by citizens all across this province, even by the unions, instead of hiking taxes? Why won't you consider these proposals?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that he's making a number of proposals, some of which I've heard before, some of which I think are extremely reasonable. I think the suggestion, for example, from the Provincial Auditor with respect to the question of fraud, wherever it is to be found, the question of dealing with improving the management of the health care system, are issues that are of great concern to us and issues which we're dealing with directly.

I think you'll find on the management side, on the health care system, this government has done more to control costs -- and the people out there know it full well -- than any other government in the last half-century. I don't expect the honourable member to stand up and say that or admit that it's true, but those are the facts.

I would say to the honourable member, he can, if he likes, persist in his view that it's possible to deal with the extent of the problem that we have in this province or in this country without dealing with the issue of taxation. I don't happen to agree with him, and we continue to have to address that question.

Mr Harris: The Premier is quite right: We have a fundamental disagreement over taxes, he and I.

GAMBLING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier as well, and this, Premier, regards one of your initiatives from last year's budget.

Last year you announced in your budget a 180-degree shift of policy from this government and in fact from your party and from your election campaign. In fact, not once during the 1990 campaign did you mention you had shifted your support for casino gambling. In fact, you were clearly on the record opposing casinos. You said, "The casino plays on greed."

Premier, given your record against casinos, why do you now feel somehow that you have a mandate from the people of this province to bring casino gambling to Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): First of all, let's put this in some perspective.

Gaming of various kinds did not suddenly get introduced into the province of Ontario by the New Democratic Party government. Horse racing has been going on in the province for a very long time. Bingos have been under way in the province for decades. Various kinds of casino gaming of a temporary nature have been in place in the province for a very, very long time, and the lottery, of course, has been in place since the mid-1970s, I assume brought in by the Conservative government, since it was in power somewhere between 1372 and 1985.

So I would say to the honourable member that the fact that the government is proposing --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- an opening of a casino in Windsor, which we are establishing as a pilot project that will give us a chance to assess its impact, its success, if I may say so, in substantial response to a very strongly expressed desire on the part of the people of Windsor as expressed through their city council and other means, I would say to the honourable member, I don't think marks a huge departure for this province. I don't even think it marks a huge departure for the New Democratic government. It was, I remind you --

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- a New Democratic Party government in Manitoba which introduced the casino in the hotel in Winnipeg.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't see it as any huge departure. It's simply a fairly modest response --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please take his seat. Supplementary?

Mr Harris: Premier, there have been many jurisdictions in the United States that have changed their status quo on casino gambling, but only after they held a referendum on legalized gambling: Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, to name a few.

Some of the people there endorsed plans after being given an opportunity to have their say; others turned them down. But at least there the public was given an opportunity to voice their opinion before their government unilaterally imposed a reversal of the status quo.

I would ask you this, Premier: Given your stand on casino gambling, given what you have said in the last election, do you not think it would be fair to ask Ontarians for their opinions, either by an election -- and I don't really expect you're going to give them that opportunity in this particular climate, so I would offer you the other option, which many American city and state jurisdictions have used: by giving them a referendum before implementing this about-face in position and before significantly changing the lifestyle of communities in Ontario?

The Speaker: Could the leader place his question, please.

Mr Harris: Are you prepared to do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the honourable member -- if I can cut to the core of his question, there was one option which I must say didn't leap to my mind as being the first one that I would jump to. But on the other one, I would say to him that, first of all, as a matter of policy, we would never, ever impose a facility of this kind on any community that did not want one. Secondly, I would say to the honourable member that in the event that a city council --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: If I could, Mr Speaker. In the event that a city council -- I'm having difficulty, not getting the words out but getting them heard. In the event that a city council decided, in its wisdom, that it wanted to hold a referendum with respect to a question, that would be entirely up to the city council and there would be no objection from this government at all if that's how a city council chose to respond.

But we've made it very clear that where there is an objection from a city council, we would not be intending to proceed. It's entirely up to a city as to whether or not to encourage that to happen.

Mr Harris: Premier, the first thing that has changed has been provincial policy, the NDP party's position and Bob Rae's position. Some have argued that the party hasn't changed but they've lost control of their leader.

Premier, your minister has kept secret a report done by the Windsor Police Services Board which calls for the need for increased police resources as a result of casino gambling coming to Windsor. There is no doubt that communities in Ontario will significantly change if a casino comes to town. As Donald Trump says, "Gaming doesn't come cheap." I have to agree with a lot of the critics on that. It brings crime, it brings prostitution, it brings a lot of the things that maybe areas didn't have before. There is a big cost to pay.

Surely the Premier would agree with me that it brings a lot of things that bingo doesn't bring. I don't think he's suggesting that bingos and bingo players bring these kind of things that Donald Trump is saying.

Given this, Premier, given that a significant change is going to come to the community of Windsor, given that there's been a significant provincial change, or that you wish to change policy, significantly different from the status quo and different from what you campaigned on, will you hold,l as most other jurisdictions in the United States got the opportunity to do, a referendum on whether Ontario should allow full-blown casino gambling in the province of Ontario, a change from that which you campaigned on? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Rae: As I've indicated to the honourable member, the government has no plans for a province-wide referendum. But certainly if a municipality chose to have one with respect to whether they would ask for one or seek one in a municipality, that's entirely up to a municipality.

You're assuming, if I may say so -- I don't know what Donald Trump was referring to exactly, but I do know that to compare having a single facility in a community like Windsor with situations in some of the American jurisdictions is completely outlandish and bears no relationship to the world of reality.

I would say to him as well that the whole reason for taking the measured approach that we have in terms of having a pilot project, making the assessment of the impact, being able to assess the impact on a case-by-case basis, the whole reason for doing it is to allow us to make the kinds of assessments that need to be made in a practical, pragmatic, reasonable way, rather than reaching the sorts of conclusions the leader of the third party now seems to have arrived at. I would say to him that that's the approach we're taking. I happen to think it's a very reasonable, practical, sensible kind of approach.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, we continue to raise in this House our concerns about this government's lack of commitment to the young people of this province and, most specifically, our concern with the fact that there will be fewer job opportunities for students and young people this summer because of government cutbacks.

I know, Premier, that you and your ministers have consistently denied that this is in fact the case, but today we've learned that another program for young people, the two-year internship program for visible minorities, women and the disabled, has been eliminated.

Premier, it was just five weeks ago that your government advertised this program offering 91 jobs, 91 jobs that would have provided young people with a real opportunity to get the kind of training and experience they need in the workplace, and you had thousands of applicants for those 91 jobs. Five weeks later, they're told the program is cut.

You will remember, Premier, that when we asked this question before, we were told by the Minister of Education and Training, and it was repeated by you in answering another question, that there had been no cuts, no reduction in support for programs for young people. It is clear to us that in fact your spending cuts have resulted in cuts to job programs for young people. Premier, it is time to tell the whole story, and I would ask you to tell us exactly what youth employment programs have been reduced or cut as a result of your expenditure control plan and other spending cuts.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would refer that to the Chairman of Management Board.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The Leader of the Opposition referred in her question to the employment equity internship program, and she's equating that program somehow with the answers that I and the Minister of Education and Training have given here in the House with regard to summer employment programs for students. It is neither a summer employment program nor is it anything other than a program for employment equity internship.

It is a two-year program. The

article in the Toronto Star this morning suggested that the program has been cancelled. It has not been cancelled. The program in fact has been cut in half for two years. All of the second-year participants in the program will continue this year. For this one year, the program will take no first-year applicants, and next spring we'll start accepting first-year applicants again.

Mrs McLeod: The answers just lead to more and more confusion. We understand this program has been cut: There are no applicants being accepted and none of the applications are being processed. This is in fact a program that affects mostly young people, according to the program's director. And we're not confusing it with summer employment programs; we know this is a different program.

We are also concerned about summer employment programs, the same summer employment programs that you tell us have not been cut but which in fact have been cut, the same summer employment programs which you told us were in place now, but as of this morning the agencies tell us it will be weeks before the funds for those programs are confirmed.

We want some straight answers. We don't know what to believe when your government keeps talking day after day about its concern for young people. I would just point to other parts of your record, Minister. In the last budget, this government cut OSAP payments by $10 billion. Students that are accepted into colleges this year, with the letters of acceptance that went out on Saturday, have been accepted conditionally, pending the outcome of the social contract negotiations.

We've just been talking about the medical students, the residents and interns who've completed 10 years of their university education program and are being told that there is no alternative from this government other than to leave this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader place her supplementary, please.

Mrs McLeod: Now we see that five weeks ago ads were placed for the internship program, and the program is cut. I ask you, how can you keep saying to young people that you are concerned about them when every action you take just takes more jobs and more hope away for the young people of this province? Why are young people not on the agenda of your government?

Hon Mr Charlton: Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand what has been going on or what this government has just been through. I think it has been made clear by the Minister of Finance and by the Premier and by others that the government has just been through a very serious expenditure reduction effort. The employment equity internship program is a two-year program which is designed to take in graduates, not students, and to hopefully see that they get placed in the civil service. The civil service is in the process of downsizing. I think that's been a major part of the debate here in the Legislature this spring around the social contract and a number of other issues.

We wanted to ensure that the dollars we spent on youth in this budget were spent in the most effective way that we could. We wanted to ensure that we didn't in fact have to cut and reduce the number of, for example, student jobs that were available through a variety of programs that this government provides this summer. The internship program is a program that we were having difficulty placing those people from, because we're going through a downsizing in the OPS. We tried to make the cuts in the most effective way to have the least impact on young people and to ensure that our summer employment programs this summer provided as many jobs to students as they did last year.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. The government's draconian decision to slash fees paid to new physicians by 75% will effectively lock out 2,500 doctors now in training and 400 physician graduates.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Treasurer listens to the questions from the opposition about as well as he listens to the business community in this province.

My question to the Minister of Health is: Your decision to slash fees paid to new physicians will effectively lock out 2,500 doctors now in training and 400 physician graduates this year in Ontario. Minister, will you table in this House today any needs-based studies -- not doctor-population ratios, but actual patient-needs-based studies done by the government which have led you to declare that there are too many family doctors, paediatricians and psychiatrists practising in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me, before I answer, take issue with the wording in the

preamble to the member's question. He says "our decision to slash fees to new entrants to the profession." I have said, on a number of occasions in this House and elsewhere, that we have made a number of proposals to the Ontario Medical Association, proposals that didn't come to it as any surprise.

On the proposal to have a differential fee for new physicians, the OMA was authorized by its counsel a year ago to discuss with the ministry, precisely because studies of resources that have been done by all provinces and a national agreement that was reached earlier last year indicated that Ontario was one of the few provinces not to have put some restrictions on the amount of billing and the entry of new physicians to the profession.

The discussion, the proposals, are all on the table for negotiation with the Ontario Medical Association, and that is where they will be resolved.

With respect to ratios and numbers, I'm sure the member, as a very effective critic, is well aware that the royal college of physicians and surgeons has standards for number of doctors per patients that are used by both the profession and the ministry to determine where there is a need. What has to happen is to make sure we have the appropriate professionals meeting the needs of areas and of special populations across the entire province.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's very interesting how the minister really fudges her answer to this question. The decision to cut fees paid to new physicians in this province is contained in the government's expenditure control plan, and if we're to believe the expenditure control plan which was put out some weeks ago by the Treasurer, then there's no alternative but to believe that these are actual decisions taken and that they are not part of the social contract talks. The minister always tries to fudge the two.

Minister, you talk about saving money. Leaving aside for the moment the frustration and anger felt by hundreds of medical graduates who have been told that their home province doesn't want them, do you think taxpayers enjoy the fact that they have spent $2 million per doctor on education and training only to have these doctors locked out of practice in Ontario and forced to move south of the border to help subsidize Bill and Hillary Clinton's health care reform?

Hon Mrs Grier: That is a ridiculous suggestion. Let me remind the member that the negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association are quite separate from the social contract and are part of the framework agreement that the ministry or the province has with the OMA, and that one of the other proposals on that negotiating table is a way in which physicians -- and there are almost 2,000 of them -- who have passed the average retirement age of 65 can in fact be encouraged to take a retirement in order that there will be room for the new physicians who, the member is quite right, are anxious to begin practice in Ontario.

He's also right that the taxpayers have funded their education, as the taxpayers have funded the education of architects and engineers and nurses and many other professionals. And the taxpayers are saying, legitimately, "We want to make sure that those new doctors practise in areas where they're really needed" -- in northern Ontario, in parts of Metropolitan Toronto, where there are populations that are suffering because, under the current fee-for-service system, there are not doctors there to meet their needs.

Managing resources within the health care system is a major challenge. It is a challenge that every province is undertaking, and it is a challenge that, together with the profession, we will manage in this province too.

The Speaker: The Minister of Environment and Energy has a response to a question asked earlier.

CLEANUP OF INDUSTRIAL SITE

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The MPP for Mississauga North asked a question last week and I indicated I would get back to him. Unfortunately, I was ill, so I wasn't able to. I will now at this point.

He raised a concern about what he considered to be a delay in a cleanup of PCBs in and around Smithville. The cleanup of the PCBs in and around Smithville is being managed in four phases. There has been no delay in the PCB remediation-cleanup programs associated with the Smithville PCB storage site located in the Smithville industrial park.

Phase 3 of the program for the cleanup and destruction by incineration of all stored PCBs on the site and all the PCBs-contaminated earth down to the bedrock, both on and adjacent to the site, was completed in December 1992. The contractor is now working on grading and landscaping the area. The work is expected to be completed this June.

The program has been conducted successfully and all cleanup and environmental standards are being met. To date, over $50 million has been spent on cleanup and remediation programs.

An agreement between the municipal council, the public liaison committee and my ministry is very close to being finalized. This agreement will establish a three-party management board of directors that will oversee phase 4 of the Smithville remediation. Through the project management team, research has been undertaken and pilot projects run aimed at developing the technology to deal with the PCBs on the rock aquifer.

This research will be fully funded by the ministry and, when the research is completed, we will hopefully have the proper technology to deal with this difficult problem.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): With respect to the response, I think that clearly just underlines the problem. In the last part of the response by the minister, he said that there's going to be further study. I can tell the Minister of Environment that those studies have in fact been completed.

Work was scheduled to be started this summer. As a result of your fiscal restraint in the matter of cleanups, as was outlined in the report by the Treasurer -- work in Smithville with respect to the cleaning up of that area was to have been commenced this summer. It is now no longer going to be started this summer.

All you are doing is further studying the problem when those studies have in fact been completed. We need a commitment from you and the people in Smithville need a commitment from you that cleanup will take place, will be carried out without any further delay.

Hon Mr Wildman: I didn't note a question or an interrogatory in the member's statement. But the commitment to completing the necessary research work and studies to determine how we can clean up the rock aquifer will be done. It is there.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, late last week Ontario colleges began to send out letters of acceptance to over 70,000 students applying for admission, but because of your government's social contract talks, colleges are saying their offers of acceptance are conditional upon the outcome of these same talks. In other words, 70,000 students across the province are having their future put on hold while your government fumbles with a restraint program.

Minister, how can you, as the person specifically responsible for the future of these students, possibly permit this situation to exist?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The letters that were sent out by the colleges last week were the decision of the presidents of the individual colleges when they decided to make this move. Not all colleges have decided to take that approach. I believe that if you take a look at the numbers, the colleges are in fact projecting that they should be able to have increased enrolments, and the numbers of students in places have actually increased considerably over the last couple of years.

Yes, I would agree that there is some uncertainty until the social contract talks are completed. There are some time lines associated with those contract talks and it would be in the interest of all parties to have those talks completed in a positive way as quickly as possible.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you may find that uncertainty acceptable, but I certainly don't. It's important to understand what we're talking about here. Letters of acceptance have always in the history of this province, without fail, been good news in the life of a student; that is, until now.

By some remarkable manoeuvring, this government has managed to twist one of the most important pieces of news that young people receive in their lives into something, in some ways, even worse than outright refusal. Colleges are saying to their students: "Your future's on hold. We may or may not have a space for you. Just hang tight." All of this was brought about by your government's ineptitude in economic planning, and don't try to slough it off on to the colleges.

Will you here today assure those 70,000 students who have obtained a qualified acceptance, or who will shortly be obtaining such, that you will speak up for them at the social contract table and that you will guarantee them their acceptances and that they can get on with their lives and plan accordingly?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member knows that it is absolutely impossible for the minister to guarantee anybody a place in the colleges, but it's obviously very clear that the vast majority, if not all of those students, will in fact be accepted.

But one of the difficulties we have in the college system right now in Ontario is that the system had been neglected for a number of years. I look here at the increases in operating grants that were provided by the Liberal government when it was in power and the fact that we were in the best of all economic times, with revenues going up double-digit, and your government did nothing to rebuild the college system in this province at all. That's when we should have been investing in our education system, and if we've got difficulties now, it's because of your lack of foresight in the education system.

DAY CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, there has been a lot of controversy about your government's handling of day care in this province over the last two and a half, almost three, years.

Certainly your involvement as the former Minister of Education and now the Minister of Community and Social Services has caused some additional concern, because a leaked cabinet document shows that your government is considering changes to the current system of day care in this province and that you may be poised and ready to set up yet another level of bureaucracy to administer day care subsidies instead of going through the existing mechanism of municipalities.

In the case of York region, York region's community services commissioner recently advised, upon reflecting upon that document, that the current system is a mess and that the government is moving in a very unilateral fashion.

My question, Minister, is, why are you even considering setting up another level of bureaucracy to administer day care in this province, especially the subsidies, when we already have a perfectly good system in place with regional municipalities that pay 20% of the costs?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question from the member opposite. He of course is free to read into leaked cabinet documents whatever he wishes, but I can tell him that, far from trying to establish another level of bureaucracy, what we are trying to do is to drastically improve the system of child care in the province.

We are doing that, first, by trying to inject into the system additional subsidized spaces through the Jobs Ontario initiatives, ones that we think will be a great help both to those people who are trying to get off social assistance, and into the retraining programs, as well as then trying to look over a longer period of time at some of the other significant improvements that we need to bring into the system, including the link between education and child care.

In that prospect and in that process, we certainly know and intend to have a number of important discussions with municipalities because of the interest that they have in the delivery of child care.

Mr Jackson: That just doesn't square with what happened in York region. In York region, the actual committee dealing with recommendations to your government -- the region of York was told it could not be on that committee which is looking into the reforms and advising the minister. They've now been put in a position of being responsible, or will be responsible, for moving the current subsidy program so that the subsidy goes directly to the centre and to the parents, and the region, which pays for it, won't have any access.

Minister, you and your government have been fooling around with this whole issue of the delivery of child care, whether it's junior kindergarten, whether it's home day care, whether it's starting day care in our schools as early as age 4. All this you've been playing with at taxpayers' expense, and yet today in Ontario there are fewer children in these day care spaces than ever before.

Now, I ask you, Minister, given your government's record of not consulting municipalities on these social issues -- on social assistance reform, for example; on day care -- how can you reassure York region, which has now said it will withdraw its 20% contribution for subsidies because your government plans to eliminate it? How can you reassure municipalities that that's not what you're going to do and that you will allow the input from municipalities, and the taxpayers through them, which pay 20% of the child care costs in this province?

Hon Mr Silipo: I can tell the member that I'll certainly look into the issue of York region specifically that he raises, but I would be very surprised if there is any process under way that tries to exclude the municipalities either in the way in which we are going about putting out and making sure that we use the spaces that we've established under the Jobs Ontario initiative or indeed in the discussions that need to continue under the process of reform.

We certainly understand, and I certainly understand as minister, that there's an important role that the municipalities are playing. We know that in a number of municipalities people have said to us very clearly that they want to continue being involved in the delivery of the system and that the very least that we owe them and that we are ensuring will happen is that they are involved very much with us in the discussions that will lead to, we hope, a better and improved system of child care in the province.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is for the Minister of Finance. I was concerned to read in the Toronto Star this weekend that Judy Darcy, the president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, says that the economic assumptions behind our fiscal plan are insupportable and misleading. Mr Minister, could you please explain to the House why the union and the economic analysis firm that CUPE hired have two different results?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I did read with some interest the comments of the president of CUPE, who I understand received a lot of the analysis from Informetrica, the consultant firm. I think that the main problem with the difference in the numbers has to do with the assumptions of economic growth that are built into the analysis that Informetrica did and which CUPE then used in the press conference that it had.

I think as well that they make the assumption that if we'd proceeded with the almost $17-billion deficit this year, it would just be business as usual out there, and that simply isn't

the case. Even the conference board said that God only knows what kind of growth we'd have if they proceeded with the $17-billion deficit in this province.

As well, since there won't be a supplementary, I assume, Mr Speaker, there are some assumptions on the corporate tax side in which it seems to me they've neglected to consider the carry-forward losses that are appropriate for the private sector when they are computing profits.

So there seems to be an assumption there that, first of all, growth will be much more dramatic than most people think it will be and, secondly, that corporate profits will be as high, but they think they will be lot higher than anybody else thinks they'll be.

Mr Abel: Mr Minister, what concerns me the most is that their analysis claims there's going to be a loss of about 70,000 jobs over the next two years. How would they arrive at this conclusion?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not at all sure. If you come to the conclusion that the higher the deficit the more economic stimulation there is, it seems to me that's the kind of analysis that gets you into very deep trouble very, very quickly, and that simply would not be sustainable.

As a matter of fact, what we're trying to do will protect jobs and services in community after community all across this province. So I would take issue with their assertion that the budget will cost 70,000 jobs. For one thing, when the assertion was made, they had not seen the budget, so I'm not too sure how they could come to that conclusion, but our budget is going to put the emphasis on the protection of jobs, not on the costing of jobs in this province.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

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

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Very briefly, I want to, under standing order 34(a), serve notice to you orally -- I will submit a written filing later this afternoon -- of my complete dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Health to my question earlier today.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect to what is perhaps a budget leak, I have here a document and I seek your guidance on this. I'd like to read from a memo briefly.

It's regarding the retailing of official road maps in Ontario. The official road map of Ontario has been identified as a product which falls within the scope of --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: No. Just take your seat, please. At the outset you indicated that this has something to do with the budget, in which case it has nothing to do with the Speaker. The Speaker will deal with procedural matters with respect to this House, but the budget is the domain of the Treasurer and not of the Speaker.

Mr Turnbull: Perhaps you could guide me on this matter.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: I am concerned, Mr Speaker. Perhaps somebody can --

The Speaker: The guidance on the matter is that there is no point of order.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 102,000 students across Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $2,188 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,764 less on each of its secondary school students in our public school counterpart,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I have signed this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from people who are opposed to casino gambling. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has traditionally portrayed itself as having a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

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

"Whereas the NDP government has stated that it has a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

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

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision, a significant change in government policy, was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation;

"That appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with the process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I have signed this petition as I'm in agreement with it.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I too have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by many individuals from my riding and I too have affixed my signature to it.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I add a number of names from Windsor, that city in Ontario that's going to have a pilot project, to the petitions against casino gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

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

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos, despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and very questionable initiative."

I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

GRAVENHURST OPERA HOUSE

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition today from a number of residents of the community of Gravenhurst, calling on the government to provide full funding for the restoration of the Gravenhurst Opera House, which was closed by the Ministry of Labour earlier on this year, and I too have affixed my name.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

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

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have signed the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It has about 10 signatures and it says the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

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

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

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

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

The particular signatures to this petition are from the Scarborough/Toronto area and join with the labour, business and chambers of commerce and councils from the Bruce area. I have affixed my signature to the petition.

GAMBLING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, there are 20 signatures on this petition, and I am happy to support the petition with my signature.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition from several constituents from Kitchener, New Hamburg and Baden. It's a petition opposed to Bill 124, the mandatory bike helmets. They feel it's an infraction of their freedom of choice.

GAMBLING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a couple of petitions, one of these petitions being filed by people in my constituency, but all of the petitioners incredulous that a New Democratic government would succumb to the evils of gambling. I share their incredulity and I submit the petitions on their behalf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my name to this petition.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition.

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

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

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, the signators to this particular petition hail from the Pickering area. I affix my signature to it as well. This is one of a collection of petitions which has garnered well over 15,000 signatures in support of the continued operation of Bruce A nuclear generating station.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The time for petitions has now expired.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

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

Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member have some comments?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The proposed government Bill 4 will eliminate, as I read it, any special education for people who require special education. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that a full range of special education placements is available to exceptional children so that they will have access to the programs that best meet their needs. The bill makes it clear that special education will be available at no cost to the child as well as to the child's parent or guardian. It also gives the child the power to appeal a special education placement.

PROVINCIAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CONSULTATION POPULAIRE À L'ÉCHELLE PROVINCIALE

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

Bill 16,

An Act to obtain the Opinion of the Public on Questions of Provincial Interest / Loi visant à obtenir l'opinion du public sur des questions d'intérêt provincial.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member have some brief comments?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The purpose of the bill is to enable an Ontario elector and the Lieutenant Governor in Council to obtain a referendum on a question that is of general application to Ontario and that is within Ontario's legislative authority. An elector who wishes a referendum must submit the question to the chief election officer on a petition containing the signatures of at least 15% of the Ontario electors.

The chief election officer must accept every petition that meets certain procedural and substantive requirements and place the question on the ballot for the general election to elect members of the Legislative Assembly. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may order that a referendum be held at a general election to elect members of the Legislative Assembly.

If at least 50% of the electors vote in the referendum and if 60% of those electors vote the same way, than a minister of the crown is required to introduce a bill into the Legislative Assembly that proposes to implement the results of the referendum. The act does not require the minister or any other members of the Legislative Assembly to vote on the bill in any way particular.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE PLAN D'INVESTISSEMENT

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

Bill 17,

An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan of the Government of Ontario and for certain other matters related to financial administration / Loi prévoyant le plan d'investissement du gouvernement de l'Ontario et concernant d'autres questions relatives à l'administration financière.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the minister have some opening remarks?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, is a key part of the government's 10-point plan to strengthen our economy and support jobs. It is the most comprehensive program of infrastructure renewal in a generation. This new way of doing business means construction of infrastructure projects will begin sooner, be completed faster and create jobs more rapidly.

The bill establishes three new crown corporations: the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, the Ontario Clean Water Agency and the Ontario Financing Authority. It renews the Ontario Land Corp as a crown agency called the Ontario Realty Corp.

By working together in partnerships and joint ventures with the private and public sectors, the corporations will use new sources of revenue while reducing costs to the taxpayer. These crown corporations will use innovative and entrepreneurial ways to finance investment in economically important infrastructure that will lay the groundwork for Ontario to compete in the 21st century. The bill also enables universities, hospitals and school boards to gain access to loan-based financing for capital projects.

The government is changing the way it does business. Our new approach will encourage efficient and more cost-effective operations. More jobs will be created, and capital projects vital to preserving the economic strength of this province will be --

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): This particular presentation is a statement. It could have been done during statements by the ministers. There was ample time to do that. When the first reading is done, there is a brief explanation of what this does. This sets up the shell game that these people have been contemplating for some time. Mr Speaker, I ask you to call him to order or else I ask for unanimous consent to revert back to statements, and I am prepared to allow him to make his statement.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Would the honourable Minister of Finance summarize briefly, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: I had completed my remarks before the intemperate, silly outburst from the member for Bruce.

CHRONIC CARE PATIENTS' TELEVISION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSTALLATION DE TÉLÉVISEURS APPARTENANT À DES MALADES CHRONIQUES

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

Bill 18,

An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder / Loi permettant aux malades chroniques d'installer leur propre téléviseur ou leur propre combiné téléviseur-magnétoscope à vidéo-cassette.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the honourable member have a short

summary?

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): The bill gives chronic care patients the right to install their own television or television and combined videocassette recorder in their rooms rather than having to rent such a unit from the hospital or to use the equipment down the hall if they can't make it down to the chronic care facilities that are provided.

I'm quite happy to introduce this bill today. I'd like to thank my legislative intern, John Martelli, for helping me with the research.

VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES VICTIMES

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

Bill 19,

An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime / Loi portant déclaration des droits des victimes d'actes criminels.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the honourable member have some brief remarks?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): This is the third time I've tabled this modified bill. It was submitted in 1990 as Bill 113 and in 1991 as Bill 103. Unfortunately, it lacked the support of the two previous governments. I was hopeful that now that this matter is before the standing committee on justice, Ontario being the last province in Canada to enshrine a victims' bill of rights for its citizens, that somehow this bill will assist the government. I invite them to assist in making it a reality.

It recognizes that victims are part of the equation of catching criminals but they should also be compensated and be provided certain basic services which are not codified in our laws. The bill also provides that persons convicted of an offence shall not profit from the offence through their recollections or through public interviews and public appearances.

I would certainly hope that the members of the House will support Ontario, even though it's the last province in Canada, getting victims' rights legislation enshrined for our citizens.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr Gary Wilson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 1,

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Wilson has moved second reading of Bill 1. As parliamentary assistant, would he now have some opening remarks?

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased to introduce the second reading of Bill 1, amending The Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act. When this bill is passed in the Legislature, Ryerson will become Ryerson Polytechnic University, Ontario's first polytechnic university.

In introducing the second reading of the bill, let me take you back to five weeks ago. That's when Richard Allen, former Minister of Colleges and Universities, announced to an assembly of students, faculty and staff at Ryerson that Ryerson Polytechnical Institute would become Ryerson Polytechnic University.

The response on campus that Sunday afternoon was joyous. All members of the Ryerson community were pleased to know that their institution of learning would receive full-fledged university status. They were also pleased to know that Ryerson will continue with its special mission of providing applied education to thousands of learners. As Ryerson's president, Terry Grier, put it, "Ryerson University will be equal but different to its university counterparts elsewhere in the province."

Speaking of President Grier, I'm pleased to say that he is in the east lobby with his associates from Ryerson: Dennis Mock, Ron Swirsky, Arnice Cadieux and Debbie Chant. So welcome to the Legislature.

Ryerson students who have taken university-level programs and have met university-level expectations will now receive the same degrees as other students taking similar programs in other universities.

Ryerson is unique in this province. As a university focused on applied learning and research, Ryerson enriches a variety of post-secondary educational opportunities available in Ontario.

Ryerson Polytechnic University will be an institution providing education directly tied to emerging economic goals and societal needs. Its mission will contribute directly to economic renewal. Ontario needs the kind of education that Ryerson provides -- an applied education providing a balance between theory and practice.

Ryerson graduates know that the degree they will receive represents an education that allows them to make an immediate contribution to their chosen profession. For an eager, enthusiastic university graduate, that's a good feeling to have. For Ontario, that's proof of a sound investment made for the future.

The economic and educational marketplaces have already recognized the level of education provided by Ryerson. Ryerson alumni have made their mark in many, many fields, such as engineering, business, health care, journalism and urban planning. And let's not overlook the value of applied research. Today's internationally competitive business world is in constant need of innovation. We must continually search for a better way of producing new products and services. Applied research can do this. Applied education, applied research: This is where Ryerson Polytechnic University excels.

As a government, we are dedicated to economic renewal. Ryerson carries out the applied education and applied research so vital to that economic renewal. Ryerson, in the coming years, is poised to make an even stronger and more influential contribution to the quality of life in this province.

I know that my colleagues on all sides of this House support Ryerson in becoming a polytechnic university, and I'd like to acknowledge their support of this bill. Therefore, I am pleased to introduce second reading of Bill 1, amending the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Seeing none, further debate on Bill 1?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): It gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate and to support Bill 1. I've had the opportunity, the good fortune, to meet with President Grier and his colleagues and to tour the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, as it is presently known, and developed a flavour for the institution and a good understanding, I think, of the background to this bill. For those reasons I lend my full support to it.

One of the things you learn is that this bill is really another step in the natural evolution of Ryerson. It started in 1948, if I might briefly remind the members here, as the Ryerson Institute of Technology. At that time it offered a trades-oriented style of programming, two-year diplomas. It was in 1963 that it became known as the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute and it established a board of governors. Later, there was a bicameral system of governance developed.

In 1971, Ryerson was first given the authority to grant degrees, and a lot of people aren't aware of that. I think it's very important. It was a significant milestone. Ryerson has, for the past 22 years, been giving out degrees. The number of degree designations has been increased over the years to 28. Virtually all of those degree programs have university-level admission requirements and they last four years; they're four years in duration.

So Bill 1 is essentially a formal recognition of what everyone has taken for granted, and that is Ryerson is de facto a university, not only because it's been a degree-granting institution for 22 years, but also for a number of other reasons, including the fact that Ryerson is a full member of the Council of Ontario Universities and the Association of Commonwealth Universities.

Another important fact is that Ryerson students pay university tuition fees which, as you will know, Mr Speaker, are significantly higher, at least twice as high as college tuition fees.

I think another important factor here is that in 1992, this House, through passage of the University Foundation Act, listed in a

schedule of universities that were able to access or able to establish a foundation for purposes of fund-raising, right between Queen's and Western, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute.

But apart from its unique programming and the fact that it can't offer post-grad programs at this time, the vital difference between Ryerson today and Ontario universities is that Ryerson's students receive 10% less government support than a student in any other Ontario university program, even though the two, that is, Ryerson and universities, essentially have the same admission criteria, the same fundamental structure, the same professional recognition for the degrees, the same accreditation received, offer essentially similar degrees. This is obviously a fundamental inequity, and I'm delighted to say that Bill 1 addresses this.

There's been no basis for the justification of this inequity and hence there are no objections to this bill, and I think that's something that is rather remarkable. I've only been here some three years, but never have I seen a bill receive so much support. In fact, I've received no letters of objection to the bill, not even from the university brotherhood, if I might refer to it that way: the people who are going to have to make more room at the table for Ryerson.

There has been no objection received from that body, notwithstanding, as I say, that they are going to have share from the same pool in order to assist Ryerson to develop into a full-fledged university with post-graduate programs and additional research capabilities.

I was pleased to learn that the Ministry of Education and Training will be phasing in the additional funding of approximately $11 million over six years. I think that's appropriate because Ryerson cannot -- and I know President Grier himself recognizes this -- establish its new post-grad programs and its research programs overnight. The phase-in will allow Ryerson to grow into its full university status in a thoughtful and intelligent manner.

I think it's not stretching it too much to say that the future of post-secondary education is at risk in this province. The government must take up the challenge -- and I don't believe it has yet -- of ensuring that post-secondary education in Ontario is of the very best quality, that it's affordable and that it's accessible.

I want to come back to Ryerson, though. I'm very pleased to see that Ryerson's distinctive mission will be maintained, and object number three of the bill will provide that one of the objects of the new Ryerson Polytechnic University will be: "The provision of programs of study that provide a balance between theory and application and that prepare students for careers in professional and quasi-professional fields."

One of the things you learn about Ryerson is that the key to its real strength, the key to what makes it so attractive to its over 12,000 students and the key to what will enable it to play what I believe will be a vital role in our economic recovery, lies in its programs. In particular, there are two special qualities.

The first quality is that it has a unique blend of theoretical and practical application. In other words, it combines classroom experience with time spent in studios, labs or clinical settings or something of that nature, I think the point being that students not only acquire knowledge but they learn how to apply that knowledge.

From an employer's perspective, I must think that a Ryerson graduate would be seen as rather attractive and obviously a potentially valuable asset. The programming, this blend of theoretic and practical application, effectively eases the transition for the student from the academic experience to the workplace.

The second quality related to the programs at Ryerson is that the programs have a career focus and they have a focus on some professional and quasi-professional fields. One measure -- and surely it's not the only measure, but one we apply to our full secondary institutions in the province -- but surely one measure of success is to determine whether an institution's graduates are able to obtain employment.

In 1989, the latest figure I was able to obtain, Ryerson was able to place 90% of its graduates in employment within six months of graduation. I think that's a remarkable rate of success in terms of placing students with employers. I would be surprised if that percentage had not been decreased at this point in time, given the present economic climate and the lack of jobs, but nevertheless it's certainly a tradition in which the Ryerson people and students can take great pride.

These two qualities, the combination of theoretical and practical in the career focus, are obviously extremely attractive to the growing body of students who feel that the traditional university program is not meeting their needs in one form or another. I have no doubt that Ryerson will continue to fill this need into the future.

I heartily endorse Bill 1. It has my full support. I'm certain it will enable Ryerson to continue doing the kinds of things that make it distinctive. I feel that it will be a vital part of our post-secondary learning culture in the province and, furthermore, a vital

part in strengthening our faltering economy.

I want to congratulate Mr Grier and his colleagues and his students and the faculty at Ryerson for their patience, for the role they have played in bringing this task to fruition. I'm also pleased to learn that the timing of this bill's passage and ultimately its royal assent will enable the students of Ryerson graduating this year to graduate from Ryerson Polytechnic University.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I'd like to congratulate my colleague from Ottawa South. I think he convinced me when he mentioned that his father would have agreed with this, because I was a great admirer of his father.

He listed a long list of important factors for recognizing Ryerson to become a full-fledged university, but I think he left out one which, to me, would probably be the most important, and that is, my daughter Vesna is presently a student at that institution and I would appreciate it if she could graduate from a university.

I would like to also take this opportunity to express a potential conflict of interest and I would ask you to render a decision on whether I would be in conflict in voting on this bill. I think this bill is an excellent bill. I intend to give it my support, but I would like to get your decision on that matter.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Ottawa South has two minutes in response.

Mr McGuinty: Just very briefly, I apologize to my colleague for the oversight in leaving out that other critically important reason for supporting the passage of this bill.

But in seriousness, I know that this will mean a great deal to this year's graduating class in terms of being able to have inscribed on their degree, their diploma, that Ryerson is a university.

It's not going to, in any real sense, alter the quality of the programming, the quality of the education that's available to students there, but in the broader scene there's still a great deal internationally of -- I wouldn't call it bewilderment so much as confusion with respect to Ryerson's status, and this will, I think, go a long way towards enabling Ryerson to make those forays into the international scene and to take some comfort in knowing that it will be properly recognized as an institute of higher learning and particularly a university.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 1.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to say a few words with respect to the second reading of Bill 1, which essentially makes Ryerson Ontario's first polytechnical university. We talk about the need for improving the quality of education in this province, whether it be at the secondary level or the post-secondary level, and it's something that's on all of our minds continually. I certainly welcome Ryerson to the university community and hope that this bill passes.

I will say that when we read some of the articles that have been put forward recently, particularly by people in the post-secondary community, we get concerned with the issue of funding. As I understand it, this bill, if it passes, will mean "Ryerson will gain up to $18 million in provincial financing over the next six years as gr