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

July 7, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ST CATHARINES

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

TUG OF WAR CHAMPIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HEALTH CARE

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

JUDICIAL REFORM

SOCIAL CONTRACT

DRUG BENEFITS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

CASINO GAMBLING

AIR QUALITY

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

JOB CREATION

TAX INCREASES

CONTAMINATED SOIL

DAY CARE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

HEALTH CARE

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CONTRAT SOCIAL

GAMBLING

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HEALTH CARE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SOCIAL CONTRACT

GO BUS SERVICE

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

COURTS OF JUSTICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA / LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LES CONCENTRATIONS COMMERCIALES

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ST CATHARINES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With the concentration of attention on so-called social contract negotiations and legislation and fighting deficits, members of the Ontario Legislature should not forget about the plight of thousands of General Motors employees in St Catharines who face the tragic loss of their jobs and the disruption of their personal lives.

The announced closing of the General Motors St Catharines foundry and the discontinuation of one of the lines at the engine plant, together with the indefinite layoff of 750 men and women last year, will result in about 3,000 people joining the ranks of the unemployed in the Niagara region. The sale by GM of the axle plant could eliminate another 800 positions and mean that almost half of the jobs in the St Catharines General Motors operation could disappear.

I remind the Premier and the government of Ontario of the human tragedy for those directly affected and the economic devastation for St Catharines and the Niagara region of the approximately $175-million loss of wages and salaries on a yearly basis.

Help us to find a buyer and operator for the excellent axle plant and seek out the very top officials of GM to encourage them to place massive new investments in St Catharines that will save the jobs and restore the community to the economic health it enjoyed for so many years. St Catharines, the Niagara region and those directly affected who may lose their jobs count on the Ontario government to help and to be of assistance.

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Last night a group of very concerned citizens, led by Dr John Wright, met in Owen Sound to discuss the implications of two very dangerous and destructive pieces of legislation: Bill 48, the Social Contract Act, and Bill 50, the Expenditure Control Plan Statute Law Amendment Act.

As it is written, Bill 48 will tear apart the collective bargaining process, which has been a fundamental right in this province for years. It clearly tells the broader public sector -- our municipalities, universities, school boards, hospitals and conservation authorities -- that they can no longer trust the provincial government and that all the deals they made in good faith with it are off. The people in my riding still cannot believe that any government, and certainly not a socialist government, would want to set such a far-reaching precedent.

Bill 50 is just as bad. It will completely destroy the health care system in Ontario, it will force doctors who do not wish to leave to move outside the province and it tells new doctors who have trained here and whose roots are here they are not wanted. It will deprive patients of their right to choose the doctor they want and could easily deny vital medical services to those who need them most.

The people of Grey are angry and they are confused. They thought the NDP government would be a compassionate government, and now they see it picking their pockets while it tramples on their rights. They see that they are not consulted and their voices are not heard. They have finally learned the meaning of the word "undemocratic."

One of my constituents gave me something to give to the Premier. It is a hat which reads: "Hold your tongue. Democracy is dead in Ontario." In my view, it says it all, and I will deliver it to the Premier when he gets here.

CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Our country has just celebrated its birthday, and I'd like to rise today to acknowledge a birthday of sorts for some of my constituents who, in their eyes, are only seven days old, seven days into their lives as Canadian citizens.

Last Wednesday I had the privilege of attending a citizenship ceremony in Oshawa, where I witnessed 52 men, women and children who pledged their allegiance to our country. They vowed to be loyal, responsible citizens in their adopted country. They have not turned their backs on their homeland. They still have families and past lives there. Instead they're reaching out to their new country to grasp its language, customs, rights and responsibilities. They eagerly took Canada to heart, with all of its imperfections, and don't understand why other Canadians don't recognize how lucky we are here.

The enthusiasm in that courtyard was electrifying, the people from all over the globe speaking many different languages, all excited at the prospect of becoming Canadians.

I chatted with several of these proud new citizens. It was an auspicious occasion in their lives. They spoke of the hardship of their native countries and the courage it took to leave behind the only way of life they knew. They came to a new country, learned our languages, our ways and our system of government. Now they speak of the majesty of our land, the safety and security of our cities and the unshakeable belief that they were right in coming to Canada and then becoming Canadian citizens.

More than that, their patriotism shows in their expressions and humbles those of us who were born in this country and so often take it for granted.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): The Minister of Health should be aware that the people of Ottawa-Carleton, unlike the people of Toronto, Hamilton, Oshawa and 50 other Canadian cities, do not have a paramedic emergency service.

In Ottawa-Carleton, our ambulance attendants have not been trained to give advanced life support. Consequently, they cannot start an IV, they cannot administer medication and they cannot intubate to help a victim breathe. All they can do in the case of a heart attack is defibrillate their patient. This is one of the important reasons why, in Ottawa-Carleton, we have one of North America's lowest survival rates for heart attack victims. In fact our survival rate is under 3% when it could be much closer to 30%.

The district health council has now endorsed a proposal to upgrade the training given to our ambulance attendants to make them full paramedics. This proposal has also received the unanimous support of all seven of our emergency department directors and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians.

Through no fault of their own, our ambulance attendants in Ottawa-Carleton are, in the overwhelming majority of heart attack cases, simply delivering dead bodies to one of our emergency wards. This could easily be changed for the better if our ambulance officers were given paramedic skills.

Madam Minister, we're not asking for more ambulances, more attendants or even more equipment. We're simply asking for more training -- training that will result in a huge payoff for heart attack victims in Ottawa-Carleton, as well as their families and friends.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The NDP marked Seniors' Month in June this year by serving notice on the frail and elderly residents of nursing homes and homes for the aged that they would be hit by increases in their cost of living.

Seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes, were devastated to learn that they will now have to pay extra amounts of up to $12 per day or $372 per month. The NDP has also inflicted additional stress on seniors in extended care homes and their families by creating anxiety over who will or won't be affected by the announced increases.

This year rent control increases of 4.9% were allowed by legislation for the general public. In a nursing home or home for the aged, increases of up to 32% are being imposed. When it comes to rent control, the NDP has all kinds of booklets that specify how it works and what the responsibilities of landlords are. That is, unless your landlord happens to be the NDP. In that case, and as seniors have found, the landlord forgoes responsibility.

As the PC advocate for seniors, I opposed and voted against Bill 101, the NDP long-term care legislation, because it delists extended care from OHIP and gives the green light for unilateral actions, such as this latest one, that further erode seniors' savings and rights.

Instead of living up to its funding promises with respect to long-term care for and in consultation with Ontario seniors, the NDP has become a sniper in the war it is waging on seniors' services. I call on the government to reconsider its actions and declare a ceasefire with respect to seniors living in nursing homes and homes for the aged. Otherwise, seniors will help ensure that the next provincial election will become the government's last battle.

TUG OF WAR CHAMPIONS

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It is my pleasure today to bring to the House's attention the 100th anniversary of a great achievement by a handful of hardy men from Zorra township in my riding of Oxford.

Five farmers from Zorra -- Alex Clark, Robert McLeod, Ira Hummason, William Munro and Bob McIntosh -- travelled to the World's Fair in Chicago in 1893 to take on the globe's best in a tug of war contest. Known far and wide as the Mighty Men of Zorra, they battled all comers on July 4 and came away as the world champions.

In the late 1800s, tug of war was a serious sport and was included in the early Olympic games. A tug of war team consisted of five pulling members and a non-pulling captain, whose function was to provide the strategy, while the rest of the team provided the raw power.

At the World's Fair, teams from around the world had been eliminated, setting the stage for a final showdown between the Zorras and an American team. In a best two out of three pulls, the Mighty Men of Zorra, captained by Ebenezer Sutherland -- no relation -- were victorious.

Two of my constituents, Eleanor and Ken Ovington, designed a set of commemorative coins. The Zorra Caledonian Society ordered more than 1,000 of these coins and offered them for sale to the public at the 56th annual Highland Games held in Embro on Canada Day.

On the front the coins show an 1890s tug of war competitor pulling a rope with an enlarged world tug of war championship cup in the background, with the names of the five champions.

The Mighty Men of Zorra were not only sporting champions but epitomized the very virtues that have made Ontario great: that ability to pull together to achieve a common goal.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): At 5:45 pm today, the final vote on Bill 48 will take place. As you know, Mr Speaker, I've been concerned about what the Conservative caucus was going to do throughout the social contract process.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They are on side now.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Caplan: First it was Mike Harris saying, "Bang, bang, bang." Then they supported it on second reading and Chris Stockwell said, "Bill 48 is Conservative philosophy."

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: Then the Tories began to flip-flop, changing their position by the minute. But as late as last night I was worried, because the Tories voted in favour of so many sections of this bill --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Caplan: -- I was really concerned that they'd vote for it again on third reading.

I'm feeling better today. There is a rumour going around that the Conservative caucus will be voting against the social contract legislation. Lots of rumours go around this place --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would you stop the clock, please? You can't? All right, I'll make sure there's enough time. There'll be enough time.

I ask the members to come to order. The member for Oriole has the floor. She has a right to make a statement and I ask the members to give her the appropriate respect.

Mrs Caplan: Shall I start again, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: We have a technical difficulty with the clock. There was approximately 41 seconds. I will keep an eye on the clock, and the member for Oriole has the floor.

Mrs Caplan: As I said, there are a lot of rumours going around this place, but I hope this one is true. It sure took a lot to convince the Tories just what Bill 48 will do. The unions told them the bill was bad, bad, bad. The Metro board of trade told the Tories Bill 48 was bad, bad, bad. Many columnists and reporters told them Bill 48 was bad, bad, bad.

Perhaps it was my daily statements which have influenced them. I've been told by my constituents that they think these statements have been good, good, good.

However, most of all I believe --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills, come to order.

Mrs Caplan: -- Mrs McLeod has done the most to convince them that the social contract legislation, Bill 48, is seriously flawed and has been from the beginning. It will not accomplish the government's goals.

In all seriousness, I hope the rumour is true and that the Tories will vote with us and against Bill 48 tonight. This legislation will have a detrimental effect on life in Ontario.

The interests of all Ontarians are in the defeat of this bill, and I hope that not only the Tories but members of the NDP will join us in defeating this disastrous piece of legislation.

HEALTH CARE

The PC Party supports logical, responsible restraint initiatives but cannot support the NDP draconian legislation which will result in lower standards of health care in this province.

The social contract and expenditure control legislation, Bills 48 and 50, override almost all the OMA's agreements with government and impose massive cuts on medical services and patient care.

The legislation empowers the minister and the bureaucrats to make arbitrary decisions about how medical services will be delivered. The expanding power base of governments and bureaucrats fostered through this legislation is of grave concern. You are cutting physicians' incomes by 25%. Why not the 5% you're demanding from the others affected by this legislation?

Instead of dictating what services patients can receive and breaking agreements made in good faith, the government should be working with doctors to implement the OMA's concrete suggestions about how to reduce the costs of OHIP. Eliminating health card fraud should be the government's top priority.

A PC government will work with doctors to better manage medical services. The people of this province deserve no less.

To the doctors in York Mills who have expressed their concerns, I will work with you on solutions and continue to fight for excellence in our health care system.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On Monday, June 21, East York council endorsed the Good Neighbours initiative and I'm pleased to announce that East York is now Metro's first Good Neighbours community.

Good Neighbours is a public awareness campaign of the Ministry of Citizenship, and it's aimed at encouraging people to reach out and help one another, especially those in need, those people who are frail or vulnerable or isolated. A Good Neighbour is anyone who is concerned about making the community a friendlier, safer place.

Participants in the East York Good Neighbours community include community associations, seniors' groups, the business community, health units, the police and other municipal and provincial government offices. In these difficult economic times, it's nice to know that the Good Neighbours concept makes use of existing resources and community goodwill.

I urge all members to go back to your own communities and to support the Good Neighbours initiative and to assist in establishing a good neighbours council. I also urge all residents to take the time to reach out to one another as good neighbours.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JUDICIAL REFORM

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): It will give me great pleasure later today to introduce the Courts of Justice Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993.

This bill proposes to reform the Ontario Judicial Council, to enshrine in legislation the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, to provide for the gradual extension of the Unified Family Court, to provide a framework by which the salaries of Ontario judges will be set and to make a number of technical changes to the act.

The bill also makes consequential changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act.

This bill proposes major changes to the composition, powers and procedures of the Ontario Judicial Council. This is the body responsible for investigating complaints against provincial judges. The changes are designed to create a more open, accessible, accountable and effective process for addressing complaints against provincial judges while respecting judicial independence.

Public representation on the council will be increased to improve the public's confidence in our judicial institutions while protecting judicial independence by maintaining peer review. As well, the proportion of provincial judges on the council will be increased.

The legislation introduces a fairer and more open process for considering complaints and gives the council a range of discipline powers so that it can respond more effectively and more appropriately where misconduct has occurred.

The council will publish information about its role in the justice system, provide assistance in filing complaints and complete an annual report setting out its activities over the year.

The legislation will also enable the chief judge to establish standards for judicial conduct and a program for judicial performance evaluations, and it will require the chief judge to establish a plan for judicial education. These reforms will give the Ontario judiciary additional tools to continue their professional development and to maintain their high professional standards. This will help to ensure that Ontario's justice system remains one of the finest in the world.

This bill also enshrines in legislation the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee begun under the previous government. This committee, which began five years ago, has met with great success. Composed in most part of non-lawyers, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee allows members of the public, lawyers and judges to use their collective expertise to recommend the finest candidates for the provincial judiciary.

The bill requires the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee to develop criteria for judicial appointments that include considerations of professional excellence, community awareness, personal qualities and representativeness of the people of Ontario. The committee will be mandated to present a short list of candidates to the Attorney General, who will be permitted to recommend for appointment as judges only those persons who have been recommended by the committee.

In addition, the legislation provides for the gradual expansion of the Unified Family Court, which now exists only in Hamilton-Wentworth, to other locations within the province. This will provide full family law service in one court, providing better access and easier enforcement of support orders for the benefit of women, children and families generally. I would like to express my appreciation for the support of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Pierre Blais, and his officials for working in partnership with us to make the Unified Family Court possible.

The Unified Family Court will be established as a new, superior court called the Ontario Court (Family Division), equal in all respects to the Ontario Court (General Division). It will consist of full-time specialist judges with complete family law jurisdiction, supplemented by judges rotating in from the General Division. In the first year, we expect that the new Family Division will begin operation in two or three centres, in addition to Hamilton-Wentworth.

The new Ontario Court (Family Division) will pave the way for a more efficient and more economical family court system in Ontario, committed to the maintenance of local service in existing family court centres.

The bill also contains the framework by which the salaries of provincial judges will be set, commencing in 1995. However, I will note here that the provincial judiciary have offered and have signed an agreement with the government that provides for a compensation freeze for three years and for up to 3,000 additional sitting days during that period. This is based on approximately 12 sitting days per judge per year.

The bill also makes a number of other technical amendments to the Courts of Justice Act which are designed to improve the management and the operation of the courts of Ontario.

Each of these initiatives reflects the government's commitment to making the justice system more accessible, more responsive and more equitable.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses? The official opposition, the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I'm not sure the minister to date has grasped the extent of reform needed for the justice system in Ontario. The legal profession, the judiciary, and indeed the broad public are crying out for fundamental reform and broad-based reform.

Minister, your top priority is to create a strongly independent judiciary, delivering speedy and affordable access to justice. While some improvements have been made on the criminal side in the recent past, speedy and affordable access to justice on the civil side is not at an acceptable level.

The initiative on the uniform family court is welcome. This legislation was enacted by Ian Scott in 1989 in anticipation of some speedy implementation. Communities from across the province have been urging and lobbying you to implement a uniform family court in their various communities, including the community of Ottawa-Carleton. As you know, the Ottawa-Carleton area, as well as others, has lobbied strongly to have a uniform family court.It will in fact enhance access to justice, in many cases for women, and it will make justice more affordable and more speedy.

What is very depressing about your announcement today is that you're merely indicating it's going to be gradual. This is a significant issue that needs to be fast-tracked immediately. You know that every part of the province has urged you to do that. You know that you have the means to do it by readjusting your own budgets internally. I urge you to consider fast-tracking the uniform family court in every

section of the province.

Your other announcements today, Minister, do not touch the basic needs of reforming the justice system. Indeed, your reforms of the Ontario Judicial Council are improvements but do not fundamentally affect large numbers of the public who need better access to justice.

We have now a very competent, professional judiciary. There are not a lot of complaints that are filed. I agree with you that improvements in the complaints system are in order, and I compliment you to the extent that you have done that today. But a major initiative in the area of alternative dispute resolution on the civil side is long overdue and would have been welcomed by this critic, the legal profession and the public.

I wish, Minister, you would brush off the committee report of the standing committee on administration of justice which was tabled in this House in 1990 dealing with alternative dispute resolution. The best legal minds in the country came to this building and recommended how to implement alternative dispute resolution, and this government has done precious little in that area, one of the basic areas crying out for reform. I urge you to dust off that report, read it and try to fast-track some of the alternative dispute resolution techniques that are much needed.

The announcement with respect to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee simply confirms an existing process, initiated again by Attorney General Ian Scott; indeed, a process abused by your government when the former Attorney General appointed a nominated NDP federal candidate to chair what's supposed to be a non-partisan, non-political body to help appoint judges.

With respect to the memorandum signed with the chief judge of the Ontario court which you announced previously today, this is a far cry from the reform initiatives recommended by the Joint Committee on Court Reform. I urge the minister to seriously look at the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Court Reform, which would create a true partnership between the judiciary and the Ministry of the Attorney General, something that is long overdue and which has been tried successfully in many other jurisdictions.

I want to leave one thought with the minister. Several months ago, I surveyed some 55 questions to 2,500 lawyers across the province. Overwhelmingly, the response was as a high priority that these practising lawyers felt they could not effect justice on behalf of their clients.

This is bringing the justice system into disrepute. You must look at fundamental reform of the judicial system, the administration of justice in the province of Ontario, because the judiciary, the legal practitioners and the public are not happy with what's happening now.

And while you're looking at administration, giving more power to the judges, perhaps you might consider giving them responsibility for the family support plan, because your ministry is so botching that area and the complaints are so widespread that somebody has to take charge and improve the system.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I've read with interest the statement that the Attorney General has just made. I have to say it's interesting, I applaud the efforts, but it's not new. We've been hearing about these initiatives for a long time. Many of them have been informally in place for a long time.

The Ontario Judicial Council recommendations are the same recommendations, almost entirely, as the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario recommended a long time ago. The judicial appointments and the passing of scrutiny have been going on at the federal level for a long time. They've been going on in Ontario for five years. They were initiated by the former Liberal Attorney General, Mr Scott. Now what is happening is that these will be judicially recognized. I applaud that. It's not new, but it's the right thing to do.

The Unified Family Court project started 16 years ago in the province of Ontario. I believe it began in 1977 as a pilot project. For the last eight years, between the NDP and the Liberals, we kept hearing that this was a good pilot project and that it was going to be become a fully recognized court in Ontario. Well, it's finally going to happen, and I applaud the Attorney General for that. It's not new. It's taken a long time. It shouldn't have taken this long.

But the interesting thing about this statement is what it doesn't have in it. The most important thing that I saw from the briefing that the Attorney General was kind enough to provide us with is a memorandum of understanding between the Attorney General and the chief judge of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division). To me, that is the most significant aspect of this particular announcement, because it's finally recognizing that there is too much power in the hands of the Attorney General and that the power has to be given back to the people who use the courts.

It can't be in the hands of the biggest litigator, who is the Attorney General; the process has got to be run by the judges and by the system that they will operate and that they will own. That is why what isn't in this statement -- and I'm surprised, because this is where the Attorney General could really have taken a bow today. This is something that has been recommended in the Joint Committee on Court Reform and it's been with the Attorney General for a year now.

I hope the Attorney General will take this report and expand what she's now done to the federal level of courts in terms of the budgetary aspects that she controls.

I hope also that the Attorney General will take her name off the front door of every courthouse in this province, because the Attorney General is a litigant in those courthouses; the Attorney General does not run the judicial process. Please, take your name off the courthouse door of every court in this province.

The other thing I say to the Attorney General is that while I applaud the memorandum of understanding, there was a very interesting

article in the Globe and Mail on June 9 which quotes Mr Justice David Marshall. Justice Marshall is very concerned that the chief judges will ultimately wield inordinate power and that that can be, in terms of the bench, a loss of independence for the other judges on the bench. It's a very important concept, and what he says is: "The attribution of more and more power to chief judges may well have the effect of making the judicial ideology of the chief judge the only truly independent ideology on the court."

I say to the Attorney General, read this

article and take a look at the recommendations that are made. One of those recommendations is that the chief judge should only be appointed for a limited period of time so that his power does not become so inordinate that it affects the judicial independence of other members of the bench.

I think the most important thing the Attorney General has done today is the thing she didn't want to talk about. I don't know why. I wish she would have, because that's where I think she really has done something extremely significant. I hope she extends it as per the report of the Joint Committee on Court Reform dated June 30, 1992.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It is now time for oral questions; the honourable member for Bruce.

Applause.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Well, thank you very much.

Today the social contract, in the guise of Bill 48, hangs like a shroud over the province of Ontario and people all across the province wait with bated breath to see what next will happen with this so-called initiative by this government.

I have a question for the Finance minister. How we used to like him when he was just the plain, ordinary, everyday Treasurer, but now the Finance minister has taken on the guise of the Michael Wilson of Toronto. He is the one who is examining ways of taking apart the sacred trust that all of the people of this province have come to love and enjoy.

It has for the last several weeks been our duties to follow with interest the developments under Bill 48. Yesterday, on the very moment when committee of the whole was about to finish its deliberations on Bill 48, another batch of amendments were dropped on the table. One of those extended the deadline for entering into contractual relations, in sectors and otherwise, until March 1, 1994.

Can I ask the Treasurer, the Finance minister now, why they have extended the time period from, once, in May till June, till August, till August 10 and now back into March 1994? Is it because you know that your Bill 48 is so fundamentally flawed that it has no hope at all of working?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, the member used some unparliamentary language in his

preamble, but I will ignore that.

Mr Elston: What?

Hon Mr Laughren: "Michael Wilson."

The member for Bruce is obviously misinterpreting the amendments that were introduced yesterday and debated yesterday afternoon and then passed, some of them unanimously, I might add. What the member should understand is that what we did was say that the fail-safe is still August 1 for agreements for the 1993-94 fiscal year. If after August 1 there are still some sectors and local arrangements that have not come to a voluntary agreement by the deadline of August 1, then they are under the fail-safe provisions for this fiscal year.

If between now and next spring they are able to reach a sectoral agreement for the next two years, why wouldn't we make that allowance if we can come up with a voluntary agreement along with our social partners out there that perhaps would end up being a better arrangement for everyone concerned: the public, the workers themselves, the government, the social agencies? Why wouldn't we extend that? Because they are not exempt from the provisions of the fail-safe mechanism contained in Bill 48 for the fiscal year 1993-94, and the targets still must be met.

Mr Elston: When you examine Bill 48 and all of the amendments -- some 29 amendments have been introduced by the government to this bill affecting some 90 parts of the act -- it seems to me that he has already admitted that Bill 48 is fundamentally flawed and cannot work. He is telling us that none of his deadlines are going to be effective.

How can the Minister of Finance tell us that his legislation, Bill 48, supported initially by the Tories, was going to work and save him the money when basically all it is doing is sweeping the problem under the rug for three years, when it will all again resurface? Will the Finance minister tell us why he is sweeping all our fiscal problems under the rug until 1996?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm somewhat puzzled by the new Liberal position, which appears to be that the fail-safe mechanism contained in the bill must be in place for the full three years and that there should be no negotiations on any new sectoral arrangements for the two subsequent years. I would remind the member that nothing has changed on the savings targets that must be achieved; nothing has changed whatsoever. For 1993-94, the savings must be realized. For 1994-95 and 1995-96, the savings must be realized. All we've done was introduce an element --

Mr Elston: You pushed it back.

Hon Mr Laughren: We're not pushing anything back. We simply introduced an element of flexibility that says that if no agreement was reached by August 1, then 1993-94 savings are locked in as contained in Bill 48. If, on the other hand, after August 1 they wish to come to an arrangement, having lived under the fail-safe mechanism for a number of months, if they wish to take advantage of the lower targets, for example, for those subsequent two years, then I think they should have a right to do that.

There is nothing in this bill that pushes any savings off into the future whatsoever, nothing in the amendments that we introduced yesterday -- nothing.

Mr Elston: The Finance minister talks about how well his legislation is working. We understand that OPSEU has risen from the table, not to return to enter negotiations again; there's something the Finance minister should have been making a statement on. Anyway, OPSEU has walked from the table. They don't want to deal with this government, they don't want to deal with what is not a fail-safe mechanism but a fail-fail mechanism. This whole piece of legislation is so fundamentally flawed that it has no chance of success, because you've really never, as Fred Upshaw said, negotiated in good faith with anybody.

You have gone through a whole series of public posturings for political purposes, and that's it.

If these people had followed the advice of our leader, Lyn McLeod, and had actually set their targets and let the local people, both employer and employee, negotiate to those targets, this thing could have succeeded and it could have been a success. What they have done is politically charged this whole discussion so that it was bound to fail.

Can this Finance minister do something right and be spot on and withdraw Bill 48?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, there is absolutely nothing to prevent agreements being reached at the local level; absolutely nothing. For the member for Bruce to say that it's not bargaining in good faith to bargain for four months is beyond my comprehension. There's absolutely nothing to prevent it from working.

The member is correct when he says that OPSEU walked away from the table this morning. That's true. I regret that, because by walking away from the table they've walked away from a lower target consisting of about $31 million difference. That represents about 600 jobs; the lower target, if a sectoral agreement were reached, would have preserved about 600 jobs that now will not be preserved if OPSEU does not come back to the table. I very much hope they will. We're open to negotiate right through until the end of July.

I would say to the member for Bruce that, for the benefit of the public sector employees in this province, the sooner they come back to the table in order to protect those 600 jobs that could be realized through the lower target that the Ontario public service must meet, the better we'll all be.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I know the Minister of Health is here and that the House leader has gone to get her, but in her absence, at least temporarily, I'll address my question to the Deputy Premier. Mr Deputy Premier and Finance minister, your Health minister released a consultation paper on the Ontario drug benefit program just a short time ago. Thankfully, she's here, because we'll now get an answer.

When the consultation paper on the Ontario drug benefit plan was released, it was released with a fanfare that indicated there would be consultation till September 30 of this year and that she would be expecting to get some good advice, but it was preceded by Bill 29 by about a month, in which the minister herself took unto herself unilateral power to cut back the ODB, to prescribe, almost, what could be taken and not taken by seniors in this province and other users of the Ontario drug benefit plan, and to tell us in fact whether or not they were going to be paying user fees.

I want the minister to tell us today what amount of user fees she has determined the seniors will be paying and how many benefits are going to be removed from the ODB that have to this point been able to protect seniors against disease.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm sure the member for Bruce is aware that in the budget of this spring the Minister of Finance indicated that there would be cost-sharing with respect to the Ontario drug benefit plan. Bill 29, which is the omnibus piece of legislation introduced in order to enable the government to reach its expenditure reduction targets, in fact provides the power to do that.

As the member has said, we have released a consultation paper making it very clear that what we would like to do is extend eligibility for ODB, but that in order to do that and at the same time to contain the costs of the program, we will be looking at some way of cost-sharing. In response to his specific question, no determination has been made as to the amount or to the limits or to the mechanism by which that would be effected.

Mr Elston: Well, this is the Drug Benefit Formulary. This is the book in which all of the medications which are paid for under the ODB are contained. Not long ago, some 230 of those drugs that previously existed in the ODB were removed by the Ministry of Health, and the minister of the day didn't have the extensive powers that are contained in Bill 29 with respect to the ODB.

Can the Minister of Health tell us, now that they've started tearing apart the Drug Benefit Formulary, what amount the user fees are going to be, from what amount to what other amount, if you want to give us a range, so that the seniors can anticipate how much money they are going to pay to participate in the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm sure the member for Bruce has had by now an opportunity to review the consultation paper that I released a couple of weeks ago, a consultation paper which talks broadly about the policies of the government, the Ministry of Health and the Ontario drug benefit plan, which speaks to the fact that over the last number of years, the increase in the cost of that program has been going up by 16%, and which also speaks to the very real concern that not only seniors but everyone in this province has had over time about inappropriate prescribing of drugs, about the fact that we cannot assure anyone --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Come on, Ruth. Tell us the number. You know what the number is. Tell us the number.

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

Mrs Caplan: There's nothing about quality, Ruth.

The Speaker: Would the member for Oriole please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that in fact the best quality of prescribing and prescription and sale of pharmaceuticals is what we have under that plan. The discussion paper talks about all of those issues.

With respect to the element of cost-sharing, let me say again to the member that there have been no conclusions reached as to how it would work and how much it would require. We think that if we are to expand the program as well as contain the costs, it will be necessary for pharmacists, manufacturers --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and beneficiaries to share in the costs of the program, but we want to consult with all of the people affected before we come to a final conclusion.

Mr Elston: The minister confirmed in her first answer that this is part of a budgetary plan. They know what the amount of money is that they are after. They know what the amount of drug costs is. They know how many seniors are enrolled in the plan. They know so many details, it is beyond belief that she doesn't have a clue as to the range of the user fee prices they are considering.

This is her plan, this is her government's plan. Whatever you want to call them, sharing costs, partnership fees or user fees, which of course is what Finance Minister Michael Wilson in Ottawa used to call them, it's what other Tories call them, why don't you come clean and tell us? How much money are you looking for from the senior citizens of this province to share the cost of the Ontario drug benefit plan? What is the price of your user fee for the province of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: We have a plan. We have the only drug benefit plan in the country where in fact none of the beneficiaries share in the cost of that program.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm surprised that the members find the fact that we have the Ontario drug benefit plan so amusing. It's a plan that's been in place for a very long time. It's a plan that has served the people of this province well, but it is a plan that has only served a limited segment of the population of this province. It's universal if you're over 65 or if you're on social assistance, but I would ask the member to listen to the questions that a member of his caucus has raised with me about the fact that there are many people in this province who don't benefit from our drug benefit plan.

There are two million people who have no coverage for their drug benefits and there are people suffering from catastrophic diseases who have no assistance from our drug benefit plan in order to meet their needs.

The consultation paper we have released speaks to those issues, speaks to the recommendations of the Lowy commission about looking at better prescribing guidelines, about managing the plan better and about everyone who benefits from the plan, manufacturers, pharmacists and consumers, in sharing more fairly in the cost of the plan. That's what our consultation is about, and I hope the member opposite, who is very familiar with both the benefits and the limitations of the Ontario drug benefit plan, will take a more constructive attitude to the consultation as a result of reading the consultation paper.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is to the Deputy Premier. From day one, unlike the Liberal Party, our caucus supported the principle of restraint. We made it clear from the outset that Bill 48 needed some serious changes to ensure fair and permanent restructuring of government in the province of Ontario. That is why we put forward 29 significant amendments last evening, but the government used its majority, with the Liberals following along behind, as they did in 1985, to vote down every single one of those amendments.

It is clear that despite all the rhetoric, you had no intention of considering the merits of the amendments at all. You had absolutely no intent of doing that whatsoever. Instead of playing the old-style politics and developing a fair and workable piece of legislation, if this was your intention all along, why did you go through the charade of last evening in committee of the whole on the bill?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I don't believe in playing the old-style politics. It's obvious it didn't work for the Liberals so I wouldn't want to do that. But I would remind the House leader for the Conservative caucus that if anybody played the old-style politics, it was his caucus when it pretended, by voting for the bill on second reading, that it was going to support it on third reading. They never had any intention of doing that. That's the oldest political trick in the world. Nobody believed that you were going to vote for it on third reading, not from day one.

Mr Eves: The Deputy Premier has been a member of this Legislature longer than I believe anybody else in here and he, above anybody, should know what second reading of a bill is, that is a vote in principle, and what third reading of a bill is. Many of the amendments that we introduced yesterday and the day before were not just supported by our caucus. They were drafted on the advice of many of the transfer partners. They were put forward on behalf of the men and women who will have to make the legislation work in the province of Ontario.

Now I can understand why you would vote together with the Liberal Party to defeat the amendments; that's partisan politics. But why would you play partisan politics at the expense of hospitals, school boards and municipalities by voting against their amendments to this legislation?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am pleased to know that the Conservative caucus sat down with Mr Ryan as it developed its set of amendments. But I find that a bit hard to believe because I'll give you an example of why we rejected the amendments brought forth by the Conservative caucus. There was one amendment that would remove the words "fair and equitable" from the bill.

Now, I ask you, how could we in good conscience accept that kind of amendment? Secondly --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): We want a definition of these words.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Simcoe West, come to order.

Mr Jim Wilson: I want to know what he meant by it.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West is to come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I will caution the member for Simcoe West. He is to come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think I owe an apology to the Conservative caucus. I didn't realize they didn't know what the words "fair and equitable" meant. I appreciate the fact that's an error in judgement on my part, but if I had realized that at the time the amendment was brought before us, I perhaps would have given an explanation of what "fair and equitable" meant in the way we intend to treat our employees in this province, namely, in a fair and equitable manner.

I'll just give you another example of why we rejected their amendments: They would not take into consideration the low-income cutoff of $30,000. I think that's an example of the way in which we are being fair and equitable as opposed to the way the Tories would treat the employees in this province.

Mr Eves: The minister knows that calling something fair and equitable doesn't make it fair and equitable. Calling a chipmunk an elephant doesn't make a chipmunk an elephant either.

The Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, many boards of education, police services boards and municipalities were instrumental in drafting many of our amendments that we put forward. The fact that you dismissed them out of hand is an insult to those transfer partners; not to us, to them.

The amendments introduced on their behalf would have made the legislation more fair and more workable. Now we're left with a bill that is not only difficult for transfer partners to implement right now, but may well lead to some very serious ramifications in three years' time. Why have you left your transfer partners holding the bag?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would deny that accusation, but I must say I was struck by the fact that of the organizations the member for Parry Sound listed that he consulted, the only union in the group he consulted was the Ontario Medical Association. I think that if we're going to have amendments that are fair and equitable, you have to do more than that. That's what we've done. Our amendments made the legislation more fair, more equitable than the original draft was.

I conclude by saying that we did look at every one of the Conservative caucus amendments very, very carefully, because I really was attempting to reach out and find an amendment or two, or three or four, that wouldn't either contradict the principle of the bill or do something, what I think would be irresponsible, like take words "fair and equitable" out of the bill or remove the low-income cutoff. I think that's not the purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to achieve compensation savings in the public sector in a fair and equitable manner in a way that protects jobs and services all across the province.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Surprise, surprise.

On Monday, the Premier confirmed that the Ontario government has a ban on the purchase of supplies, equipment and services from South Africa. Why did your casino project team, then, meet with Sun International of South Africa on two separate occasions?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, indeed, the Premier did confirm our ban and our abhorrence of the policies in South Africa, but that policy was not by any means broken. No business was conducted, no contracts signed. The casino team met briefly with this company --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: In fact, it's my understanding that when they first met, on the request from a local Toronto consultant, the casino team was unaware even that this company had holdings in South Africa. They were told in no uncertain terms in the meetings of Ontario's policy. In fact, they have not placed a bid on the casino and we will not be conducting any business with them.

Mr Eves: Your team met with them, not once but on two separate occasions. You were quoted as saying that officials ended discussions once the South African link was discovered. According to officials from both your casino project team and Sun International Ltd, the company did not pursue the casino project team because it decided it was no longer interested for business reasons. In fact, Sun officials told us by telephone this morning that they were not even aware of your government's policy on South Africa until this morning, when we told them about it.

Why did you say the casino project team cut off negotiations once it found out about the South African connection when that simply is not true?

Hon Ms Churley: I have spoken to the members of my project team who met with this group, and they have told me very clearly that in a meeting they expressed, and told them quite clearly of Ontario's policies around South Africa. That was made extremely clear to them in a meeting. Whether they decided to pursue it or not on the basis of that, I don't know, but I can clearly tell you that had they put in a bid, for obvious reasons because of our policy we would not be accepting that bid. It's as simple as that.

Mr Eves: Somebody is not telling the truth here. Bill Gillies, the director of communications and consultations for the casino project team -- he works for the minister -- told our researchers that Sun International simply decided to no longer pursue this. You didn't obviously inform him of this policy before he sat down to talk to them. You didn't inform the Premier, who was totally unaware that these negotiations took place when he answered the question on Monday. You did not break off discussions with Sun International. They in fact broke off negotiations with you.

You did not tell that company about your South African policy. They didn't know about it until this morning, and you didn't tell the media the truth. Why?

Hon Ms Churley: The member is, I think, misrepresenting the facts, and he should be very careful. He should listen carefully now, because there were no negotiations --

Mr Eves: I think you have, and that is the problem. You'd better phone the CEO of Sun International.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: I would prefer that the member listen to the answer to this question, because it's important. There were no negotiations conducted with this company. There was no business deal made with this company. The casino team, at the very beginning of the process --

Mr Eves: No discussions? What were they talking about? They weren't talking about submitting a proposal on your casino project in Windsor?

Interjections.

Hon Ms Churley: You're not listening to me.

The casino team, at the beginning of the process, met with --

Interjections.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I recommend a two-day recess, sir.

The Speaker: We'll blame it on the warm weather. Has the minister completed her response?

Hon Ms Churley: No, I haven't concluded my remarks. Just to finish up, no policy of the Ontario government was broken in any way.

The casino team, early on in the process, met with a number of groups from all over the world who were interested in our project. That was one of the groups that was recommended by a local consultant. There were no negotiations conducted. There was no business conducted. They have not put in a bid, so no policy has been broken.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. My question concerns your government's complete lack of action in the area of air pollution in this province. I don't believe there is any one of us today who could not have noticed the incredible cloud of smog that hung over the city. We are reminded on days like today, very directly, of the volumes of atmospheric pollutants that are present in the air we breathe, and we are also aware of the very serious health effects that this represents.

Indeed, according to the air quality index numbers, communities within and around Metropolitan Toronto are suffering through unacceptably high pollution levels. Cities like Mississauga and York and North York are enduring air pollution levels substantially higher than any acceptable level as prescribed by your ministry. My question is, what is your ministry doing, what are you doing, to combat this very serious problem of air pollution?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): As the member knows, in response to earlier questions in the House, I assured him that the ministry is carrying out work on the development of regulations that will control and limit ground level ozone, and we anticipate that we will be introducing those regulations later this year.

Mr Offer: Well, that is a very interesting and incomplete response.

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, of that ministry's six-point plan. Firstly, the budget of the air resources branch of your ministry has been slashed by over $4 million. Secondly, your government has killed the clean air program, which was designed to fundamentally revamp the outdated air pollution laws of Ontario. Thirdly, you have not developed a vehicle emission testing program for the province. Fourthly, you have ignored the problem of vapour emissions from gasoline.

Fifthly, the number of inspectors who work at the vehicle emissions test centre of your ministry, a unit, Minister, which you have seemingly forgotten, has been reduced to the grand number of one. Finally, sixthly, let me remind you that in that outdated, fictional book, An Agenda for People, you stated that you would overhaul the air pollution laws of Ontario.

Minister, you and your government have done nothing. How can you claim to be committed to improving air quality in the province of Ontario when all of these actions indicate that you are doing absolutely nothing at a time when the people of this province need and deserve action?

Hon Mr Wildman: I guess I can only assure the member that the matters he has raised are matters of active consideration by the ministry. The question of the vehicle emission controls is being actively worked on, both by my ministry and the Ministry of Transportation, and we will be bringing forward regulations as soon as we can. We expect that will be later this year.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. At this very moment, officials from the province of Quebec and officials from the province of New Brunswick, including the deputy ministers, are meeting to resolve the problems related to the construction industry in both of those provinces. Madam Minister, that has resulted from the fact that the province of New Brunswick took some action to precipitate these negotiations. Don't you think it's time Ontario took the same action?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I think steps were required to be taken to precipitate negotiations, so steps have been taken. Negotiations will be commencing shortly. I indicated to the member yesterday that meetings at an officials' level would be happening in the very near future. In fact, that meeting will be taking place next week at the assistant deputy minister level, and the deputy and minister level meeting will be following that very shortly. As the agenda is worked out for the specific issues, there will be more than the construction, but that will be the main issue that will be under discussion when we meet.

Mr Sterling: Summer is the construction season for most of the construction workers in eastern Ontario. The fact of the matter is that last week officials from these two provinces were meeting. This week, officials from those two provinces are meeting, including the deputy ministers of the appropriate departments. Next week, they're going to meet to resolve this problem before the construction season has run out.

Meanwhile, the Ontario government sits back and waits for things to happen. What's going to happen is that the construction workers and the contractors from New Brunswick are going to benefit because their government took action,

whereas the construction workers of Ontario and the contractors of Ontario are not going to benefit this summer because this government hasn't taken action.

Madam Minister, will you insist that any agreement struck between the province of New Brunswick and the province of Quebec vis-à-vis the cross-border contracting situation that we have described in this Legislature, which is patently unfair to contractors in Ontario, patently unfair to contracting workers in Ontario, will be duplicated in this province or you will immediately slap down restrictions which equal the Quebec restrictions and not wait for negotiations to take place but demand that our workers get treated as fairly as New Brunswick workers get treated?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the member's position is a fair position to put forward. But I would say to him, first of all, that he must remember that the discussions I'm talking about that are going to be taking place next week and in the two weeks following that are not the first discussions with the province of Quebec. In fact, we have already been in discussions with them. I attended a meeting myself in March.

Secondly, with respect to what, if any agreements are arrived at between the province of New Brunswick and the province of Quebec, I will be pleased to look very directly at the result of that. I should indicate to him that there may be tradeoff issues there that would be inappropriate for Ontario. But the sentiment and the intent behind your question and your direction are ones that I think are reasonable. I will give every consideration to it at the time.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship. Over the last number of months, many constituents have contacted my office in regard to employment equity. Indeed, my constituents have been hearing and reading confusing reports about employment equity through the media and by numerous groups that are indeed opposed to employment equity.

A good example of this is a recent

article in the Toronto Star, on Monday, entitled "Employment Equity Another Reason For Companies To Avoid Ontario." This

article states, "The employer may have to hire another, less qualified candidate to meet employment equity goals" and thus "compromise on the merit principle." It also states the government has simply "replaced the word 'quota' with the words 'goals and timetables."'

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Who on the ministry staff wrote this? This is a setup.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Mr Duignan: Can the minister address some of the claims made in the

article about the government's employment equity legislation, especially now that she's released the draft regulations on Bill 79? In particular, can the minister clarify the difference between "goals" and "timetables and quotas," and how the government will decide whether these goals and timetables are being reasonably met?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): I appreciate the question because it was a very well-put-together question and certainly is one of the many myths that has been floating around in Ontario for many years about employment equity.

First of all, to clarify for the member and for the other members in the House, when we talk about employment equity and the difference between a quota and goals and timetables --

Mr Sorbara: This is an infomercial, not a question. This is a ripoff.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre is asked to come to order.

Mr Sorbara: Well, that's what she's doing.

The Speaker: I must caution the member for York Centre. Under our standing orders, by rotation, all three parties have an opportunity to ask questions and for a response. I ask the member for York Centre to respect that.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As this is an extremely important question, I'm going to try to be very succinct.

Mr Sorbara: It's stupid. We've got important issues here.

The Speaker: If the member for York Centre refuses to come to order, he will be named.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Again, the difference between "quotas" and "goals and timetables" is extremely important as we discuss employment equity. They often get confused and interrelated. Quotas are when a government or an outside jurisdiction imposes a number on an employer about how many designated people it must hire within a specified time. What we are asking employers to do is to sit down and look at their opportunities for change, whether it's hiring or whether it's promotion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Mr Speaker, this is very important.

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

Hon Ms Ziemba: The opportunities for change will take into account how many designated group members are already in the workplace and how many designated group members are available within the community that they represent.

Mr Duignan: It's quite certain that the member for York Centre doesn't care about employment equity and that people have been discriminated against under his government and that government.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Regardless of the member's strong feelings on the issue, it is not helpful. Would the member direct his question through the Chair.

Mr Duignan: One of the other concerns expressed by my constituents over the last couple of months is the fact that this legislation is nothing more than reverse discrimination. I wonder, could you explain to the members of the House that this is not the case.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Reverse discrimination indicates or would imply that we now have a level playing field, that people are given an equal opportunity to enter the workforce and the workplace and are given an equal opportunity to be promoted within that workplace. Of course, as we know, the statistics have proved and shown to us that the four designated groups are not on a level playing field, that they are not given equal opportunity for promotion. They're not given an equal opportunity to even apply for a position.

What we are doing is making sure that we level the playing field so that everybody is given an equal opportunity based on their qualifications and their merit, and the best qualified person will be hired in the workplace and will be promoted.

JOB CREATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and has to do with the question of jobs and the outlook for jobs. I'm sure you are aware that today the help wanted index, which is kind of a preliminary indication of the unemployment numbers, came out, and it showed that the national situation is bad and the Ontario situation is particularly bad.

I hope the unemployment numbers coming out Friday will not be as bad as these numbers indicate, and I think all of us hope the unemployment rate will be lower. But we now know that in terms of the 20% of the jobs that are covered under the broader public sector, I think it's fair to say there will be fewer jobs there, not more jobs. In your budget, you called for a growth of about 106,000 jobs this year and the unemployment rate dropping by about half a percentage point.

This is what I'm trying to get at: 106,000 jobs growing in the remaining 80% of the labour market. My question is this: There's a variety of sectors where those jobs could come from. Where does the ministry believe the 106,000 jobs will be created? In what sectors will we see those jobs growing?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt was at the standing committee on finance and economic affairs when I made a presentation a couple of weeks ago; I can't recall the exact date. During that presentation, I laid out to the committee the specific sectors where it appeared that there was going to be growth in productivity and employment in the next number of years.

Some of those sectors, for example, were sectors such as manufacturing; the auto sector itself; generally speaking, the high-tech areas of the economy. It's still our hope that we'll see job growth in those crucial sectors of the economy.

Having said that, I am aware that the unemployment rate is going to be remaining unacceptably high during the next three or four years. We're doing what we can through our capital investment of almost $4 billion this year to keep jobs up. We can only do so much, but I think that almost $4 billion is a major commitment on behalf of the people of this province to do what we can to stimulate jobs and growth in the critical areas of the economy.

Mr Phillips: The reason I'm pursuing this is that, for us in the Liberal Party, at least, this is the number one issue in the province is jobs. I realize that tackling the deficit is perhaps your number one issue right now. For us, it's an important issue, but jobs are more important.

As we look at the record of your government, each year you have failed to hit your targets on job growth and on the employment numbers. We see that all of the job growth year-to-date, the end of May, is in the service sector. Half of the service sector, as you know, is health and education, so we see the jobs that have been created year-to-date at risk, and we would like you to be perhaps a little more specific to the opposition, but I think to all the public out there who are looking for some sense of hope about a future.

As I say, I'd like you to be a little clearer on where you see those 106,000 jobs being created. You've indicated in general terms the auto sector, but actually we see the manufacturing sector struggling, and that's where the auto sector is. I'd like to know more clearly, where will we see those net 106,000 jobs created? It's your budget. We're now literally halfway through the year. We're now three years into the NDP government. We are hoping you can be a little more helpful to the unemployed at home right now in where those 106,000 jobs are going to be created.

Hon Mr Laughren: To put something in perspective, we said in our budget that there were three priorities, not one, not just the deficit. We said that the three priorities were jobs, keeping the deficit under control and maintaining the essential services in this province.

Mr Phillips: That was last year's budget.

Hon Mr Laughren: This year's budget too. Those are our priorities, and that hasn't changed.

Our belief is that as we strategically invest in Ontario's economy -- I know the member would agree that we as a province can only do so much direct investment ourselves. We simply don't have the money to do more than we're doing now, but I think the $4 billion is important.

In terms of the private sector, which is where most of the job creation is going to have to come, I believe they're going to be in those key sectors I already mentioned: the auto sector, telecommunications, trade and services. Those are the sectors that we believe -- and not just us; private forecasters and economists and think tank groups will tell you the same thing, that those are the key sectors as we work our way through the 1990s.

But there's no question that there's a massive restructuring going on out there in the province and elsewhere, and what we can do is whatever we can in terms of strategic provincial investments to aid and abet that process of restructuring that's going on out there. But we ourselves, I believe, cannot do more than spending the $4 billion we are on capital this year.

TAX INCREASES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question's for the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the budget that your government recently brought down.

There's no doubt that your $2-billion tax grab knows no limits. You've increased the taxes on personal income, tax on insurance and on automobiles, tax on houses, tax on health insurance, tax on home insurance, tax on employee benefits, and then you found out, only because my staff informed the ministry, that you've taxed deposit insurance paid by banks, trust companies and credit unions. This tax will net the government an additional $20 million, most of it coming in the form of higher service charges paid by consumers.

As if this wasn't enough, your government has also found a way of taxing the dream of home ownership. The 8% sales tax now hits CMHC-insured mortgages. This means that the first-time home buyer who can barely make the down payment, who is taking advantage of the new 5% down payment, is the hardest hit. This is also the most fragile market --

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

Mr Cousens: -- there has been in the real estate industry for some time. These taxes are unjust and unnecessary, but the part which is most frightening --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Cousens: I'm coming right up to it. The part that's most frightening is the question, and it is that you didn't even know that these taxes were within your budget. How many of these surprises are there going to be in that total budget you brought out?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The ones I don't know of, I don't know.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): That wasn't done by Tory research.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's right. I'll try and give a serious response, though, to the question, and it was asked of me yesterday as well.

The tax on the insurance part of the mortgage on a $200,000 home, which is the example I used yesterday, comes to around $300, as I recall, $360, something like that. I would remind the member for Markham as well that it was this government, and this Premier in particular, who led the charge to have RRSP money that could be withdrawn and put into mortgages, so we have done a lot for first-time home buyers in this province. A relatively small percentage, I think it's one fifth of 1% of the mortgage, would be reflected in the insurance on a $200,000 home. I think it's not an onerous burden, although I appreciate the fact that no one likes to pay more taxes.

Mr Cousens: This Treasurer just loves socialism, and when people say, "How do you like socialism so far?" there's no doubt that this government is in love with the socialist philosophy that's changing Ontario for ever. They brought out a budget that is netting the government increased revenues they didn't even know were going to be there: a $20-million windfall from the insurance on deposit insurance, and another windfall from people scratching out an income to buy a home, and you're going to take some of that kind of money.

What we really want to see you as a government do, who are so wrapped up in your socialist philosophy and grabbing the money from the people, is to come back, revisit your budget and come out with some fresh figures so that we can really have a sense of how much money you're going to be taking out of the economy. Are you prepared to go back and look at your budget again and detail all the undeclared revenues that you're bringing in to us from this big tax grab?

Hon Mr Laughren: This government has never had a tax revenue windfall in our two and a half years in office.

Mr Cousens: Twenty million bucks.

Hon Mr Laughren: We have not had.

I would just remind the member for Markham that when you look at the entire tax regime in this province and compare us with other provinces -- I want to be very specific here -- on the retail sales tax we're the third lowest in Canada, on the corporate income tax rate for manufacturing we're the fourth lowest in Canada, on payroll and capital taxes we're the lowest in Canada, on incomes less than $29,590 we're the third lowest in Canada and for over $30,000 we're right in the middle of all the other provinces in Canada.

I can tell the member for Markham that we do not have an onerous tax burden and, in conclusion, I can tell the member for Markham that the amount of tax revenues as a percentage of the gross domestic product in this province in 1993 is lower now than it was in 1989 before this government came to office.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): A question to the Chair of Management Board: Minister, last week you announced that our government had been able to resolve the long-standing problem of radioactive soil on McClure Crescent in Scarborough by moving soil to a storage site near Tapscott Road. Now I hear that industries near Tapscott Road are organizing in opposition to your plan. Why were these industries not aware of your proposals?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Let me start out by thanking the member for his question and say that, first of all, anybody in any of the properties affected who wasn't aware of the proposals chose not to be aware of the proposals.

Mr Speaker, you'll recall after my statement last week both the member for Scarborough North and the third party critic in their responses complimented the government on the consultation that had gone on with the community around that removal of the soil from McClure Crescent and the consultation that had gone on with the people in the affected potential storage area. That consultation has been extensive. They should have known.

In any kind of a difficult situation like this, in any event there are always going to be some who object, and I think that has been taken into account in weighing the pros and cons of where we're going to temporarily store the soil, over and against getting it out of the yards of those people who are directly affected by it where they live.

Mr Frankford: Minister, do you expect to receive any support from the federal government in resolving this issue?

Hon Mr Charlton: Well, there's a yes and a no to that answer. Yes, the federal government is working with us in terms of its responsibility for the handling of low-level radioactive waste. Eventually the federal government will be putting in place a permanent storage site for this waste. That's why we're presently having to do an interim relocation of that soil.

In the meantime, the proposal that we have will take the soil out of McClure Crescent, take it to the temporary storage site and separate out the contaminated particles of plastic that are contained in that soil. That contaminated plastic will be removed totally from the site in containers and taken to Chalk River, where the federal government already has some storage facilities. Then the rest of the soil, which will be contained on the site, will eventually be moved to a permanent federal site.

DAY CARE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): To the Minister of Community and Social Services: Tomorrow, Minister, the region of Peel council will be meeting to make a decision on eliminating 932 day care spaces provided currently in homes in that community. They're doing that because they have to find $600,000 to complete the target that was given to them by the Treasurer for them to find the savings under the expenditure control program.

Your contribution, Minister, is $3.8 million, as you know. They've offered you a deal that you have rejected that would see most of those day care spaces retained in the community, but you have rejected it.

If the region is forced to decide to cut those day care spaces, on behalf of the users and the providers, Minister, will you commit today to provide the full $3.8 million of provincial funding regardless of Peel regional council's decision tomorrow?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I made it clear to the chair of the regional council of Peel when I spoke to him by telephone a couple of days ago that our interest was very much in continuing the programs, that we wanted the regional municipality to do its utmost to be able to continue the programs and that if the council took, in our view, the unfortunate decision to cut the program, then I would be looking for ways in which we could maintain our funding in the program and maintain the programs that are there now.

Mr Mahoney: The region has done an analysis that shows that if you were to indeed commit to provide the provincial funds, through attrition they would really not lose any spaces for the kids who require those spaces. You recognize that, if this program goes, the providers will wind up out of work and they will simply wind up on one form or another of social assistance. The women who require these day care spaces will also find that they have to stay home to take care of their kids and they'll be out of work and wind up on some form of social assistance.

We need a clear decision for the people who depend on this service. If Peel regional council makes a decision to fund the $600,000 that will top up to $4.2 million, the target given to it by your government, if it uses that $600,000, will you commit to the users and providers of day care in Peel region that you will fund $3.8 million to the region of Peel to allow it to continue to provide those day care spaces? Yes or no, Minister?

Hon Mr Silipo: The grants that are paid out to the municipality are conditional grants. As the member well knows, they are conditional on the municipality topping up the 80% of the funds that we provide, adding the 20% and providing the program at full capacity. If the municipality decides to shut down the program, then we are going to be doing whatever we can to maintain our level of funding in the program and to maintain the program to that level of funding that we can maintain.

We believe and we hope that the municipality can find other areas in which it can make reductions. But obviously that's a decision for them to make. If they decide that this is an area that they are going to cut, then we will obviously look at what we can do to at least continue the amount of funding that we provide in the program and the extent of service that can be provided through the 80% funding we now provide.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Last week I filed a notice of dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Minister of Education and Training with response to a question on Jobs Ontario. I was notified it was to have been dealt with yesterday. Unfortunately, due to an oversight which I think had to do with exhaustion after several hours of voting on the social contract legislation, the matter was not called. I would ask for unanimous consent that it be dealt with tomorrow at the end of proceedings.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the member's point of order and indeed ask if there's unanimous consent for the late show to occur. Agreed? No? I heard at least one no.

I would put before the House again the request by the member. There was an oversight. I realize that this House spent a considerable amount of time in a voting procedure and, as a result of that, was unable to have what's commonly known as the late show. I think the honourable member for Eglinton has made a reasonable request for the House and I will put the question again. Is there unanimous consent for the late show to occur? Agreed.

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would request that the member leave it over till Monday. There is a greater possibility that we can have attendance by the minister at that time.

The Speaker: If I understand, there had been some arrangement and agreement between the member and the minister involved for tomorrow, for Thursday, at 6 of the clock.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Point of personal privilege.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: One at a time, please. The member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: I approached the Clerk's office about the fact that it had not been called yesterday. I asked if it could be dealt with today. They had talked to the minister and he asked if it could be dealt with tomorrow instead of today. I had agreed to that, so I don't think it's a problem with the minister.

The Speaker: I take it it's agreed, and it will be Thursday at 6 of the clock. I recognize the honourable member for York Mills with his point of order.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, Mr Speaker, on a related matter: I too had called for the late show for the Minister of Education and Training, and in discussions with him last week, he said he would not be able to attend and asked that it be deferred. We deferred it to yesterday evening. You know what happened. In recognition of what the government member has suggested, I would be happy to put it over to next Tuesday at 6 o'clock.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Why not tomorrow?

Mr Turnbull: I will not be in the House tomorrow, much in the same way as the Minister of Education was not in the House for the two preceding times that were arranged. I understood from the Minister of Education yesterday evening that he would support such a putting over and I understood that in fact there would be unanimous consent from their side.

The Speaker: These requests place the Chair in a very awkward position in that the Chair is not privy to conversations between members and ministers.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): In the case of the first incident that was raised with us, it was raised with us before it was raised here, and I was able to confirm with the minister that tomorrow night was not a problem.

If the member would be prepared to raise this question again tomorrow, I will have had an opportunity to confirm that it's acceptable to the minister so that we don't end up with any further delays in that respect, if that would help.

Mr Turnbull: I think I just mentioned that in fact I will not be in the House tomorrow, so that will not be possible.

The Speaker: What I might suggest to the member is that perhaps he could contact the minister and, if at all possible, reach some accommodation before 5 of the clock today and so inform the House, and we can make the necessary arrangements with or without the individual member being present.

PETITIONS

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that I've been asked to present to the government. It was submitted by Mr Fergus Whelan, the president of Bubbles 'N' Brew in the city of Trenton and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, believe that the new tax on brew-on-premises home brew is unfair, unwanted and unreasonable.

"We are concerned that it will eliminate jobs without increasing government revenue.

"This new tax is inspired by big, multinational brewing corporations whose only desire is to keep us from enjoying home brew. Scrap the tax before it begins."

HEALTH CARE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that was sent to me from the Onaping Falls medical centre in Levack, Ontario, and it reads:

"Respecting the government proposal to shut out new doctors in Ontario:

"The Ontario government proposal to shut out new family doctors, paediatricians and psychiatrists from practising in most areas of Ontario is unacceptable.

"It will prevent these doctors from serving those patients who need care the most. Here are some examples:

"Women and children who need more access to female psychiatrists, paediatricians and family physicians.

"Young female doctors form a much larger percentage of graduating doctors than the existing doctor population.

"Cancer patients who will be denied care by doctors trained in palliative care and paediatric cancer.

"Parents who have difficulty in finding obstetricians to deliver their babies and who therefore rely on young family physicians.

"Psychiatric patients, including children, who already wait for an assessment, depending on where they live.

"It's also a waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers money already spent in training these doctors, doctors the people of Ontario will never get a chance to use.

"I oppose the Ontario government's proposal to shut out new doctors from practising."

That's signed by several hundred people from that area of the province, and I too affix my name to this petition.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we have grave concerns over the Ministry of Health's proposal to downsize and eliminate the mental health services at St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital;

"Whereas we condemn the inhumane approach to fiscal management;

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

"We demand that the Minister of Health immediately cease and desist the abandonment of the high quality of care that has always been provided by the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital."

That's signed by some 550 people in the Elgin and surrounding areas, and I will affix my signature to that particular petition.

CONTRAT SOCIAL

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition justement, je crois, de 20 enseignants et enseignantes de l'école secondaire l'Escale de Rockland qui pétitionnent l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario justement pour protester contre le contrat social du premier ministre Bob Rae. J'y ai apposé ma signature et je les appuie à 100 %.

GAMBLING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition 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 emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government 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 in 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 as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation, 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 questionable initiative."

I support this petition and I'm happy to loan my signature to it.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm going to present this petition:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We are upset and angry regarding the impact of Bill 48 on the public sector employees. Not only will this bill affect our pensions and salaries, but it will destroy our basic democratic right to bargain collectively.

"We do not agree with your attempt to destroy our unions. We are prepared to oppose the passage of this bill with every resource at our disposal. You must kill Bill 48."

It is signed by the staff from Glen Dhu Community School in Whitby, and I'm glad to affix my signature to this very fine and important petition.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here which is signed by a number of people throughout Kent county. It's addressed to the honourable Lieutenant Governor of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it says:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"That the social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

"That the government withdraw Bill 48 and, in place of this bill, the government work cooperatively with the public sector unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public sector unions."

In keeping with accordance of the procedures in introducing petitions, I hereby introduce these petitions on behalf of the constituents in my riding.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

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

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

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

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

I too have put my name to that petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition signed by approximately 200 constituents on Bill 164.

"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."

So signed, and I have affixed my signature to this. Regretfully, it was not submitted to the House prior to the passage of Bill 164, but the fact of the matter is that people are genuinely upset and concerned that the government is not prepared to do anything in response to the complaints that people have. It is a serious problem that's going on within society today. The government continues to do what it wants and the public has no choice but to put petitions in, and they are having no effect on it at all.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I have a petition here from the secondary school teachers of my riding.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"That the social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

"That the government withdraw Bill 48 and, in place of this bill, that the government work cooperatively with the public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services."

I am submitting this on behalf of my constituents.

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

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

"We oppose the provincial government's cancellation of GO bus route 6565, Newmarket-King-Maple-Yorkdale. To many of us, this is the only means of transportation; to the elderly, possibly the only means."

I have signed this petition in support.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition signed by 356 residents of Wellington county in the city of Guelph in support of retaining GO train service in Guelph, and I wish to present it to the Ontario Legislature at this time for the consideration of the provincial government.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the provincial Parliament.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have over 700 signatures from constituents in my riding. I will affix my signature to this petition and I support it.

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

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38.

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

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

"We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

It's signed by 28 constituents and I affix my signature.

HEALTH CARE

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here from many, many residents in my riding, some several hundred, including the Dancys on Park Road, Arlene Jarvis and Dr Charles E. McIlveen, a former member of this assembly from the city of Oshawa.

They are petitioning our Legislature, registering their opposition in the strongest possible terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of "legal holiday" in the Retail Business Holidays Act. They "believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families."

The amendment included in "Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated.

GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Mississauga South, I believe you have a committee report to submit?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Get with it, Margaret.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Have I said anything mean to you today, Mr Treasurer? Are you going to be nice to me, Mr Treasurer?

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's sixth report.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES

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

Bill 68,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and to make related amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la

Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée et à la

Loi sur les juges de paix.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, do you wish to make any statement?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): No, Mr Speaker. I did make a statement in ministers' time and look forward to discussing the bill in debate.

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA / LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LES CONCENTRATIONS COMMERCIALES

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

Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Commercial Concentration Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur les concentrations commerciales.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): When I tabled the bill, I noted the surprise on the Finance minister's face, and in fact he should be surprised. It is quite unusual for an opposition member to table government legislation, and that is what my bill is today. It is exactly the same as the first sections of Bill 29 that deal with the commercial concentration tax repeal.

It's my hope that the government will accept this bill and move it forward. We can then, if they wish, through the proper process of this House, deal with all of those other sections of Bill 29 which have nothing whatever to do with the commercial concentration tax repeal.

I'm concerned that Bill 29, as it now stands, is not only confusing; it is devious and it has been described as sneaky. My legislation today will clarify that situation. I have the word of our opposition House leader that if the Treasurer will accept this bill, we will support it as government legislation, bang, bang, bang; first, second and third reading, without delay.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I beg leave to introduce a bill called

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act and that the bill be read for the first time.

The Deputy Speaker: This is the wrong copy. I wonder if you could give me the right one. There is another form that could be used.

Mrs Sullivan: I don't have the other form, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps you could reintroduce it tomorrow.

Mrs Sullivan: Yes, I'll do that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

Mr Laughren moved third reading of Bill 48,

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you wish, Minister, to make a statement?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just before the minister proceeds, I believe there's been an agreement between the three House leaders that the Finance minister will make his comments, then they will split the time between then and 5:30, and then at 5:30 the Premier will do a wrapup.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I am pleased to lead off debate on Bill 48, the Social Contract Act. As members will understand, I believe, the Social Contract Act and what flows from it is designed to effect $2 billion in public sector compensation savings in this fiscal year and each of the two subsequent years.

We feel very strongly that the combination of the expenditure reductions which are taking place through the expenditure control plan and the almost $2 billion in tax increases that were contained in the budget present a fair and balanced approach to getting Ontario's financial house back in shape, and it is out of shape now.

We believe that if we had said, "No, we don't need the $2 billion in savings from the public sector, we'll take it out of expenditure reductions instead," that would have meant very, very significant layoffs in the public sector all across the province. It's hard to pinpoint precisely the number, but I would think somewhere between 20,000 to 30,000 job losses in the public sector.

We had, of course, another alternative: to raise taxes even more than we did. I think we pushed the envelope as far as we could on tax increases this year.

The third option, of course, was to allow the deficit to rise by a further $2 billion. I believe that would have been unacceptable, that as we come out of the recession we simply have got to get the deficit going down.

Even with these moves, even with the moves of $4 billion under the expenditure control plan and the significant tax increases and the social contract $2 billion in savings, we are still this year going to have a deficit of over $9 billion.

I can tell you that when we formed the government, the cumulative debt of this province was in the neighbourhood of $40 billion. Right now it's over $68 billion and it's ticking away at the rate of, in this year's case, another $9 billion. We were heading for a situation in which, very quickly, in the next year or two, the amount of money we spent on servicing the debt would be the largest single expenditure of this province, more than we spend on hospitals, more than we spend on education, more than we spend on social services. I believe that would have been irresponsible, and we simply had to take some action.

I believe as well that regardless of what government was sitting in these positions over here, it would have done something. I'm not sure they would have done exactly what we're doing. I'm not sure there would have been a social contract.

But I can tell you that if what other governments have done across this land is any indication, what would have been done by another party in government would have been a lot more draconian, a lot meaner, a lot less fair than what this government is attempting to do through the social contract. Don't take my word for it; look at what's happened in other provinces, and look as well at the severity of our fiscal problems compared to other provinces'.

The intent of this act is to encourage workers, employers and the government to negotiate settlements that will be in everyone's best interests and will achieve expenditure savings of $2 billion this year and each of the next two years.

The process is working, somewhat. There have been two agreements signed, one with the community services sector -- that was achieved yesterday -- and today, very recently, the police sector signed an agreement, including the police and the police services boards and the government. There are eight sectors in total.

This morning the Ontario public service sector negotiations ended when the Ontario Public Service Employees Union walked away from the process. I regret that very much, for a number of reasons.

One, I believe it's in everyone's best interests to achieve a voluntary agreement rather than be subjected to the fail-safe mechanism contained in Bill 48.

The reason I think it's in everyone's best interests is that if a sectoral agreement is reached, there are lower savings targets that must be realized.

In the case of the Ontario public service, the difference is about a $31-million lower target if a sectoral agreement is achieved. That $31 million, using a very rough rule of thumb, represents about 600 jobs that will no longer be protected in the Ontario public service, because the savings target is now $31 million higher because no sectoral agreement has been voluntarily reached up to this point.

The government had put on the public service table a number of inducements to achieve a voluntary agreement. First, we had assured the parties at the table that the job security fund would be available to provide 95% of employees' incomes for up to a year if they, as a result of this exercise or, quite frankly, as a result of the expenditure control exercise as well, were subjected to temporary layoffs.

Secondly, if the agreements could be reached, there would be no need for any permanent layoffs; some temporary layoffs quite likely, yes, but we believe that the combination of the job security fund that I mentioned plus recall rights plus the other inducements such as early retirement, voluntary exit, combined with the attrition in the public sector, which has admittedly dropped in the last couple of years, would not have necessitated any permanent layoffs whatsoever.

So I believe there are still adequate incentives there for our own employees to come back to the Ontario public service table. That is their decision, of course, not ours. We welcome them back at any time because I really, really believe it's in everyone's best interests, in particular in the best interests of their own membership, to come back to the table and negotiate in order to protect those 600 jobs and in order to realize the other savings through the job security fund and through early retirement options and so forth. I regret very much that they have chosen to walk.

Our provisions for workers who reach agreements underline our respect for those who work in the public sector and serve their communities so well. I very much hope that we will see a large number of agreements. Out of the eight sectors, it would be very nice to have them all agree.

I understand the argument that this is an intrusion into the sanctity of collective bargaining, but I would put to you that that's not the only sanctity there is in this province. There's also the sanctity of protecting vulnerable people and protecting jobs in the public service.

I know it's a tough tradeoff -- very difficult for this government in particular, if I could say it; very difficult for us to proceed with this bill -- but we believe that the principle of protecting the vulnerable through the provision of services in all the communities across the province and the principle of protecting jobs in the public sector, the people who deliver those services, are important principles, and we believe that in this case the tradeoff simply must be there. We don't take great satisfaction in that, but I believe that's the case, because it really does preserve jobs and services.

Bargaining agents can choose not to be subjected to Bill 48, not to be subjected to the fail-safe mechanism, as we call it, by arriving at a voluntary agreement before August 1.

Not only that: Through amendments that were put yesterday, we have amended the bill so that even if a sector doesn't reach an agreement or if there is no local agreement by August 1 and the fail-safe mechanism clicks in and applies to that sector, such as the Ontario public service sector that walked away this morning, after August 1, if that sector, having lived under the fail-safe mechanism for a number of months in this fiscal year we're in now, decides it would prefer to negotiate a sectoral agreement for the next two years, that is quite appropriate, and we would be prepared to engage in those negotiations to make that happen.

I know there was some criticism of that amendment in the House by the third party today. But I would say to the third party, why would we so fiercely lock into the fail-safe mechanism, Bill 48, for the full three years if, after August 1, a sector comes to the agreement or comes to the conclusion that it would like the lower targets for the next two years and that it would like the benefits that are offered through the voluntary agreements under the social contract? Why wouldn't we entertain that? I believe that in some cases they will come up with more creative and better solutions than are contained in Bill 48, so why would we reject that?

I understand it's a very difficult decision for the trade unions in this province to accept this bill. I appreciate that fact, but I really believe it's in the best interests of their members to avoid this bill by arriving at and coming to a voluntary agreement.

We have made some amendments in the bill. For example, we've changed the original requirements of the bill on low-income people and we have exempted totally people who earn under $30,000. The bill as originally drafted said it was for people earning under $30,000 on an annualized basis. We've removed that from the bill because most people who earn under $30,000, particularly those people who work part-time -- if you annualized their salary, they would end up earning over $30,000 -- are not working part-time because they choose to. Very often, it's because that's the only job available to them.

Why would we do that? I know it puts pressure on the remaining employees in that particular sector who must achieve the targets, but I think that in the interest of fairness it was better to remove the annualized aspect of the low-income cutoff aspect of the bill so that, if you earn under $30,000, you are exempt from the reduction in compensation aspects of the bill.

I realize there will be some distortions and I believe it was the third party again that raised the question of people who may perhaps work at a very high hourly rate, weekly rate or per diem rate and if you annualized their income it would be more than $30,000 a year -- someone who earns $500 a day doing some specialized work. But I believe the number of examples that you could come up with in that regard are not as important as the very large number of people who work part-time and earn under $30,000, the vast majority of whom are women. I think it was an appropriate tradeoff.

We clarified in the act, through our amendments as well, that nothing in the act overrides the Human Rights Code. What was already contained in the act was that nothing would affect the Pay Equity Act and the provisions therein, but we've added the Human Rights Code to that as well. We've clarified some of the ambiguous wording that was in the bill and we spelled out some administrative arrangements as well.

The successful negotiations that have occurred so far, two out of the eight sectors, show at least that unions, government, employers can work together to achieve voluntary agreements. It's my hope that that will continue to happen and that we will achieve voluntary agreements. My dream would be to achieve it in all eight sectors -- whether that happens or not, I don't know -- in which case the fail-safe mechanism will drop into place.

But it must be very clear to people that we must achieve these savings. There was some scepticism when we announced our intention to proceed with the social contract that we would ever achieve these savings. There was scepticism from the financial markets and, quite frankly, from some people in this Legislature. But I think it should be clear that we are determined to get our financial house back in order in this province, because the spending of the 1980s cannot be sustained, given the revenues of the 1990s. It was fine in the 1980s but it's not fine in the 1990s, and we've simply got to achieve that.

If we didn't, we would continue to transfer an increasing amount of Ontario taxpayers' money to wealthy bond holders somewhere else in the world, not even in Ontario, because over two thirds of all our new borrowing is not done in this province, not even done in this country, and that's because of necessity. The private capital markets cannot provide us with the amount of money that we're borrowing, which is running along at over $1 billion a month, and that simply means that we have to borrow elsewhere in the world.

I've always thought that it's truly a perverse redistribution of income to take working people's taxes in this province and transfer those taxes to wealthy bond holders somewhere else in the world. That, to me, is not my vision of redistribution of income. Also, that means that the money that's going to pay the interest is not being used to provide jobs in the public sector, to provide services in the public sector, to provide a better educational system. For me, that's more important, and it's more important that we get that under control.

It's not simply to save money for the saving of money's sake, it's to preserve jobs and services that we are proceeding with Bill 48 and to protect the very vulnerable people who depend on those services, because, make no mistake about it, if we had taken the $2 billion in some other way, through the reduction of transfers, either the educational system would have suffered or the public services sector would have suffered, and in many cases we really are talking about the most vulnerable people and we're not prepared to do that. That is why we have determined to proceed with this legislation.

I do recognize that it represents an enormous compromise for many people to accept the social contract, I appreciate that, and it's a profound compromise. But I really believe that it's necessary for the common good to do this. I think it's not appropriate to have simply allowed the public sector to have continued on without these actions, because I feel very strongly that while the public sector is not the cause of the financial problems in this province -- it didn't cause them -- at the same time it has to be part of the solution.

Other people are part of the solution too. That's what the tax increases are all about. That's what the expenditure reductions are all about. So we're not simply selecting public sector employees and saying, "You've got to pay the entire price." That's simply not the case. But at the same time the public sector must be part of the solution.

I know that it's not easy. Difficult problems never are easy to solve. But I would conclude by simply saying that the alternative to what we're doing would be more unpalatable and especially more unpalatable to the very people who are most upset about us proceeding with this legislation. That's assuming, of course, you accept the premise that something had to be done about