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

July 20, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

TOURISM

ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY

SCIENCE NORTH

JOBS ONTARIO

LANDLORD-TENANT COOPERATION

GIRL GUIDES

MEMBERS IN HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AREA

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

OSHAWA-WHITBY FAIR

OMA AGREEMENT

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO

APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER

TAXATION

TOURISM INDUSTRY

OMA AGREEMENT

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

LANDFILL

OMA AGREEMENT

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SOCIAL CONTRACT

INSURANCE TAX

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL BOARDS

HEALTH CARE

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

CASINO GAMBLING

SOCIAL CONTRACT

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT, 1993

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

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

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOURISM

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): A few weeks ago, amid great fanfare, the government announced a tourism strategy designed to bring tourist dollars into Ontario. While it looked good on paper, the reality in eastern Ontario is far from ideal. The St Lawrence Parks Commission has consistently failed to recognize the partnership that must exist with private enterprise.

Mr Don Besner of Maxville told me that he would like to lease Raisin River Park, since the parks commission decided not to operate it any longer. Other individuals have expressed an interest in running parks that were closed in past years, but have been stonewalled by this government.

Worried that valuable tourism opportunities would be lost and the park would fall into ruin, Mr Besner began to round up community support. Ontario Public Service Employees Union representative Ms Laurie Fish of Brockville told him that the union would rather see a park permanently closed than be operated by a private entrepreneur.

Last Sunday, as I watched, and reports are that, the OPP turned away approximately 1,500 tourists who wanted to use the parks system.

The St Lawrence Parks Commission is missing valuable opportunities to host tourism from all over by refusing to cooperate with business people who want to offer summer employment to students and bolster tourism in these tough economic times. I demand that the minister pursue negotiations to reopen the parks that are now closed by allowing private interests to play a role in their operation.

ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health and it concerns Mr Morley Clement of Orillia, who has endured considerable pain and discomfort for the past seven months because of his left hip, which must be replaced.

Dr Hugh Cameron at the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital here in Toronto informed Mr Clement that he does indeed require a hip replacement and a bone graft, but he indicated that the present government has the health care system in such turmoil that he simply does not know when the procedure can take place. Dr Cameron said doctors are now forced to book these delicate operations in 1994 and 1995.

Minister, on July 8 my colleague the member for Simcoe West warned you about the province-wide shortage of orthopaedic surgeons that has resulted in a crisis in the delivery of emergency health care services. On June 23, I warned you that your Bill 50, the health expenditure control act, will have a negative impact on the ability to provide and receive high-quality medical services.

Do you really expect that people like Morley Clement can get the health care treatment they deserve if this province-wide shortage of orthopaedic surgeons continues and if you are successful in passing Bill 50? Just what do you want me to tell someone like Morley Clement when pain and sleepless nights force him into a wheelchair if he has to wait until 1995 for his hip replacement operation? Minister, what am I to tell him?

SCIENCE NORTH

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): As you know, Mr Speaker, the entire Sudbury region has depended on science for a long time in terms of getting us back to the greenery. One of the places we are very proud we have in the Sudbury region is Science North, the two snowflakes located right on Ramsey Lake. It's a hands-on experience that's developed a worldwide reputation. Countries come to see how it operates so that they can reimplement the system in their own countries. I'm very proud of what they have done and how they represent us.

It is a credit to their staff, to their CEO, Jim Marchbank, and to their board of directors that they have operated within their budget every year of their existence. I commend them for that.

It is with great pride that we are becoming even bigger. Next June 19, on the 10th birthday of Science North, we will open IMAX in Sudbury. It has been announced that the province is giving the city $3.2 million. Science North will have to pay back $500,000. As a consequence, we will be an even greater mecca for northern Ontario.

I am very pleased that Science North is making Sudbury even more of a place to visit. I invite everyone to come up next June 19 and see our first show in IMAX and the rocks of Sudbury.

JOBS ONTARIO

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): The Citizens Action Group is a Hamilton agency which has helped more than 35,000 people find jobs over the past 20 years.

On June 4, the executive director of the Citizens Action Group wrote an

article in the Hamilton Spectator which was extremely critical of Jobs Ontario. Surprise, surprise: Only one week after this

article was published, Minister Dave Cooke pulled the funding from the Citizens Action Group because the ministry said it wasn't cooperative and it didn't meet its targets. I would point out that the minister's briefing notes made specific reference to the Spectator

article when the recommendation was given to terminate funding.

The Citizens Action Group had complained in the Spectator that Jobs Ontario was only after quantity, not quality. To quote their executive director, "The more social assistance recipients we can jam through the turnstiles, the richer we get." He also said that Jobs Ontario is run by "a centralized, bureaucratized, paralysed and neutralized group who call the shots from Queen's Park." His estimate is that 75% to 85% of the people employed through this program are simply replacements, not new jobs.

His criticisms about the lack of proper financial controls are proving out to be all too true, as the Brantford incident has shown.

The ministry may attempt to muzzle this group, but the truth is now out about the NDP's much-ballyhooed Jobs Ontario program: It's an utter failure and a con job.

LANDLORD-TENANT COOPERATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have been monitoring the situation at 1002 Lawrence Avenue East since January 1993. Recently, on a personal inspection of the premises, I saw firsthand that the landlord's harassment continues and poor living conditions still exist.

Consumers' Gas plans to turn off the service tomorrow due to arrears. North York officials are doing everything they can within the existing legislative framework. However, the actions of this apartment owner have demonstrated that existing legislation such as the Planning Act and municipal property standards bylaws take too long.

The tenants of 1002 Lawrence Avenue are pursuing the enforcement of their rights through the means that are currently available to them, but with frustrating results. Municipal authorities need to have the power to deal with these types of situations on an emergency basis. Several municipalities have secured private legislation enabling them to enact a vital services bylaw.

Today, I call on this government's cooperation in bringing forward province-wide legislation to enable all municipalities to enact vital services bylaws.

GIRL GUIDES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): On Saturday, July 17, I attended the 1993 International Jamboree of the Girl Guides held at Guelph Lake. Over 3,200 Girl Guides and guide leaders from around the world gathered at the camp, which runs from July 12 to 22.

This year's theme is "Living in Harmony -- Today's Challenge," and the guides set up a global village of tents, with each

section of the camp formed as a continent. In that setting, the guides examined their role in relation to the advancement of girls and women, the environment, social responsibility and world peace.

The opening ceremonies were on Saturday and the guests included Anne Swarbrick, Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, and Dr Roberta Bondar, the first Canadian woman astronaut. Dr Bondar told the audience that she earned her first wings as a Girl Guide and talked about how the leadership and values she learned in guiding influenced her life. She recalled how she wanted to be a pilot when women weren't allowed to fly.

During their stay at the International Jamboree, the guides are helping with community service projects such as the local food bank, Meals on Wheels and an equestrian camp for children with disabilities.

The only thing marring this event was a sexist cartoon run by the Thomson Guelph Mercury that angered the guides, their leaders and some of the dignitaries. The guides have started a petition against this.

Thank you to the Minister of Culture, Anne Swarbrick, and the previous minister, Ed Philip, for supporting the Girl Guides of Canada. The self-esteem and leadership skills and the sense of responsibility this kind of program provides is so important to young women, given the kinds of challenges and attitudes that they continue to face.

MEMBERS IN HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AREA

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): The Liberal Party of Ontario continues to be concerned about the health and welfare of the people and the economy in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

There has been for some time an admission, I think, on the part of the six NDP members in that area that they cannot get their act together. Heaven knows that the local officials and council and other people in the area, for economic development reasons, wanted to proceed with the Red Hill Creek Expressway.

My leader, Lyn McLeod, has several times indicated that we are in favour of promoting the value of economic development in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

I guess that while the cancellation by Bob Mackenzie and others of the Red Hill Creek Expressway on what they described as moral grounds occurred, it has come to our attention, and it probably isn't a big surprise to any of us, that now the members, to detract attention from these grievous errors of economic planning, have turned on each other. Now the member for Wentworth North is attacking the member for Wentworth East in an unmerciful fashion, claiming that he is not carrying out his mandate as a member of the area.

While I would not on my own go into the press and describe the work habits of other colleagues, it seems to me that the member for Wentworth North has taken it upon himself to undermine the activities of the member for Wentworth East and in fact has detracted from his ability to carry on his duties as a member of the Legislative Assembly.

The Liberal Party regrets that the work in the Hamilton-Wentworth area has been compromised to such an extent and we deplore the attacks personally from one member to the other.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The Minister of Community and Social Services recently brought forward his government's proposal for social assistance reform in Ontario.

The question on the minds of many of our municipalities today is, where do we fall within this reform? While municipalities are eager to have the social assistance program revamped, they're equally anxious to play a role in this revision.

The municipalities, through the Association of Municipalities in Ontario, are pushing for bilateral discussions with the government in regard to the delivery of services and the funding mechanisms of this proposal. To date, they have not received a response from the minister as to how they will be involved.

Municipalities are not just another lobby group interested in these new welfare proposals; they are the other side of the funding and delivery equation. Joe Mavrinac, the president of AMO, put it succinctly in his statement when responding to the minister's announcement:

"Municipalities are committed to ensuring and improving the economic, social and public health of the communities municipal councils represent. We insist that discussions on who delivers social assistance take place between the two levels of government involved in the provision of services: the province and municipalities."

I would call on the government today to immediately begin bilateral discussions with its municipal partners in order that the delivery and funding arrangements be established before legislation is enacted. For once, have the government negotiate before it legislates.

OSHAWA-WHITBY FAIR

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): July 22 through 25 marks the dates of the 16th annual Oshawa-Whitby Fair, and we're all invited.

I say the 16th annual, but in fact it was started some 130 years ago as an agricultural fair, where friends and neighbours paused between the spring planting and the fall harvest to socialize and to relax.

Sponsored by the South Ontario Agricultural Society, you can still see its rural roots in the antique buggy and cutter display, the saddle and heavy horse shows, the horse pull and the oxen rides, as well as the horticultural exhibits. But you don't want to miss the giant truck pull, the monster mud bog or the demolition derby, and personally, I'm looking forward to seeing my friend Gord Mills perform in the laser karaoke night.

The Oshawa-Whitby Fair draws people from all of southern Ontario to its midway rides, to its baby show, to its pet contests. It's truly a show that has something for everyone. I have enjoyed myself many times at this event over the years. The camaraderie and geniality is contagious, as you'll see when you stroll through the grounds. It's reminiscent of the fairs of our forefathers. It also gives us the best from the exhibitions of today.

I hope to see many of my colleagues from Oshawa, Whitby, from all of Durham region and all of Ontario at the Oshawa-Whitby Fair.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My first question is to the Minister of Health. I think all members of this assembly remember well the day in April 1991 when your government concluded a framework agreement with the Ontario Medical Association which the Premier himself said was a landmark achievement, an historic first for the province of Ontario, and there was his expectation and that of the government that this would begin a new day of collective bargaining as between the government and the Ontario medical profession. That landmark agreement was signed a little over two years ago.

Yesterday, as part of that process, we had a finding from an Ontario Labour Relations Board umpire, M.G. Mitchnick, a finding which essentially says that the Ontario Ministry of Health in the Rae government has been guilty of bad-faith bargaining with the Ontario Medical Association.

My question to the Health minister in this labour government, having regard to this landmark agreement that was to have initiated a new day in government/ medical association relations, is: How did this happen? How in Bob Rae's Ontario have we come to a point where his own government, a social democratic or labour government, has been found to have bargained in bad faith under the umbrella of this historic landmark agreement that was touted just two years ago?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me respond to the member by saying that I find it regrettable that the Ontario Medical Association in its press release with respect to what was an interim finding by an umpire chose to interpret it as being a finding of bad faith.

Let me say to the member, who I'm sure has read the entire interim report of the umpire, that the quote that is used in the press release, which clearly says, "Let me acknowledge that the government has been remiss in not being at the bargaining table with the OMA," goes on to say, "Remiss to the present time," and then goes on to say that in response to his queries the government has expressed the availability and willingness of the bargaining team to meet on an immediate and continuing basis with the bargaining team of the OMA.

I'm delighted to be able to say to the member that this is in fact already happening, had happened prior to the issuance of the umpire's interim report, and that intense and active negotiations with the OMA are under way and I am optimistic will lead to a renewal of what, I agree with him, was in fact a landmark agreement in 1991.

Mr Conway: In my supplementary to the minister, and I want to be as polite as I can be. She is being disingenuous and incomplete in that response, because I have read Mr Mitchnick's judgement, and his fundamental accusation is not that the government has not been at the table, though he does touch on that subject. The fundamental charge that he lays at the Bob Rae government's door, and the basis for his charge that you've bargained in bad faith, is that you have not put all issues on the table. That's the fundamental concern that the arbitrator has found, and the decision on page 3 is very clear about that.

So my question is this: It's one thing for an NDP government to turn its back on its commitments around auto insurance, Sunday shopping and casino gambling, but we've now come to this. We've got a finding of bad-faith bargaining on behalf of the Rae government because it not only would not come to the table with the doctors but it refused systematically to put all issues on the table.

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

Mr Conway: My supplementary is, have you given direction to your negotiators to comply with Mr Mitchnick's directive that you're not only to be at the table but that all issues of compensation, inside and outside of the social contract, will be put on the table forthwith?

Hon Mrs Grier: The honourable member calls me disingenuous and my answer incomplete. I would remark to him that in fact there have been frequent occasions, if not today, when the same words could be used about him, but I'm not here to exchange those kinds of comments. I'm here to say to him yet again that it was not that the issues were not before both the OMA and ourselves; there were a number of tables, and I think what the umpire found -- an issue on which both the OMA and our own negotiators had already come to a conclusion -- was that it was important and more useful that all of the issues with respect to compensation of physicians be put on the one table.

So a single table with a number of task forces is now what is addressing these issues and negotiating a contract. That is what is happening, and because of the social contract, we had wanted to conclude negotiations on the social contract before getting back to the negotiations with the OMA.

As I say, we had all come to the conclusion, subsequent to June 4, that it was preferable to have all of the issues dealt with at a single table. The umpire has confirmed that this was the appropriate direction, and that's the table that I hope will come to a conclusion.

Mr Conway: Mr Mitchnick in his finding, a finding that your department in your labour government was guilty of bad-faith bargaining because you not only wouldn't come to the table but, more importantly, when you got to the table you systematically refused to put all of the issues on the table -- I will read, if it makes it easier for you, Madam Minister, that particular point.

He says, and I read directly from his judgement of yesterday, "I agree with the OMA that all aspects of the government's proposals with respect to compensation must be placed on the negotiating table at the same time -- whether or not the source of any of those aspects is the government's 'social contract' initiative, or its 'expenditure control plan,' or any other fiscal initiative which may form the backdrop to the current round of talks."

He indicates further that he expects that you will comply with that directive.

My final supplementary is, have you given your negotiators a clear mandate to comply with this directive? Because to date they have not done so and that's why you have been found to have been bargaining in bad faith, which must be an excruciatingly embarrassing charge for all of you people in Bob Rae's new democracy.

Hon Mrs Grier: It's an interim report, and I deny that the conclusion was bad-faith bargaining. I agree with the member that the conclusion was to confirm the conclusion that both the ministry and the OMA negotiators had come to: that it was appropriate that all of the issues dealing with the compensation of physicians be on the table at the same time. That is what is now happening. My negotiators have the authority to deal with all of those issues at the table with the OMA, and I assume that the OMA negotiators have the same direction from their directors, and that is where the issues will be resolved; end of question.

Mr Conway: The policy seems to be, it's all right to bargain in bad faith on an interim basis. Boy, have we come to that?

The Speaker: And your second question?

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My second question is to the Minister of Finance, and it takes up a dialogue he and I had a week ago today as to where Hydro stood in respect of the social contract obligations. The press of course today is replete with stories that there exists a tentative agreement as between Hydro and certain of its unions in respect of these matters.

My question is not to the Minister of Environment and Energy but rather to the Minister of Finance, because it's a social contract question, specifically this: Has the Minister of Finance seen and approved the tentative agreement at Hydro in respect of the social contract question?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): In view of the fact that the member for Renfrew North in his

preamble referred to the negotiations with the OMA and the Minister of Health, I intend to include some of that in my response to him. For him to imply that the Minister of Health would indicate that bargaining in bad faith on an interim basis is appropriate is completely misleading, and I would hope that he would withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, I can see you looking --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I know that the honourable member would not suggest that another member is going to be misleading anyone, and perhaps it would be appropriate to rephrase his thought.

Hon Mr Laughren: Of course, Mr Speaker. The words just slipped out, and I withdraw them. It was the way in which the member accused the Minister of Health of something that she did not say that would lead people to certain conclusions that were inappropriate and unfair.

Now, what was the question?

Mr Conway: I have a lot of sympathy for these New Democrats, because this must be a painful day to face this kind of charge. For the party of Stephen Lewis and Ian Deans and Elie Martel and Donald MacDonald, in government, to be found guilty of bad-faith bargaining on so sensitive and timely a question must hurt indeed.

The Speaker: And the supplementary on your original question?

Mr Conway: My question to the Finance minister --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): That's collective bargaining.

Mr Conway: Well, you know, we find that whether it's collective bargaining or auto insurance or common pause days or other issues, these socialist saints are sinning at every turn.

Let me say to the minister, have you seen and have you approved the Hydro deal in respect of the social contract matter?

Hon Mr Laughren: Concerning the member for Renfrew North's continuing tirade against the negotiations with the OMA, I would simply say to the member for Renfrew North that the Minister of Health gave an appropriate response and that his conclusions have nothing to do with the facts.

In terms of this government's refusal to implement public auto insurance, which he asked me about in his question, I gather, I can tell him that this government has done what it can do under very, very difficult fiscal circumstances. Those fiscal circumstances, I might add, are at least partly the result of the mismanagement of the economy by his government when it was in office for five years.

To deal specifically, if you'll allow me, Mr Speaker, with the question of the Ontario Hydro tentative agreement -- and I hope the member will discipline himself and stick to his question and not allow himself to be diverted with all these other matters, I say in a very friendly way.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): That's a lecture.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, that's not a lecture at all. I'm just trying to give the member for Renfrew North some friendly advice. No, I have not signed such a sectoral agreement.

Mr Conway: That is a helpful and final recognition of my questions in this regard, because I have in my possession information from both the Hydro corporation and some of the unions. These reports seem to confirm the following: that Maurice Strong and Sid Ryan have in fact won the day, that Hydro will be spared virtually any target, will be exempt from virtually all of the initial $100-million targets. Both management and the employees are now agreed that in fact some $80 million of the savings, so-called, will stay with Hydro and the other $20 million is going to go to a number of unspecified spending programs.

My questions are the following --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A brown envelope.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): That's what you asked for.

Mr Conway: Listen, this is the government's plan. We have a deal that appears to be no deal at all, because Hydro is going to be exempt, virtually, from any of the provisions of the social contract on the grounds that it has its own restructuring plan. I understand that.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this: In your original target you said that of the $2 billion worth of savings, Hydro would pony up $100 million. You are now going to presumably accept that you are going to lose at least $80 million of that. How and where are you going to make up that $80 million?

Secondly, are you prepared to entertain special cases, whether it's from the city of Hamilton, where the Premier has said that he feels that certain of those municipalities have made a significant contribution?

The Speaker: Could the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Conway: Are you prepared to accept a submission from the city of Hamilton or any other group in the province which can argue a similar set of special circumstances, as you appear to be willing to accept on the Hydro matter?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is really interesting that, I guess it was last week, the member for Renfrew North was on his feet urging that we couldn't possibly impose the social contract and $100 million of savings on Ontario Hydro, given what it'd already been going through and given its fiscal situation. Now, today, he's on his feet wondering how we could possibly exclude them from the social contract exercise. Here we have the Liberal Party once again walking down both sides of the same street at the same time. I don't know how they can do it, but day after day in this Legislature, the Liberal Party of this province is for ever contradicting itself, tripping over its own contradictions.

I can tell the member for Renfrew North that there has been a tentative agreement reached with the government negotiators and Ontario Hydro and the employees at Ontario Hydro, which is a CUPE-represented facility. I have not, however, read fully the agreement or signed it off as a sectoral agreement.

I do understand, however, that --

Mr Elston: Are you apt to turn it down? Did you bargain in good faith with them? Did you?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll let the member for Bruce --

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you don't want an answer --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Had the minister concluded his response?

New question, third party.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's a nice segue here actually, because I have a question to the Treasurer. I happen to have a copy of the proposed memorandum of understanding on the social contract, the plan for the municipal electric utility subsector. I was lucky enough to get my hands on this and I've been lucky enough in the last couple of hours to have a good read. To suggest that this is chock full of information would be a grandiose overstatement.

I will say to the Treasurer, by way of a question, that in this particular document, which I was lucky enough to get hold of -- since you haven't had time to read it, maybe I'll forward you a copy and you can have a good look -- in this copy of an agreement between the parties, do you realize there is not one specific financial target, there's not one quantifiable saving, there's not one actual deadline that anyone has to meet? So in essence, we have roughly 20 pages of blather, chit-chat and talk; not a dollar sign, not a nickel, not a cost of how much can be saved by implementing this particular contract.

Maybe you'd like to comment on that, because it seems to me this document is very, very, very short on specifics.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member for Etobicoke West is referring to the municipal utilities subsector of the municipal sector. In fact, there is, as I recall, $20 million in savings within that sector. I know the member for Etobicoke West and the rest of his caucus want the reductions to be much more severe than that and they want expenditure reductions to be much tougher than we are engaging in, the $2 billion. They want much more than that. But I think the $20-million savings that will be achieved through the municipal utilities sector is appropriate and, quite frankly, quite fair.

Mr Stockwell: I guess I wasn't clear enough in the question. The question was not the $20 million. We've all heard that figure bandied about. The question is, there are no specifics, there are no deadlines, there are no cost savings, there are no targets, there are no savings. It's just a bunch of words, Mr Finance Minister. There are no targets of any sort in this document.

The agreement's been cut and made. What I understand the government's position to be is, "We'll let the local hydro suppliers work on the savings." There are hundreds of local hydro suppliers. What are you going to do, audit every single one of them to ensure they're meeting the plan? Are you going to audit every local municipality? Are you going to audit every school board? You'd be caught up in thousands and thousands and thousands of audits.

You suggest there is $20 million in savings. The only term that could possibly be seen in here as a savings is that you talk about okaying layoffs. That's the only term in here that can be seen as a savings. Please tell me where in this document you can quantify $20 million in savings.

Hon Mr Laughren: The Social Contract Act is a public compensation document. The municipal utilities are a subsector of the municipal sector. The utilities have been given the target of $20 million. The member talks about there being no numbers and no dates. The number is $20 million. The date is for each year of the next three years, that is their targeted savings. So I'm not sure what the member for Etobicoke West is after more than that. It is a voluntary agreement and has been designated as such by me. That's the way the Social Contract Act is written, and the savings of $20 million will be achieved by that particular subsector.

Mr Stockwell: First of all, nobody is under the impression that you've designated this particular contract. You say you've designated it, and those people who are involved in these negotiations don't think you've designated it.

The only way that they can save money, according to this particular framework, excluding everything else, the only way you talk about saving money in here is through layoffs. Explain to me how local utilities, through your pay pause day, which isn't even spoken about in this particular agreement, through all the rollbacks that we haven't even spoken about in this agreement, are going to go about saving money through this particular agreement, because everything you talked about in the previous four months isn't even mentioned in this particular contractual agreement.

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps I should clarify what the process is. When a subsectoral agreement is reached between the parties, then the negotiators for the government bring such a sectoral agreement to me for designation, and that's what I am in the process of doing almost as we speak, deciding. I think I said I designated it, and in fact I don't think I have. I have not actually designated that subsector, so I correct myself in that regard. The member is quite right.

But for the member to imply that because every t is not crossed and every i dotted in the subsectoral agreement on municipal utilities doesn't mean that those -- they've been given their target of $20 million. That must be achieved. They've been given the dates by which those savings must be achieved. That is the number and those are the dates during which those compensation savings in that subsector must be achieved. There's nothing mysterious about that. That's the way all of the agreements are going to written.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question to the Minister of Health. The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario is currently in a severe financial problem. The problem relates to losses in revenue from treating children who normally come from Quebec across into Ontario for treatment.

Historically, 80% of CHEO's budget comes from Ontario patients and 20% from Quebec. The province of Quebec has now implemented a repatriation program, taking most of its children back over into Quebec hospitals, and this repatriation has cost CHEO 13% of its revenue, somewhere around $10 million a year. Because of cutbacks in terms of treating these patients, they are left with a net shortfall of $5.5 million per year, or they're losing $15,000 per day.

As you know, this hospital has undertaken a very extensive review of its operations. They had a consultant's report on their operations which said that they were exemplary in terms of their utilization rate, in terms of their efficiencies and other kinds of things. I know your ministry doesn't like that, and when confronted with this, your ministry is saying that in addition to all of the other kinds of contributions they must come up with, they must come up with $2.5 million.

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

Mr Sterling: The president of the hospital is very, very concerned that your regional director has stated, and I'm paraphrasing his words, "Any fool can find a $2.5-million reduction from a budget that size." Do you believe that this is a legitimate response from your official to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me start by saying to the member that I'm well aware of the situation that the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the Ottawa General Hospital find themselves in as a result of loss of revenue because patients in the province of Quebec are no longer going to those hospitals. As a result of that shortfall in revenue, there has been an extensive review. That review was completed just last month, in June, and is currently under examination by officials within the ministry.

Let me assure him that the comment he quoted -- if it was made, I agree with him -- was at this point inappropriate because no conclusion has been reached with respect to how to deal with this funding shortfall. But I would remind him that in order to help the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, we have advanced $1.4 million to its operating funding. They're the only hospital in the province that was given that extra funding this year, precisely because we want to help them deal with the problem that has arisen.

Mr Sterling: You've given them the money because they can't meet their payroll. The problem is that they would have to close their doors today if you didn't forward that money, and it's a stopgap measure which you have been undertaking over the past two or three years as this problem has developed.

The 7% of the revenues which CHEO is now receiving from the province of Quebec will shrink further, because last week the Quebec government stepped up its efforts to repatriate the children over to their province.

In addition, the cases that are being left with CHEO are the most difficult cases. Typically, in one year there are 26 open-heart surgeries done at CHEO on babies or children from the province of Quebec. This costs the Ontario taxpayer, or the hospital in effect, $22,000 per patient. The province of Quebec is paying $7,000 per patient. The total loss to CHEO is something like $400,000 a year.

Now, you know, Madam Minister, that I have stated in this House that I'm quite willing to say to Quebec construction workers, "You can't come into Ontario unless you have equal access," but I'm not willing to say no to parents of sick Quebec children, "You can't come to CHEO in order to have your baby treated."

What are you doing to protect the children of eastern Ontario and the Ontario taxpayer from this abuse?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the member that I am well aware of the excellent services provided by CHEO, and the ministry's objective is to work with CHEO to resolve the budget differences that have been identified by the consultants' report. He's quite correct that the consultants believe there could be some savings; the hospital says there couldn't. That's being worked on. We have a draft report from the consultants at this point. It's being reviewed by the ministry and a final report is anticipated next month. When we have that final report, then I hope we'll be able to work with the hospital and negotiate a long-term solution.

Mr Sterling: I tend to differ with your

interpretation of what the hospital interprets from the consultants' report as to what they can do to save money and what your ministry interprets from the consultants' report and the response. In fact, in a very angry response to your senior assistant deputy minister, there were several allegations made by your senior deputy minister which were confronted in the report with regard to utilization, with regard to lengths of stay etc, where the consultants' report does not agree with your senior deputy minister.

I spoke to the president of CHEO this morning, Garry Cardiff, and he is very, very concerned about this situation and the fact that your government is not seeking in good faith a permanent solution to this problem. He is so concerned that he is -- and there is speculation in the Ottawa community that this hospital, in part or in total, could in fact have to close its doors in three to four months' time.

The board is totally fed up with this government and is ready to hand over the keys to the province of Ontario if a solution is not found. Madam Minister, what steps are you going to take to make certain that the children of eastern Ontario are properly taken care of in this fine institution, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: I have to say that I think the member is a little unfair in the conclusions that he draws from what has happened. The ministry is fully aware of the shortfall in funding from CHEO. The ministry appointed consultants to review the operations of CHEO and to make some recommendations to it. In addition, the ministry has been discussing with the province of Quebec the change in its policy and whether there is any ongoing revenue or how its patients are dealt with.

Having received a draft report from the consultant, the ministry is meeting with officials from the hospital, and let me say to him again, as I said a moment ago, we expect to have a final report from the consultants in August and at that point we will know what direction to go in. But to suggest and to raise the alarm that this will mean the closure or the lack of service to the parents and children in eastern Ontario is not in fact the case and I think is premature at this point.

APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Chair of Management Board, whose responsibility in government is the Ontario public service, and it concerns the social contract.

Somebody once said all politics is local and it's best to understand policy and these issues at a very local level. So I just want to talk a little bit about the social contract as it relates to the public service because Michael Decter, a deputy minister paid $135,000 approximately, is out there telling all of us in the province, and particularly everybody in the public service, that this is all about shared sacrifice, that we all have to pull in our belts and take a little bit less.

This involves hundreds and thousands of public servants, many of whom are at a senior level and many of whom have worked for the Ontario government for years and decades. I have now learned that in the very last few days the government of Ontario has appointed Michael Decter's wife, Ms Lucille Roch, as an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Community and Social Services at an estimated salary of $110,000 a year.

My question to the Chair of Management Board is: What kind of signal does this send to the men and women of the Ontario public service who are being told by Michael Decter and Bob Rae on the one hand that theirs must be a shared sacrifice, when on the other they now learn that Michael Decter's wife has just landed a plum job in the Ontario public service, a service that she has joined within the last six to eight months?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, the member should know that his comments are not entirely correct. The individual in question has been a member at an ADM level in cabinet office since 1991. It's not, as he would imply, a new plum thrown to someone out there as some kind of a reward. She in fact has worked in the civil service of this province and I would assume, although I didn't do the interviews myself, earned the position for which she was hired.

Mr Conway: That's very useful and helpful information, because she has just been appointed as an ADM at Community and Social Services. She came not that long ago. I didn't realize that she was brought in from Manitoba at that level. In fact, in my view, that even strengthens my case.

The Rae government has appointed its campaign manager as secretary of the cabinet. It brought in a bare-knuckled partisan like Jeff Rose to run a purely political operation as Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We've now got these two Manitobans in this public service,

whereas hundreds and thousands of Ontarians are being shown the door as part of the shared sacrifice.

Now these people, whom I represent and whom we all represent, are being asked to accept that the Decter household, which is going to have over a quarter of a million dollars worth of public money, is somehow in a position to tell the rest of us about shared sacrifice.

What kind of signal is this and what kind of judgement is it, because, I've got to tell you, there's one household in this province where the wolf is not going to be making much progress, and there are a lot of people who would see Michael Decter --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member complete his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- in a real conflict of interest.

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, the member for Renfrew North has tripped over his own facts and his own tongue. The individual in question to whom the member refers is not from Manitoba. She happens to be from Montreal.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: To correct my record --

The Speaker: When the House has come to order.

Mr Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Just to correct my record, let me be clear then, I apologize for not understanding that this is a family compact of New Democrats based in Winnipeg and Montreal.

Hon Mr Charlton: I guess I should just simply wrap up my comments by suggesting that with the eloquence with which the member displays his competence, his ability to call into question the competence of anyone else, I think, is very questionable.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Markham.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Conway: You're putting Ontario women out of work to bring in your New Democrat friends from out of the province. That's what you're doing.

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

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): New Democrats first, everybody else last.

The Speaker: Would the member for Bruce take his seat. The member for Bruce is out of order.

Mr Conway: Do you want a list of people who have been shown the door?

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

The member for Markham was waiting patiently to ask his question and he now has the floor.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The people who aren't patient are the taxpayers in the province of Ontario.

TAXATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The question is for the Minister of Finance. The question is about taxes and taxes and more taxes and how your government has, in the short time it has been in power, raised some 32 different taxes on the people of Ontario. The Liberals before they were kicked out of office had 33 tax increases in their lifetime. Now your recent budget has robbed us of $2 billion in more taxes.

So many taxes means that the Ontario family spent the first 200 days of 1993 working to pay for the cost of all levels of government, and having suffered the blows of government taxation, today marks the first day when Ontarians start working for themselves, having paid for the deficit and all levels of government. People can now take home a paycheque with no government strings attached.

The auspicious day is called tax freedom day, but it's hardly a day for celebration. In 1984, some 10 years ago, tax freedom day fell on July 5; today it's July 20, and each year tax freedom day moves closer and closer to the end of the year.

My question for you, Mr Minister of Finance: Now that you're in government, do you have a different position on tax freedom day than when you were in opposition?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Markham, not for the first time, has raised the question of taxes in this province. I would simply say to the member for Markham that the taxes people pay in this province deliver the services the people in this province want and I think have a right to receive.

I understand that he would wish that taxes would be lower and that services that people receive would be lower. I would assume as well that he would lower the standard of education, of public services, of health care, in order that we could all pay lower taxes. That's fine to say, it's an admirable statement of principle, but I can tell the member for Markham that I believe we have a tax system that's the fairest in all of Canada and that delivers the essential services that people in this province want.

Mr Cousens: The people of Ontario look forward to the day, two years form now when you're out of office, to hear what your answer's going to be on taxes, because you had a different tune a few years ago before you became the government. Now that you're there, I'll tell you, the people in the province are frustrated, they're angry and they don't know what to do in the remaining two years that you're in office.

This morning our leader, Mr Harris, and people were out there telling people about tax freedom day. Commuters coming into Toronto were angry, genuinely angry at the fact that it's only today that they start making money for themselves. You've forgotten what you said and thought when you were in opposition. Now that you're in government, quite a different tune comes forward.

We asked you again and again, and the question is on the minds of everybody in our province, when will you stop the tax madness and commit yourself to structural reform of the government system and start to eliminate the millions of dollars of waste in the system that we see going on today?

Hon Mr Laughren: The message of this government has not changed. We said when we were in opposition that we wanted a system of taxation that was fairer than the Liberals or the Tories had. We said that in opposition and we are doing something about it.

Since we formed the government, we have taken over 200,000 low-income people off the tax rolls in this province. Secondly, we have imposed a high-income surtax on the people who have the most ability to pay in this province. That, to me, is tax fairness as well. Thirdly, we have appointed a Fair Tax Commission that will be reporting this year. It's on target, it's on budget and it will be making its final report this year.

I would say to the member for Markham that he's got a lot of nerve complaining about the taxation policy of this government when his government, in the 1981 and 1982 budgets, raised the provincial income tax by four points. My friend, count them, four points in 1981 and 1982.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This government, in its speech from the throne and its subsequent budget, announced a program to put Ontario back to work. My question today is for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

In my community a promise was made not too long ago with respect to the very valuable tourist industry that we depend on to create work and generate a lot of wealth and opportunity for people. The tourist information centre that we have there was proposed to be replaced with a new facility. With the present situation and the government's attempt to try to manage its finances, I was wondering if you might give us a status report on that particular project today.

Chamberlain Construction has agreed with the request from our government to commit to the purchasing of local materials for the development of that travel information centre, as well as to hiring local labour to construct that travel information centre.

Mr Martin: I am certainly relieved, Minister, by that statement. The fact that this centre is going to go ahead will create a lot of work for some of the people in my community who presently are looking for work, and will help as we try to develop further the attractions for tourists to Sault Ste Marie and indeed Algoma.

I was wondering if you might be more specific on the exact location of the new facility and what the time lines are. When will it start, and when do you expect that it will be finished?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: There'll be 24 jobs created by the Jobs Ontario Capital fund to build that travel information centre. Construction is expected to begin in August of this year, with the completion date expected to be February 1994. The centre will be located at the southeast corner of Huron and Queen streets, one block south of the present location. In fact, the location will be highly visible from the International Bridge. The traffic flow will now be ideal, which had been a terrible problem at the present centre, and the travel information centre will be fully accessible to disabled persons.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I have in my hand a brochure that was released by the chairman of the New Democratic Party caucus, which includes information paid for by taxpayer dollars and distributed to every constituent in his riding. Additionally, because of the nature of this brochure, I assume that it is being sent by other New Democratic Party members to their constituents.

It claims that, "This government is protecting essential services that you value." It says here, "We're negotiating with doctors to control the costs of their services and to ensure services to communities where doctors are needed."

In fact we know, as of today, that the government is being charged with bad-faith bargaining with the doctors. While the Minister of Health in an answer to my colleague the member for Renfrew indicated that the bad-faith bargaining was only on an interim basis, I point out to her that the referee in the decision says, "The OMA framework and interim agreement on economic arrangements would appear to survive the legislation" -- that means the social contract legislation -- "and I find that the contractual provisions relating to that process must therefore be adhered to."

The government has, before this House, indicated that negotiations are continuing. The mediator, the umpire, has provided the government with specific directions with respect to complying with good-faith bargaining.

I want to know from the minister specifically what new initiatives, what new, clear mandates she has put on the table with her negotiators. Will she change her negotiators and put a new team into place, or what other steps has she taken in this area?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me assure the member that the team that has been negotiating with the Ontario Medical Association since the start of negotiations earlier this spring is continuing, is in place, and I have every confidence that it will in fact bring to conclusion a successful renegotiation of our agreement with the OMA.

The directions that they have been given are likewise unchanged, which are to negotiate with the OMA with respect to its fee

schedule and the issues under the expenditure control program of the ministry, and to do that because we believe that if we are in fact to maintain and sustain the health system of this province -- a health system that I know is very important not only to the members of this House but to all the people of the province -- we have to manage it better and we have to control its costs. We do that by negotiating with the various partners and players, and we are now doing that with the OMA.

Mrs Sullivan: I want to reiterate that the brochure indicates that the government didn't introduce user fees or cut services, as other provinces have done. The brochure indicates, once again, negotiations "with doctors to control the costs of their services and to ensure services to communities where doctors are needed."

I point out that the government has introduced user fees to seniors on the drug plan. They've increased user fees by 32% to residents of nursing homes. They're introducing user fees to psychiatric patients in Ontario's hospitals. That is only the first step, because they're delisting services that are now covered under medicare.

Also, I quote the referee, who says that the government has reappropriated to itself by legislation the power to unilaterally determine the issues of the compensation. The truth is that doctors' services are not available in many communities, as the government claims. Hornepayne, Armstrong, Barry's Bay, Mount Forest, Geraldton, Rainy River and Moosonee have neither the doctors they need nor the hospital emergency services they need.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And the question?

Mrs Sullivan: The truth is that the statements in this brochure are lies. I'm asking the Minister of Health, if she is going to talk the talk, when is she going to walk the walk?

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre knows well that that's not appropriate language in the chamber. I ask the member to simply withdraw the remark and to place her question.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: What I said to this House was that the statements made in this brochure are lies. That is perfectly appropriate and in order.

The Speaker: To the member, while she is not making a direct accusation of another member lying, at the same time it is not language which is appropriate. There is, of course, a difference of opinion that appears to be quite evident. I would ask the member, in an effort to maintain proper decorum in this chamber, that she simply withdraw that remark and place the question which I know she wishes to ask of the Minister of Health.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, once again, I carefully considered my words. I indicated that the statements in this brochure are lies. If that is offensive to you and --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Out. Don't back down, Barbara.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, I point out to you that the statements that are made and the actions that are taken by the government are not one and the same. I am asking the minister again, if she and members of the New Democratic Party and her government are going to talk the talk, when are they going to start walking the walk?

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You're letting her off the hook.

The Speaker: The member for Nipigon --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Talk to me about decorum. She is off the hook. She is not withdrawing.

The Speaker: I realize there were some extraneous sounds on this side of the chamber. The member withdrew the remark.

Hon Mrs Grier: I have said in this House today, I think three times, that negotiations are proceeding with the Ontario Medical Association. They are proceeding actively and intensively, and I expect them to be concluded within the next 10 days. The appropriate place to have those negotiations is at that table. I'm not going to negotiate them in public with the member opposite -- particularly with the member opposite.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have another question for the Minister of Health. One of the differences between an ambulance driver and a paramedic is that a paramedic can revive a patient who has suffered a heart attack. In 1991, 342 patients suffered cardiac arrests in the Ottawa-Carleton area and only eight lived, out of those 342. In the cities where paramedics have the ability to apply electric shock to restore normal heartbeat, they have a success rate of around 30%, which would indicate that of these 342 patients, some 100 would have lived. Could you tell me why the city of Ottawa does not have paramedic services for the population of Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm certainly aware that a drive has been begun in the region of Ottawa-Carleton, led, I think, by the member for Ottawa South, to increase the number of paramedics who are available in Ottawa. As I have to say to the member and to the member for Ottawa South, there is some controversy as to whether the extension of paramedic services is the most appropriate way to achieve the best outcome in cases of trauma and accident.

In view of that, there has been some consultation under way across the province, in which I hope the region of Ottawa-Carleton has been participating, with ambulance drivers, the unions involved, the hospitals and the physicians, in order to evaluate the various studies that have been done and to come to some conclusions with respect to what the policy and approach of the ministry ought to be with respect to paramedics.

Mr Sterling: I'm puzzled by why consultation is necessary when 50 cities across Canada already have paramedic services and the cities of Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa in this province have paramedic services. It seems to me that the time for consultation has passed and that it's time for protection of people in the Ottawa-Carleton area to be addressed. Do you not find it passing strange that the second-largest city in the province of Ontario does not have this kind of health care service?

Hon Mrs Grier: What I attempted to indicate in my first response to the member was that the matter is not quite as clear-cut as he puts it; that in some of the cities, in the United States particulary, where there are paramedics, there are differences of opinion and differing studies and evaluations as to whether the provision of paramedics, as opposed to an enhancement of emergency rooms and various other emergency services, is the appropriate way to go.

In view of that controversy, before coming to a conclusion on the request for an extension of this service, we have undertaken, in consultation with the stakeholders, to evaluate and review the various studies that have been done, and I'm not at the point of being able to give the member a conclusive answer to his question.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Minister of Health. Collagen is a protein that is used primarily for cosmetic surgery, and it's not covered under the Ontario drug benefit program. However, collagen has been a successful treatment for incontinence resulting from post-surgery complications.

A constituent of mine in York East, a senior, has become incontinent as a result of kidney surgery. The constituent's doctor recommends collagen treatment, and it's quite costly. The doctor has indicated that he has written to the director of the Ontario drug benefit plan in the past and has been turned down for coverage of this treatment under the plan.

If the Ontario drug benefit plan will not cover the treatment for seniors, how can the Minister of Health ensure us that this treatment will be made available to those constituents who would benefit from that treatment?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I thank the member for his question. I'm certainly aware of his interest in advocating on behalf of his constituent.

The procedure that he describes is a relatively new one, and the issue has been raised in discussions between the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Hospital Association. The position that the ministry has taken is that if this procedure is performed in a hospital, then the hospital should cover the cost of the collagen, as it's used as an implant, frequently as a substitute for surgery. I'm happy to convey that position to the member by this answer.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): 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 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."

Signed by 309 constituents, I endorse it.

GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I too have affixed my signature to it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition with respect to the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We 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."

HEALTH CARE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by a number of doctors and patients in the city of Toronto.

"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 agree with this petition and have affixed my signature.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is a petition signed by three people from the town of Markham about the dumps.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas in 1991 without public consultation or notification to affected municipalities and residents and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and

"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and

"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143 which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives such as rail haul; and

"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992 with the full support of and endorsement from Jim Wiseman, MPP, Durham West; Larry O'Connor, MPP, Durham-York; Gordon Mills, MPP, Durham East; and

"Whereas the NDP named 57 candidate landfill sites on June 4, 1992; and

"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refused to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refused to consider the alternatives like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and

"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and the mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams Mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impacts on the northern economy; and

"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to GTA waste and operate independently from the Ministry of the Environment, but at the same time the IWA must adhere to Mrs Grier's ideology and her ban of waste alternatives such as rail haul and incineration; and

"Whereas the IWA and NDP government refuse to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remain firm on subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of a criteria-ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive areas, prime agricultural land and sites located near urban areas;

"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all waste management options."

I have affixed my signature to this with pleasure.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition that was forwarded to me on the letterhead of the Oxford County Medical Association, and it's submitted to me by Dr Miettinen, who's a medical doctor in the riding of Oxford. It calls upon the government to withdraw the proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/ government framework and economic agreement.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition with respect to the government's negotiations with the health care sector which reads as follows:

"Whereas the introduction of Bill 29 makes substantial changes to the Ontario drug benefit plan that would allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make unilateral and significant changes to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act through regulation and without consultation with seniors nor negotiations with pharmacists;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly to adopt the amendments to Bill 29 as proposed by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, which are affixed to this petition."

I concur with this and have affixed my signature to it.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the people of Ontario:

"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 viable 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 public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services."

This petition is signed by some 38 constituents, and I have affixed my signature thereto.

INSURANCE TAX

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here signed by approximately 100 retired teachers in my riding, from Tilbury, Chatham, Blenheim, Thamesville and Merlin. Sorry, Chatham is in Mr Hope's riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the imposition of the 8% sales tax on group supplementary health insurance premiums is a regressive tax for pensioners, who pay 100% of the group supplementary health insurance premiums; and

"Whereas the individual pensions of approximately 10,000 retired teachers are less than $10,000, well below the poverty line, an extra-heavy burden will be imposed on them; and

"Whereas these retired teachers have served this province well for many years and may require extended health care, it is unfair and unbearable; and

"Whereas a retired couple with semi-private entrenched and dental insurance coverage pays a premium of $1,585 annually and the levying of 8% sales tax would increase this premium to $1,711.80;

"We, the undersigned members of the Kent district 3 of the superannuated teachers of Ontario, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to include the 8% retail sales tax on group supplementary insurance premiums where such groups are composed entirely of retired persons."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition signed by some 750 people opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping which reads:

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

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for quality of life, religious freedom and for family time. 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 reclassify 51 Sundays as working days should be defeated."

I've affixed my signature.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have been asked by the residents of Ontario in my riding to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"In order to achieve school board accountability, to provide the Provincial Auditor with the right to do value-for-money audits on school boards and allow the school board auditors to open the books to the scrutiny of the public."

That was introduced by a member of my riding, Arleen Reinsborough. I've signed that.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition provided to me by Dr Gary Ing, who is the president of the Essex County Medical Society.

The persons who have signed that call on the government of Ontario to:

"Move immediately to withdraw the proposed measures made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives 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."

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition which reads as follows:

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I will add my signature.

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition signed by 2,434 people in opposition to the new tax for the brew-on-premises beer and wine.

It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, believe that the new tax on brew-on-premise 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."

I've attached my name.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 75 constituents in the riding of Sarnia who are also members of the Central United Church.

It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I present the petition.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Free and open collective bargaining for teachers has had a long and honourable history in Ontario. In order for change to occur, all parties must work cooperatively, not independently where one party would be seen as working unilaterally in their own interest.

"The current economic situation requires both the government and teachers to work together to find an equitable solution. The social contract will deny teachers their rightful salaries, slash jobs and eliminate valuable programs and services for students.

"We ask that the government restore immediately the principles of free and open collective bargaining for teachers. The government must also maintain its share of the funding for public education as defined prior to the June 9, 1993, announcement of reduction in payments to school boards."

I affix my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr41,

An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member for Markham have some explanatory remarks?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Just briefly. This is a very important bill that will affect many home owners in the town of Markham.

The Acting Speaker: It's a private bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): Mr Speaker, I wish to move third reading of Bill 96,

An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Could the honourable member make sure he's in his own seat.

Hon Mr Farnan: I believe I've found my new location in the House. I apologize for the inconvenience.

The Acting Speaker: Could you now move the bill in question?

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

Mr Farnan, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved third reading of Bill 96,

An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board / Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main- d'oeuvre.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before we start discussion, this item is a time-allocated item. The debate will end at 5 o'clock. The vote on this item will occur at 5 o'clock. We have an agreement, I understand, with the other two parties that any other divisions that are required as a result of matters that are dealt with after 5 o'clock will be deferred to 5:45 for a vote.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Farnan: I have some comments to make today that I hope will provide the members of this Legislature with a useful overview of what we have an opportunity to achieve with Bill 96,

An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

I think all of us understand that with respect to this bill we are in a challenging but quite enviable position as legislators in that we are faced with an opportunity to create something truly ground-breaking, truly fresh and innovative for the people of this province. This is an important juncture in the life of Ontario, with a fragile but encouraging economic recovery on the way and with a rare convergence of views by the members of all three parties, and indeed with the federal level of government and other governments across Canada, on the crucial need to reform the labour force development system.

My colleague Dr Richard Allen, the member for Hamilton West, who introduced this legislation and whom I congratulate for his hard work and invaluable contribution to this bill, remarked how striking this convergence of views is. In his remarks to the standing committee on resources development when public hearings began, he observed: "Rarely has there been an area of public policy around which such a consensus has emerged. Everyone seems to agree that a well-trained, highly skilled workforce is absolutely crucial to the economic and social health of any society."

I quite concur, and I know that many members of this Legislature, in particular our able and diligent opposition critics, have stated that clearly we owe it to the full range of our constituents, to the people of Ontario, to get beyond our partisan differences and use our legislative authority to put the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board in place.

This is no time to stand pat, to rely on time-worn and comfortable notions about the economy's cyclical resilience and to sit on our hands while we wait for the jobs to come back and the flow of investment to resume.

I believe we all understood this when Bill 96 was introduced. Frankly, throughout the debate we have heard in this House, the representations that have been made during public hearings and the briefs that were submitted to the resources development committee, we have all underscored the need to make sure we build skill levels in our workforce as an integral part of our work to encourage economic renewal.

I think it's also well understood why the status quo in Ontario is not as effective as it could be. We have to retool and reskill right across our province. The various communities, the various enterprises and various places of learning can't readily undertake this work in isolation if we are truly going to restructure in earnest. We need a coordinated approach with agreed-upon overall objectives flexible enough to recognize that there are valuable insights and a tremendous wealth of experience and expertise that we can all draw on across the entire province. Quite simply, we need a coordinated partnership, and I can't explain OTAB any more succinctly than that, a coordinated partnership.

I know the process to get this far hasn't always been easy and I'm not naïve enough to think that we can just wish into existence some utopian round table at which the stakeholders can gather to work in perfect harmony. Despite the overall consensus on training and adjustment reform, during the public hearings we heard many contrasting opinions on some of the specifics of how OTAB would operate.

For example, just as one group would assert that we should more tightly constrict the functions of OTAB to keep an eye on it, another group would ask that the proposed board be given a free hand. We heard from some that the central board should make all the key decisions, while others told us to ensure the system was decentralized and decisions were all made locally.

In reviewing the amendments proposed by those who appeared before the standing committee, the hearings struck me as a kind of process of point/counterpoint in which one brief's proposal would call for the erosion of something that another brief emphasized was vital and inviolable.

For example, this was the case when representations discussed whether OTAB's emphasis should be on social goals or economic goals. As was stated in our original discussion paper and is reflected in the legislation, the government's view is that these goals are interrelated and complementary and there is no need to rank one set of goals ahead of the other.

I am confident that the members of the steering committees formed by the labour market partners to assist us in developing this bill do in fact well understand and appreciate this. However, just as people come to the bargaining table with a starting position and then work towards compromise from there, some of the numerous groups who gave their attention to this bill took the opportunity to state which of the two objectives they saw as the priority.

Of course, we will always have these differences of opinion, but I am not disheartened by these contrasting viewpoints. Rather I take that as more of an indication that the question of how to reform our training and adjustment system is being considered with the serious attention it deserves.

It has never been the intent of this bill to impose some idealized, secret formula for training or any single simplistic approach to labour force development on a province as rich and varied as is Ontario. Quite the contrary, we very much need to be able to hear on an ongoing basis a variety of insights and a whole range of ideas to help us put together a coordinated system of diverse solutions.

It has been quite natural, in my opinion, that people came to speak to the committee and took the opportunity to go on the record with their views of what OTAB should ideally be. But I believe it is not accurate to assume this means that the labour market partners cannot make some concessions or that they are incapable of fashioning compromises over what seem to be intractable differences. In fact the evidence suggests this has already started to happen.

The members on both sides of the House will know how much negotiation among the labour market partners took place to produce the blueprint from which Bill 96 was drafted. I would remind members of how this government even went so far as to share early draft wording of the bill with the labour market partners' steering committees, and I caution my colleagues not to lightly overlook that reality.

I am grateful for the close attention that the resources development committee gave to Bill 96 and I am certain that we will have an improved piece of legislation as a result. I would say to my colleagues opposite that I'm also quite grateful for their own careful examination during committee of the whole.

But I also ask all members to keep in mind what the labour market partners have put together for us to review. Keep in mind that this initiative has their support. Keep in mind that the people on the steering committees, representing business, labour, women, racial minorities, people with disabilities, francophones and educators and trainers, came from a broad range of society.

They and those they represent are a thorough mix of people from all political perspectives and they have all approached the task of negotiating in good faith to help us develop draft legislation in as non-partisan a spirit as possible, striving to keep the interests of the province as a whole in mind.

Despite their differences, our partners have told us in effect: "Yes, we want to be part of OTAB. We want to provide the leadership that you are proposing. We know what's at stake and we know what's involved. Despite what our personal, ideal image of OTAB may have been, we can live with what you have proposed, and we want to get on and to work on it."

There is another important achievement worth mentioning, and that is the model for a decision-making process. It is a good example of our collective effort to take into account the interests of all. This model was developed in consultation with the labour market partners and has been agreed upon in principle.

In general, where consensus is not possible and as a last resort, matters put to a vote by the governing body of OTAB will not be decided by a simple majority. We've proposed a model that would make sure that no one group's interests can consistently dictate the direction OTAB will take, and I'm convinced that it is a workable model.

My point is that we're very, very close to being able to give the labour market partners, our constituents, the mechanism that they have told us that they very much want so that they can lead the training and adjustment system. Yes, it has taken time; yes, it has been a bumpy road occasionally. We have discussed and consulted and done our level best, believe me, to strike a balance between contrasting positions.

Striking a balance does mean, if one is cynical, that everyone has been a little disappointed in some respect. I think that came out in the public hearings. But more importantly, the balance we have struck and the demonstrated willingness of our partners to get involved means everyone sees OTAB as an idea whose time has come and whose design can be made to work.

The result is not some magic elixir, some panacea for all our social and economic woes, but before I conclude I would ask that the members of this Legislature pose a question to themselves. When before have we ever had an opportunity to take this kind of inclusive, multipartite approach to giving people the skills they need to meet the challenge of economic renewal, wealth creation, fair treatment and equal opportunity? When indeed?

Of course, we never have, and it can be an anxious process breaking new ground and attempting something brand-new. But I believe we all know that none of us were put in office by the people of Ontario to shy away from a task just because it represents an element of the unknown or just because it presumes we will have to leave the safety of conventional thinking.

We have an honourable compromise in this legislation. We have some real freedom and significant authority to offer OTAB, and we have the requisite checks and balances to keep an eye on public funds and programs.

We have secured an opportunity for input from all the traditional experts in labour force development as well as from many who have till now been denied a voice. We've devised a way to permit local solutions to be developed that will respond to local needs and retained the benefits of a coordinated system to provide and plan for all of Ontario's needs.

This bill is the work of the labour market partners themselves. I have to say how proud I am that the partners have helped us begin an era of real and meaningful cooperation among those who work, those who want to work, those who hire and those who teach and train. It's long overdue, but it certainly isn't too late.

It is with great pride that I introduce third reading of this very significant, important legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): This is the first opportunity to publicly commend the member for Cambridge in his new position, which is entitled associate minister. I also want to compliment him on the speech. I don't know if he had the opportunity to do that speech himself or whether it was through the ministry, but certainly it was a well-written speech and hit all the right words.

Unfortunately, the big question with this bill is, will it work? I will leave the judgement to the actual workings as this board gets established. I think there are many, many concerns that have been voiced out there that were not addressed during the committee stage, with all due respect, even though when the member spoke, he talked about the amount of consultation.

A lot of our amendments that were put forward after a lot of work were not implemented, so it's nice to say there was broad consensus, but I honestly, truly believe that there were a lot of people who had concerns that were not fulfilled. So I say to the member, the only one thing that came out, and I sat in on some of the hearings, is that everybody hopes this will work, because without training, I firmly believe this province will be finished in terms of its economic base.

Having said that, we saw many holes, many areas where it needed to be improved. They were not. I will hopefully articulate some of those when I get a chance to debate on third reading, but I will say to the member that I really believe there still are some shortcomings. We wish the member luck in implementing this but, unfortunately, I think there are going to be some major concerns that still will not be addressed by this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Cambridge has two minutes in response.

Hon Mr Farnan: I very simply would like to thank the member for Oakville South for his kind personal remarks and also for the tone of his comments. I'm sure when he speaks to the bill he will have his own party's position and some of the positions that were raised at either end of the spectrum throughout the hearings that I referred to in my speech. But certainly in his response to my introductory presentation, the tone of his comments, I believe, were very positive and very encouraging. I sensed from the member that he wants it to work. I hope that's true.

I believe that all members of the House in all parties must recognize that training is indeed, as the member for Oakville South quite correctly pointed out, the key to the future, and that is why goodwill on all sides -- I think the people of Ontario expect this of us in this very rapidly changing society.

Whether we represent labour or business, whether we represent municipal government or hospitals or school boards or provincial government, the people of Ontario are saying: "Look, we just don't want a critical approach based simply on criticism. We want approaches that are constructive, we want people working together, we want to see partnerships."

This legislation is an extraordinary partnership that this government is proud indeed to have initiated and we welcome very, very much the support of opposition parties and of the public to the success of this enterprise.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on third reading, Bill 96.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's an honour again to be standing in my place as the Liberal critic for skills training to be speaking now at third reading of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, Bill 96.

Last week, as the Speaker will remember, we had our debate in committee of the whole House, where we had a further opportunity to bring forward amendments. It was in the intersession this winter that we had four weeks of hearings where we were able to listen to the people of Ontario, especially those primarily interested in skills training. All the labour market partners were there, bringing forward amendments and suggestions, and I'd like to speak to that a little later on.

Of course, it was December 1 of last year, according to Hansard here, that we had our second-reading debate and the vote on that, and that was an opportunity I had to make a 90-minute speech. I just assure the members of the House that not only will I not be doing that today, according to the rules, but it won't be necessary, because we have had ample opportunity to bring our points forward.

Many of those points that I brought forward over the last year on the concept of OTAB and the implementation of OTAB by this government remain the same and I find now are being confirmed by other people out there, even some of the major players within OTAB. In a way it's kind of sad to see that happening, because we all, as members, want to see OTAB succeed.

Unfortunately, I think it's doomed to failure because of the recipe that was designed from initially a very good concept, but I think the recipe and the rush in which we're putting the recipe together also is going to doom it to failure. I hope not, but that's what I think.

I think this was also confirmed by an

article in the Toronto Star of July 16 by Judy Steed, where she does quite a substantial

article on OTAB and its progress. We all in this House know it has taken a long time to get OTAB established. In fact, it's not really established yet. I understand the minister will have a press conference tomorrow, finally announcing the membership of the board of OTAB. It's taken at least a year for the ministry to try to get a board established, and there are many reasons behind that which we don't really have time to go into today. But again, it's a bad start and I think it forebodes what's going to happen with OTAB.

I hope that these things don't happen, that we get on with it and that we can get on not only to getting a good board established across the province as an umbrella group, but that as my amendment has stated in this legislation, an amendment that was accepted by the government, we get on very quickly in establishing the local training and adjustment boards, because I for one feel that's where the work is going to happen.

It's not going to happen on a province-wide basis; it's going to happen on a local basis, with local workers and business people and educators and trainers and equity group representatives understanding the training needs for those communities and starting to establish those core programs for those communities. I think that's the way we're going to get the Ontario economy back on track.

I'd like to quote from this

article of Judy Steed's of July 16, because even some of the key players like Richard Johnston -- who is now the chairperson, as we all know, of the Ontario Council of Regents, which is the parent body of all the community colleges in Ontario, really the group of institutions that basically produce about 70% of the training -- now has a lot of questions about the viability of OTAB and the way it's being put together.

I'd like to start with that and talk about that, because I've been saying from the very beginning that, in principle, this is a very sound and good idea. The way one should proceed with this, rather than what the government is doing, which is sort of forcing this partnership -- because that's what we're doing. We all want partnerships in all the endeavours of public life in Ontario today, but you can't force a partnership. What you have to do is invite a partnership, and you have to nurture it and coax it to get it started and get it flourishing and maturing.

What we don't have in this province, which is very unfortunate and very sad, and it's not unique to this country but unfortunately a bit unique to Ontario, is that we don't have a labour-management relationship in this province that is mature, very much unlike the province of Quebec, which is unfortunate, where for years labour and management have seen the commonality of their goals and have worked together in building the Quebec economy. We don't have a mature relationship there.

You can't force this relationship, but you can start it. As I said, you can cultivate it, you can nurture it and you can help it grow. That's what I've always asked this government to do, to start that process, and to start that process by bringing these people together on an advisory level, because that's the way you start it. Don't bring all these people into a room and say: "We're going to force this relationship. We're going to force this partnership. By the way, we're going to separate you from government and we're going to give you a whole pile of money and we're going to make you solely responsible for all skills training in Ontario."

I think to start off like that is a recipe for disaster. I think we might be able to end up that way some day if we take those incremental steps working towards that. So while I'm criticizing the government on one hand for being so slow off the mark to get the process started and we should have got this process started a couple of years ago, once we got it started, we should have moved slowly in developing those relationships so we get people working together.

I'm very concerned about that and I bring that point again. I only have to look at the occupational health and safety agency, which has a very dismal track record when it comes to cooperation. Again, because that labour-management relationship in Ontario is not mature, is not sound, unfortunately we have a lot of other axes being ground when it comes to those relationships, and therefore these agencies and these partnerships that we'd like to see developed -- and all three parties would like to see these developed -- suffer. These partnerships suffer.

I say to the parliamentary assistant that we need to take a bit of time in making sure that those relationships mature, that the partnership develops so that we have a true partnership, and so we would more or less walk before we run. That is one of the key points I wanted to bring up today.

Another main point that I brought up in amendments, both in committee that we had this winter and also in committee of the whole House debate that we had last week, is to make sure that we had the right representation on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. This is another sticking point that I find could very well lead to the failure of OTAB.

The government has to have a more balanced representation of all the labour market partners in order for OTAB to succeed. In order to do that, it has to reach out further into the worker community especially, because one of the sore points of 70% of the working women and men in Ontario who don't happen to find themselves organized under a collective agreement and therefore under a local bargaining unit being under a parent union is that they do not find themselves represented at the OTAB table. They will not be allowed to have a say as to how skills training will be developed in their particular sector.

That's a very sad point. I've conceded and quite agree with government members that the unionized representatives of the workforce can certainly represent all the workforce when it comes to all the general worker issues. There's no doubt about that. Unions are certainly organized and well-funded and knowledgeable, through their research departments, to be researching out the needs and the benefits that are required by working men and women in Ontario when it comes to pensions, working conditions, health and safety, wages and all the basic, general, working, bargaining points and benefits that working people need in Ontario.

But when it comes to very occupation-specific trades and skills, it's going to be important that we have all the players at the table. Through the very selective representation that this government has chosen through the path of saying that only 30% of Ontario workers, those who are organized, are going to be allowed basically to have direct representation on OTAB and unfortunately, through this legislation, the local training and adjustment boards, we're excluding a lot of people.

Mr Speaker, I know for you and for I, who have some roots in the agricultural community, this is one particular sector that will not have a voice at the table, and that's sad. I remember one of the members opposite shouting out during my second reading speech: "Well, how would we pick such a member? How would we find somebody?"

I always say to this government that other worker groups have all sorts of affiliates, associations and other groupings that are quite approachable when it comes to asking for representation. It would be very easy to get representatives from sectors that traditionally find themselves unrecognized, unorganized by organized labour, but also from some of those very fast moving and new sectors of the economy that, because they're so new, aren't organized either, many of those high-tech industries.

We're going to need some of those people at the table who are in those fast-growing industries that are going to be requiring the very fast-needed skills that are going to be required out there. Those people should be at the table too.

Unfortunately, you're going to see some of the traditional manufacturing unions and resource extraction unions, only, represented at this table and not a good cross-section of everybody at the table. That's sad and I hope that some day the minister will see to it that we get a more balanced representation when it comes to that.

I'd also like to talk about local boards, because many of us who have taken an interest in skills training really believe that the answer in bringing people together, which is what the goal of this bill is, is not in an Ontario-wide, umbrella organization that primarily this bill, until my amendment was accepted, speaks to, but really it will be founded on the local boards and the establishment of bringing a good partnership together of local people, people who have a community of interest.

This is something I want to talk about, because of the 22 LTABs, the local training and adjustment boards, that are so far being proposed by this government and have not yet been decided upon, there are a lot of disagreements by the different communities that basically have been forced together in these proposed boards as to their commonality and their community of interest.

If the local boards are to work cooperatively together, they have to have that community of interest. They have to understand each other's needs and have a sense of community and work together. We have that already. Many of the CITCs, the community industrial training committees that the federal government had set up, came together as a community of interest. They have very like needs, wants and desires and have some similar goals as to how to accomplish the training ends in those particular groups.

Unfortunately, what the OTAB legislation is going to do is really throw the baby out with the bathwater, because what it's going to do is throw out all the local training and adjustment boards that are already established. Whether they're ones that have been established without any government guidance or the ones I just referred to that the federal government had organized, they're all going to go. They're all going to be out the window, because what we have now through Bill 96, the OTAB legislation, is a kind of cookie-cutter approach. The cookie-cutter imprint from this legislation is now going to be imprinted right across the province.

This is the model that the NDP government has decided is best for Ontario and best for every community and region in Ontario. The local people won't have any say. It's got to be this particular style of partnership, this particular proportion of labour representatives and worker representatives with business people, trainers and the equity groups. The cookie-cutter approach is going to be placed right across Ontario. In other words, we have another example of government saying: "What's good at Queen's Park: We at Queen's Park know what's good for all the regions."

I'm very concerned about that, because as most members around here know, the regions are very different from each other in this province. It's a very diverse province and it's really going to be necessary, I think, to give some flexibility.

I'll give you a practical example of that, Mr Speaker. This particular model of eight worker reps and eight business reps, with the trainers and the equity groups, certainly could work in many highly industrialized areas of Ontario where we would find that most of the industrial workers would be unionized. That would work. That would work in an area of Oshawa and it would work in an area of Hamilton where you have a very high percentage of the industrial workers unionized. Probably it fits just right.

But what about, say, you take Hamilton and mix it with an area like Brantford and then down through Haldimand county and Brant county. We have a very big agricultural community. How are the interests of steelworkers from Hamilton, who have a tremendous challenge ahead of them, for sure, in working with the big steel companies in trying to make a very viable and high-tech steel industry in the future so that Canada can stay in that business, similar with the agricultural workers of Brant and Haldimand counties? How, when you foist all those people together, will there develop a community of interest?

I don't really see it happening. It's not going to be able to happen because, first of all, the agricultural people aren't going to be very well represented on the worker side, because the workers there have to come from organized unions, so many of the workers in that community will not find themselves at the table, because for whatever reason they do not find themselves in a union.

These points are very important. They have to be worked upon and there has to be flexibility so that, whatever local LTAB area is decided upon, it can reflect the nature of work and the potential nature of work in that area. If it can reflect the nature of work in that area and those people bring forward their representatives from work in that area, then I think they will be able to work closely together to come to some agreement as to what are the needs, and work together as to how the training needs can be supplied to that LTAB.

I think that's very important, and I really believe it's going to be important for this government to address that. In fact, until the amendment I put forward in committee was adopted, there was no compulsion in this bill for OTAB to establish all the local training and adjustment boards throughout the province, but we now see in subsection 18(1) that, "OTAB shall designate local training and adjustment boards that comply with the regulations made under this act." It's very important that OTAB, once established, get on with that work, because I think it's going to be at the local level that we're going to see some elements of success.

We're going to need to have OTAB working as well as it can, because right now we're at a very critical time in the history of Ontario. The economy of Ontario right now is going through a major transition. We relied in Ontario primarily on two main sectors of the economy to make it work.

There was our branch plant manufacturing sector that we were blessed with after the Second World War, a sector of the economy we didn't have very much control of because it was branch plant, but thanks to the tariff structure, after the Second World War multinational companies, primarily American, were basically forced to establish, and primarily they established in southern Ontario. The other major sector of the economy was the resource extraction industry, not only agriculture but mining and forestry. Northern Ontario certainly shared in that, as it still does, with forestry and mining and some agriculture.

These were the primary generators of the Ontario economy.

What we find now, with new competition around the world and new trading arrangements such as free trade, FTA and NAFTA, is that these branch plants don't have to operate in Ontario, and if we're not competitive here we've seen many of those withdraw, unfortunately, to the United States and to their countries of origin. Because of that, we find ourselves having to re-examine the nature of work in Ontario: What will the nature of work be?

Similarly, in northern Ontario we find the very same thing -- a little different characteristic -- in that we have less demand worldwide for many of the resources that we produce in the north. So we're similarly challenged in northern Ontario with having to find new work and developing what that new work will be, but the basis of that is going to be to make sure that all our people, in north and south and east and western Ontario have the skills to accomplish the new work.

It's very hard right now, even for somebody who has an interest as I do in skills training, to specify what those jobs are going to be, because by the years 2000 and 2005 and 2010 -- we can't predict today what about 30% to 40% of those jobs are even going to be, but we do know they're going to be work of higher value, and that means we have to have a greater and broader skill base in Ontario. That means we have to have a better education system. We have to have smarter workers. Being competitive doesn't mean that people have to work harder or do with less. What it means in Ontario and Canada to be competitive is that we have to work smarter as a people.

So skills training is going to be very important, and we have to make sure we do that by working in partnership with everybody. I'd like to just come back to that word "partnership" again, because one of the partners that is ill represented on OTAB are the educators and trainers themselves. I understand the government's argument that this should be consumer-driven, and I certainly agree with the previous speaker and with the minister that we want OTAB to be consumer-driven.

What that means is that workers and management, the business community, need to be the prime drivers and motivators of OTAB, and that's right, but it's very important that all the five different training communities are also represented in OTAB.

I've twice now brought forward amendments that would still keep the balance of a consumer-driven board while at the same time bring in more representation from the educators and trainers. I felt very badly that the government would not accept what many of those trainers and educators were saying: that they all wanted a voice at the table. In fact, going back to Richard Johnston, the president of the Council of Regents for the community colleges of Ontario, he has basically withdrawn his support of OTAB now because the representative from the colleges was not accepted by the committee that was to represent all the educators.

That's part of the problem. What is wrong with having a representative from the community colleges, from the universities, from community trainers, from private trainers and from the school boards, so that all five aspects of training in Ontario represented by those different bodies were represented on OTAB? That would be important.

What you could do is make sure that the quorum situation and the voting mechanisms were designed not to increase their power but to make sure that all the trainers and educators were present, so that not only could they understand what business, for the very first time, maybe, for some trainers, and labour were requiring from the educational community -- because that's the idea behind this: put everybody together so they understand where they come from -- but also that they listen to each other and understand their various roles in delivering training, because there is a place for all trainers and educators in Ontario.

There's certainly a place for the publicly funded education system, but there's also certainly a place for community trainers, who capture a group of clients that the other systems don't, and there's certainly a place for private trainers, who work very closely with the business community in providing very skills-specific training and services for the business community. Everybody should be there at the table. That's very, very important.

This bill excludes three of the five training groups, and that's wrong. That is very much wrong, and I would hope again that someday this government would see the light and would make some amendments to this bill to make sure that those people are there.

It's an important time that we get together on skills training, and OTAB is certainly this government's attempt to do that.

I would just like, before I close today, to talk a little bit about the purpose of this bill and the goals, because part of the problem with this bill -- and the parliamentary assistant spoke about it -- is that this bill is a compilation of compromises. That's what makes the bill weak.

While in the Canadian system of political life we've basically founded our country and our provinces on compromise, and while I believe that you have to listen to everybody and come to some sort of commonality, in certain aspects a sense of leadership has to be expressed. Some time in Canadian life there needs to be a government with a vision to say, "We've listened to everybody, but now we're embarking on this path."

This is our vision, in this case, for skills training in Ontario. That requires vision and that requires leadership. Sometimes when you compromise, what you get is weakness. When you read the purpose clauses of this bill, what you see is weakness. You don't see strong vision with strong direction, and that's needed in this bill. Unfortunately, that's missing.

What we have today, as I've outlined with a little bit of our economic history of what's happened here, is that we're at a point now where we have to declare war on this economy. We have to say that we want to mobilize all the forces, all the strengths, all our efforts in Ontario to make sure that all Ontarians have the skills to rebuild this economy. This is important so that all of us as individuals have the ability to support ourselves, to support our families and, together in doing that, to build a strong economy. That's important, and it's going to take a will, it's going to take a strong mandate.

In fact, what it's going to take is a strong imperative from this government, an order, an imperative from this government to say, "The number one goal of the government of the province of Ontario and all its people should be to garner all the skills we can in this province to be the most competitive workplace in Ontario."

It's that sort of language and some sort of vision statement that should have headed up this bill so we really had a sense of the strength of leadership that was necessary to move forward with a redevelopment and a redeploying of all skills training. Instead, I think what we have is a collection of compromises here.

What we've created is a very big new bureaucracy. Granted, we're bringing all the bureaucrats and civil servants together from all the different ministries -- and I think that's a good idea -- but we're bringing them together and then we're setting them outside, out in a

schedule 4 agency. For those people who don't really understand what a

schedule 4 agency is, it's going to be very much like establishing another Workers' Compensation Board.

It's going to be establishing an agency that's fairly independent from government, so it doesn't have the hands-on command and control of a minister of the day who is responsible to the people of Ontario through the Legislature of Ontario. I'm very concerned about that. It's a

schedule 4 agency that's got a lot of autonomy and a lot of independence, and it can go wrong, as we've seen with the other agency, the health and safety agency that I referred to earlier. I'm very concerned about this, and I would just plead with the government that it puts in its memorandum of understanding what's missing in this bill, that strong leadership; that it put it in there, that it put in some very strong vision, some very strong purpose clauses that are missing from this bill, to give it that direction, to make sure it's got the imperative, just like other imperatives that other governments have done in the past, because when people put their wills together, they can do it.

We've seen in the history of humankind the different sort of imperatives that have made things happen. We've seen in the space program in the United States probably a political imperative because a president, President Kennedy, said, "We want to put a man on the moon in so many years." That happened because a leader in a country said, "This is a goal we have and here's the direction we're headed in." It takes vision to do that, and John F. Kennedy had that vision.

We've seen the country of Japan, absolutely devas