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

June 16, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

SOCIAL CONTRACT

RIDE FOR SIGHT

COMPENSATION FOR AIDS PATIENTS

ENDANGERED SPECIES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOCIAL CONTRACT

AGRICULTURAL LAND

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HIGHWAY SAFETY

VISITOR

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

NATIVE INFORMATION SERVICES

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

NATIVE INFORMATION SERVICES

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HEALTH CARE

SOCIAL CONTRACT

TAX INCREASES

SOCIAL CONTRACT

BICYCLING POLICY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

ORDER OF BUSINESS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ENDANGERED SPECIES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CONTRAT SOCIAL

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

GAMBLING

MADAWASKA HIGHLANDS

GAMBLING

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

GAMBLING

ABORTION

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ORDER OF BUSINESS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

HELLENIC ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF KINGSTON AND DISTRICT ACT, 1993

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

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

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

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

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Monday 14 June will go down as one of the darkest days in the history of this province and its Parliament. On that day Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren, by introducing the so-called Social Contract Act, introduced and became the authors of the most anti-democratic, anti-labour, anti-civil-rights piece of legislation that has ever been introduced in any Legislature in Canada.

One eminent lawyer described this bill as the most dramatic intrusion into the collective bargaining process that he had ever seen. We all agree that restraint in public expenditure is an important order of the day, but what Bob Rae has done is nothing short of a Kremlinesque grab for power. He has chosen not only to restrain the rights of workers working with trade unions to negotiate their collective agreements but has summarily destroyed civil rights and simple rights, like the right to grieve and the right to complain, as a result of the arbitrary actions of employers.

Everyone in this province should see this legislation for what it is and see what a threat it represents to all of our civil liberties, the liberties that protect us in a free and democratic society.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The social contract legislation introduced by the Treasurer does nothing to help municipalities confronted by enormous cuts to their transfer payments.

Municipal employer representatives acted in good faith by staying at the talks and remained committed to working out a solution with the NDP government to cut the deficit, save services and jobs and ensure no tax increases. The social contract legislation provides little assurance that savings will be found in compensation.

Many of Ontario's 839 municipalities believe a wage freeze will not provide the savings required to offset the NDP government's recent slashing of $110 million in unconditional grants and the $285-million cut to the public sector payrolls. The government has left municipalities with no choice but to lay off employees and cut services.

Municipal representatives are also alarmed about the distribution of the cuts to individual municipalities. Throughout the social contract discussions, municipalities focused on the need to reduce the sectoral target and recommended that one quarter of this year's impact be deferred to the second quarter of 1996, making the amount for 1993 no more than $150 million.

This is a reasonable suggestion in recognition of a fiscal year problem facing municipalities across Ontario. The Premier has an obligation to direct his government to help reduce the impact of midyear cuts on the beleaguered municipalities in Ontario.

Time is running out and the resumption of discussions must happen as soon as possible, before the social contract legislation becomes law.

RIDE FOR SIGHT

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today in the House to inform the members of the Legislature of the 1993 Ride For Sight, a motorcycle event held in every province and territory in Canada during the month of June.

In 1979, a small number of motorcycle enthusiasts had the first rally and raised $8,000. From this humble beginning, the Ride For Sight has developed into a national event with approximately 8,000 motorcyclists raising close to $1 million in 1992 to fund eye research in Canada.

All the donor money raised on the Ride For Sight goes to retinitis pigmentosa research and other closely allied degenerations of the eye. Retinitis pigmentosa is a major cause of blindness in people between the ages of 6 and 60 and affects thousands of Canadians. Canadian scientists are recognized worldwide for their efforts in fighting this group of diseases. In Ontario, research is being conducted by scientists at the Hospital for Sick Children here in Toronto.

Participating motorcyclists are justifiably proud of their contribution in this successful work because the Ride For Sight is the largest source of private funding for eye research. In 1992, motorcyclists across Canada raised over $835,000, of which over $450,000 was raised in Ontario.

This year, Fenelon Falls hosts the Ride For Sight June 18, 19 and 20. Motorcyclists will be able to enjoy a full weekend of activities with their friends and families. The Ride For Sight weekend rally is a way to say thanks to all the motorcyclists and volunteers who took the time and made the effort to help others.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people involved in the Ride For Sight and their contributions towards retinitis pigmentosa research and to wish them the best for this weekend.

COMPENSATION FOR AIDS PATIENTS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, you will know that consistently since November 1991 I've been asking that the province of Ontario participate alongside the federal government in a compensation plan that would ensure that those who have contracted HIV through tainted blood and blood products have security for themselves and for their families.

Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta have instituted plans to provide restitution, and in each case, those provincial plans have been introduced after extensive consultation on their design with organizations such as the Canadian Haemophilia Society, whose membership is substantially affected by this problem.

Last week, the Minister of Health said, outside of the House, "Governments in the past did not adopt policies that protected people who received blood." Clearly, she has accepted the liability of the government for its actions. She has speculated in the press that there may be a compensation plan, but unfortunately she has refused to meet with those very people who could assist in its design and ensure that an Ontario program meets the needs of those who have used and are affected by tainted blood and blood products.

We need to know what responsibility this government will take for the social and medical costs of a tainted blood supply, and that any Ontario plan is carefully and thoughtfully drafted with the input of those who are affected by it. The minister must ensure the consultation and involvement of those who received HIV-tainted blood.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On May 7, a group of 35 grade 7 students from Zion Heights Junior High School came to Queen's Park to present a petition and letters to my office. They are concerned about the lack of government protection for endangered species.

There have been seven new additions to Canada's endangered species list. These additions bring the total number of endangered plant and animal species in Canada to 236. Approximately 40% of these species are found in what were once the great deciduous forests of southern Ontario and Quebec.

The most effective way of protecting these plants and animals from further loss would be to set aside habitats representative of each of the various land and sea ecosystems in Canada.

I would remind you that the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity calls for the preservation of 12% of each country's land as protected spaces, a target that was formally adopted by the federal and provincial Environment ministries.

Neither federal nor provincial wildlife laws require habitat protection or restoration efforts when a species is found to be threatened.

The students from Zion Heights feel strongly that without positive government action, Ontario will continue to lose its natural wildlife. They wrote letters to the Premier expressing their concerns and they compiled a petition demanding a moratorium to protect all endangered species and their habitats.

Much of the legal responsibility for protecting plants and animals falls within the provincial government's jurisdiction. I strongly support my constituents' demands and I urge the government to take immediate action to protect our natural wildlife.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I wish to confirm my opposition to the North American free trade agreement and the negative impact this proposed deal will have on Ontario's agricultural industry.

The future viability of agriculture in this province and indeed the future of many of our family farms hangs in the balance as the federal government rushes towards the North American free trade agreement. That future is bleak if this deal is completed.

If the free trade agreement negotiated by the same federal government between Canada and the United States is an indication of how this wider agreement will be run, we risk losing much, especially on our farms and throughout our rural communities.

No one knows this better than many of my constituents in Lambton county. The pork producers in my riding, and across Ontario and Canada, are reeling from this latest decision made by the panel earlier this week that sided with the US Department of Commerce. The US claimed that live hogs exported from Canada to the US in 1989-90 were subject to countervailable duty rate because of our national tripartite system to the tune of some $20 million.

The constant harassment of our hog and pork industries has not been ended by the free trade deal. Indeed, there seems to be a flagrant disregard of this deal by many American industries and within the US government.

Now on the heels of that disastrous free trade agreement comes NAFTA. NAFTA will not end American trade harassment. It will only add to the devastation started by the free trade agreement. The negatives of NAFTA are too much for our farmers and food industries to bear.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to know where my Conservative colleagues stand on the social contract legislation.

When the NDP began its social contract negotiations, Mike Harris applauded the announcement. He told Bob Rae that he could count on his Tory party's support.

By the end of April, Mike Harris was saying, "I will support legislation -- bang, bang, bang, first, second, third reading."

But then, by the end of May, they changed their tune. Members of the Conservative caucus said: "This process is flawed, badly flawed, from the beginning. It's a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants process."

One week Mike Harris says, "I have supported social contract talks." The very next week Mike Harris says, "We have told you that the social contract talks could not possibly succeed."

Now the legislation is here, and on Monday, June 14, the Conservatives said two things:

(1) They said they might support the legislation in principle and

(2) Mike Harris, quoted on CHCH-TV, said he was going to try and defeat the legislation. I say to the Conservative caucus, which is it? I want to know and the people of Ontario want to know, where do the Conservatives stand on Bill 48, the social contract legislation?

We have a government, the NDP, which wakes up in the morning and creates party policy depending on where the wind blows. The Conservatives are no better. I say, do you support Bob Rae's draconian legislation or have you realized that it will not accomplish the goals that even this government says it wants to achieve?

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): If there were any doubts that the government is no longer listening to the concerns of the agricultural community, they no longer exist for farmers in the southern portion of my Simcoe West riding.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food or, as the farming community in my riding now refers to it, the ministry of aggravation and frustration, is coercing the town of New Tecumseth to rezone land from its current rural-agricultural designation to strictly an agricultural designation. Farmers in my riding know this single designation will sharply erode the value of their lands.

But instead of listening to my constituents and advocating on their behalf, ministry officials are strong-arming New Tecumseth farmers into agreeing to this rezoning.

I quote from a letter to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food written by Ontario Federation of Agriculture President Roger George regarding the conduct displayed by a ministry official to my constituents at a recent meeting in the riding:

"I regret to report that Ms Johnston's attitude brought little credit to OMAF, the bureaucracy or the government of Ontario. Quite frankly it was seen as, 'My way or the doorway."'

As well, my constituents were left with the impression that any future support from the government would be linked to their surrender on this rezoning issue.

The minister and his officials know full well that this rezoning will erect another barrier to the viability and sustainability of agriculture in my riding.

Agriculture bureaucrats need to remember whom they represent. Without farmers there is no Ministry of Agriculture and Food. If the ministry is to be relevant, it needs to start pleading the case of farmers and not working against them and insulting them.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): When I think of the social contract, its purpose and the way it will help us achieve our economic goals, it brings to mind the success of the Spruce Falls mill in Kapuskasing. When it became public knowledge that the mill was in a difficult economic situation, the employees realized they had to participate. They became involved in negotiating a settlement that would protect as many jobs as possible.

A government deficit can be looked on in much the same way as private industry deficits. You can only go on borrowing for so long before your creditors withdraw and your investors spend elsewhere. We know that if our government continues to borrow and spend without controlling our spending, we will see massive transfers of wealth going to bondholders, much of it outside Canada. We will then have less money for job creation programs, economic renewal and services such as health and education.

Much the same way the employees of Spruce Falls had the option of being involved in creating a strategic buyout plan, public service employees too have a similar option. They have the option to be involved in decisions that will ultimately determine their own economic future as well as that of others.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): In April 1992, I asked the Ministry of Transportation for an early installation date of median barriers on the Conestoga Parkway in Kitchener. At that time I said it would be a move that would obviously prevent collisions, prevent accidents and would lives. This expressway was built over 26 years ago in my community, and certainly is due for some major improvements and changes.

Yesterday, three residents of my community were killed instantly in yet another crossover accident collision. Yesterday's triple fatality was the latest in a string of collisions that have occurred over the past three years leaving seven people dead and countless numbers injured.

A coroner's inquest into one of the deaths recommended that median barriers be installed to prevent similar accidents in the future. Twenty months have passed and median barriers have not yet been installed on this stretch of roadway.

Today, I call on the Minister of Transportation to move up the projected 1996 planned installation date of median barriers on the parkway so that lives will no longer be lost on this stretch of Ontario's highways.

I know that all of my colleagues join with me in extending our sincere sympathies to the families of the victims, Derek Fidler, Ryan Short and Herbert Hombach.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a former member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and indeed a former minister of the crown, Mr Alex Macdonald. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Today, I am pleased to release Putting People First, Ontario's framework for mental health reform. We can now move forward to create an effective mental health system that responds to the needs of each individual.

Our first priority is to meet the needs of people who need help most, those with severe mental illness. We know the most vulnerable require services that are consumer-oriented and sensitive to gender, culture, race and language.

The Ministry of Health spends more than $1.3 billion annually on mental health. We provide a number of excellent mental health programs, yet the vital links between them that would ensure we are reaching those most in need, and providing them with proper community support and a smooth transition from one service to another, are often missing.

Using the principles set out in Putting People First, we will transform a group of fragmented services to a strong coordinated system. We will see hospital and community-based services working together to build a better mental health system.

The reform process began in 1988 with the Graham report Building Community Supports for People. Reform continued with an extensive consultation process and detailed planning by district health councils and provincial psychiatric hospitals.

This government has already passed legislation dealing with key issues for mental health reform, the Consent to Treatment Act, Substitute Decisions Act and the Advocacy Act.

These acts reinforce the right of people in all settings to make decisions if they are mentally capable of doing so, and enable them to designate someone they trust to make decisions for them if they become incapable.

These acts also provide new ways to protect the wellbeing and rights of people when they lack mental capacity by correcting significant gaps and inconsistencies in our present laws.

As we turn our attention to the necessary system changes, let me state for this House our government's commitment to providing the necessary community services, just as we have for long-term care. In 1978, I was a member of Etobicoke city council when Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital was closed without any alternative services in place in my community. That experience will not be repeated.

Community-based mental health programs and services have grown from $42.9 million in 1985-86 to over $170 million in 1993-94, a growth of 400%. This expansion of community mental health programs will continue as we reallocate funding within our mental health budget.

Our long-term care reform will also provide more support in the community to elderly people with mental health problems who can now receive treatment in the community rather than being institutionalized.

In some places, reform is already in action. In Hamilton, for example, the psychiatric hospital runs the Annex, a supportive housing program for people with schizophrenia. Abel Enterprises, a business cooperative in Simcoe, helps consumers-survivors live in the community and maintain stable jobs. Programs like these are building blocks of our mental health reform.

To achieve our vision for the mental health system, we will focus on four key services and supports, namely, case management, 24-hour crisis intervention, housing, and consumer-survivor and family supports to help people manage their illness and reduce hospitalization.

Strong local and regional planning under the leadership of district health councils will allow people to move easily within the system and ensure that no part of the province is left unserviced. Each part of the system will be clearly defined and realigned to provide a mix of services and avoid gaps and duplication.

We will determine the appropriate role for hospitals, community-based programs, homes for special care and services run by consumers-survivors.

Special programs will be developed to meet the needs of those with severe mental illness and the unique needs of women, children, people with developmental disabilities, francophones, elderly people, members of ethnocultural groups and mentally disordered offenders and accused persons.

The ministry will develop a human resources strategy to support this reform. The strategy will reflect collective agreements and legislation. We will ensure that workers who provide direct care in the provincial psychiatric hospitals will have the opportunity to work in the community, and we will provide opportunities for retaining as necessary.

In 1993, institutional care, excluding services covered by the Ontario health insurance plan, took about 80% of the mental health budget, with the remainder going to community services. By the year 2003, Ontario will be spending 60% on community care.

Despite the focus on community services, the government, as always, recognizes the importance of hospital services in the treatment of mental illness. To demonstrate this, I'm pleased to announce that this fall we will start the construction of a new 325-bed psychiatric hospital in Whitby.

We have committed $133.5 million to this project which will create 2,200 construction-related jobs per year and stimulate the local economy. The hospital is expected to open in December 1996.

This new hospital will reflect our new vision of reform in many ways. It will increase its ties with the community and general hospitals, and expand its outpatient and day hospital programs so that people can receive treatment in their own community. As well, it will serve as a tertiary care facility offering specialized programs for the seriously mentally ill in the area.

Today is a proud day for the mental health community in this province. For the first time, Ontario has a clearly defined framework for a mental health system, a framework that reflects the thinking of those directly involved in the system, a framework that has government support and commitment, a framework that puts people first.

It's a day that's been a long time coming and that a lot of people have worked for for a long time, and there are some people in the gallery today whose names I would like to read into the record so that they could stand when I've finished and be recognized. We have Steve Pierce, Carole Roup, Chris Higgins, Don Wasylenki, Pat Capponi, Steve Lurie, Brian Davidson, Jessica Hill, Glen Thompson and Larry Corea, and I'd like to acknowledge their work in making this a reality.

NATIVE INFORMATION SERVICES

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I am pleased to report today that my ministry has concluded its consultations with the aboriginal community in response to the native information services task force report.

We have found a strong consensus in support of task force recommendations and, as a result, are pleased to announce today two key initiatives in support of first nation library and information services.

As my colleagues are aware, the task force was established two years ago in response to an urgent need for equitable and culturally appropriate information services to the aboriginal community. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the task force for their commitment and determination, as well as all the aboriginal groups and organizations that we've consulted with over the past year.

Our government is deeply committed to the idea that all people and all regions of the province should be fairly represented and given the opportunity to reach their full potential. We believe that all Ontarians must have equity of access to information to help them understand and deal with the changes and challenges of our society.

In first nation communities, the library is often the only resource for disseminating information and articulating and preserving heritage. Equal access to quality library service is critical. Yet, unlike municipal public libraries, first nation libraries have no local tax base from which to draw funding support. Even though my ministry provides funding through various programs, these libraries remain chronically underfunded, resulting in an inequity in library service to first nation communities.

The initiatives I'm announcing today are historically long overdue. They support our government's commitment to the principle of aboriginal self-determination in meeting the current and future needs of aboriginal communities.

First, I am pleased to announce $234,000 in salary subsidy grants to first nation libraries in southern Ontario. Added to funding already in place for first nation libraries in northern Ontario, this brings my ministry's total support for the program to $572,000 for this fiscal year. This initiative will help to stabilize the operations of first nation libraries and improve services to first nation communities right across Ontario.

Our second initiative is the creation of a steering committee to work with my ministry to develop a framework for a province-wide native library and information service. The committee will be made up of representatives from the aboriginal community. These initiatives support the task force recommendations.

I am pleased we have been able to tackle some of the pressing information needs of first nation communities within the context of today's tough economic climate. Now, more than ever, we need services that provide timely, accurate and relevant information to help us become more knowledgeable, better trained and more competitive. By bringing stability to native library and information services, we are contributing immensely to the quality of life of all Ontarians.

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): We were pleased to see that the minister finally made a statement in the House with respect to health care policy, rather than outside of the House. However, it has just come to my attention that the minister also announced today, outside of the House, a review of all Metro health services which she said may result in the closure of facilities, including hospitals. That material and that information should have been brought here to us today. If she can make that announcement outside the House, she can make it inside the House.

I want to turn to The Reform of Mental Health Services in Ontario, the report the minister put on our desks today. This is an area that has been of concern to us for some time, and I want to refer back to the Graham report, which indicated in 1988, when it was first presented, that about "one and one half million people living in Ontario have some form of mental illness; 38,000 are severely disabled by schizophrenia, affective disorders and other mental illnesses." That comes to about 4.1 per 1,000 population. This is not an insignificant portion of our population requiring services.

None the less, as I look at the report which has been put forward today, what I see is a return, in my view at this point of analysis, to a position we were in before the Graham report was introduced in 1988. In other words, what we have is a framework for developing strategies, for putting forward ideas. We do not have an action plan, which is something that everybody in the province has demanded.

Once again, I want to move back to the Graham report, which talked about what the priorities should be in an action plan that was laid forward, in terms of its final recommendations, five years ago. The priority that the Graham report identified was for crisis and residential support, case management, self-help and family support, social and vocational support and the coordination of local services.

Instead of addressing those particular issues, what we have in this report today is a strategy which reads as follows: establish a system, create a structure, define roles, develop programs, develop a strategy, establish targets. There is no action plan involved here. There is a planning process put before us when what is needed is something much more significant than that.

I want to turn to a page in the document towards the end which describes the ministry's plan to cut what are now psychiatric beds in Ontario from 58 to 30. The minister says that will bring us in line with targets in other communities.

One of the areas of serious concern with respect to this decision is that as that cut is made, there is no new money allocated or included in a long-term plan for increasing community-based services for mental health care delivery. Indeed, we know now that the entire system is underfunded. That has been a problem that did not start with this government, that was a problem in the past, but we do not see any new funds entering the system to support the shift to community-based care which the Graham report and clearly the government strategy envisages and that every organization in the community demands.

Further, in conclusion, I want to say that I welcome the news about the expansion of the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital. I think that will be a useful addition to the health system.

However, I want to raise and bring to the House's attention other decisions the government has made with respect to psychiatric patients. Buried in the back pages of this year's budget is a decision that the government will be charging psychiatric patients who are residents in psychiatric hospitals for the use of that space, a clear attack on one of the most vulnerable groups of people in our society.

NATIVE INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I know that the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation stood up today and made some comments in regard to the native information services task force. I thought maybe the minister was going to stand up today and give us a report on the announcement she made to the tourism people yesterday, a report that was very short in funding and very lacking in doing something to assist the tourism industry, but I guess that report is not coming forth.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to stand in response to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation and her announcement on native library information services. Certainly, no resident of Ontario should be denied access to library services. No resident of Ontario, no matter where they live or who they are, should be denied access to library services, although we have seen in the past the funding for the library service in northern Ontario as a whole in a situation of steady decline in terms of real dollars since 1986. That's an additional concern, that has not been addressed by this announcement.

Certainly, our party is supportive of efforts to ensure access to libraries all across the province with respect to education and with respect to heritage in all communities. Our PC caucus is supportive of this principle.

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise for a brief moment and comment upon the announcement that was made and the paper put forward by the Minister of Health concerning mental health services in Ontario.

I want to say at the beginning that I think the paper is quite vague. There are no time lines for actions being laid out. We're told once again by this government that it's come out with another 10-year strategy. Frankly, this government won't be around in 10 years to implement some of the suggestions in this report.

The minister talks about benchmarks and goals that will be used to ensure progress and measure the success of the reform that the government says it is launching, yet there is no detail of what these benchmarks are and where they are to be applied. There are loose details on the transition period that's discussed in the report. There's a lot of talk about district health councils and contributions of regional psychiatric hospitals, but there's no clear agenda or guidelines of how to proceed with this reform.

There are no new dollars, as has been pointed out earlier. If there's one thing that's become clear to me and clear to my party with respect to money, as we move from institutional services to community-based services in health care, it is that there's going to have to be a reallocation within existing government budgets of significant dollars to move us towards a community-based system.

I have said for some two years that we're going to have to stop building roads for a year or something to ensure that there is money put into building up community-based services, because the fact is that far too many politicians -- and this government is particularly guilty on this matter -- have spoken about the move towards community-based services, but in fact we've seen a cut in community-based services across this province. It's time to stop misleading the public when it comes to community-based care.

This document today does nothing to dispel the myths out there and simply promotes the propaganda of the NDP when it comes to mental health reform and the move towards community-based services. There are substantial mental health needs across this province, which are not being met and which are not being met once again in this report.

In May of last year, I stood in this House and urged the government to take action on reforming mental health: 75,000 Ontarians have a serious mental illness, 1.5 million Ontarians seek mental health care each year, 140 people with psychiatric problems are discharged from hospitals each and every day in this province, and the community-based services are not in place to help them with their problems and to help them to become fully productive citizens of this province.

Between 30% and 40% of homeless people -- those are the people we see as we walk to work, as we walk to this palace, the people on the streets of Toronto and across this province -- 30% to 40% of them have mental illness problems. That is the root of their homelessness, it is the root of their problems, and this government does nothing but once again pay lipservice.

In Peterborough there are more than 70 people on waiting lists for community mental health housing, including 13 young adults.

In summation, I'm extremely disappointed with the minister's announcement today. I don't think it furthers the cause my party has fought for or that the Canadian Mental Health Association has fought for. It leaves people with mental illness still in the dark ages and does nothing to truly reform our health care system. It's a slash-and-burn approach. On one hand, the government announced just before this announcement that it was going to gut mental health services and then has the gall to come into the House and says it's beefing up mental health services with a new community approach.

There's nothing new, there's no new money and there's very clear evidence that mental health reform is not a priority of this government. I'm disappointed, and I would ask the minister to save the paper: Don't bother distributing this to the thousands of groups out there who are interested in mental health reform. Go back to the drawing board. Take some of our suggestions. Use some common sense and deal with the real problems of people with mental health in this province.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have in front of me a letter to the editor published in the Toronto Star on June 14. This letter is from the assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation, Kim Devooght. In her letter to the Star, the ADM says that "an all-party committee" will hold public hearings this summer on the graduated licensing project.

My point is, how can the ADM direct the affairs of this House? As late as this morning, there has been no consultation with my House leader or with me, as the Liberal Transportation critic. How are we to have an all-party committee if there's no consultation with the two other parties on when and how these consultations are to take place?

Mr Speaker, I think the privileges of this House are being infringed when senior civil servants start to dictate the agenda of this House, and I'd ask you to investigate this matter.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Nepean, I appreciate the concern which he raises. Indeed, he is correct. The House determines its business.

Interjection.

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

The member does not have a point of privilege, but he's expressed his concerns quite well.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order of some grave concern about how this government is treating the opposition parties these days and making it very difficult for us to function.

Under

section 32(

a) relating to ministerial statements, "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed.

"(

b) The time allotted to ministerial statements shall not exceed 20 minutes without the unanimous consent of the House."

And the operative clause for my point of order: "(

c) Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to opposition party leaders, or their representatives, at or before the time the statement is made in the House."

We just heard a statement made under this

section by the Honourable Anne Swarbrick, Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. That was a statement about native library and information services which was delivered to my leader in an envelope on her desk.

Clause (

c) goes on to say that the representatives shall also receive a second copy -- presumably, you would assume, of the same statement. Presumably, you would get two copies of the same statement by the same minister being read on the same day. We had delivered to our representatives, to give to our critic, a statement by the minister on an enhanced $10-million financial assistance package for Ontario tourism. As a result, we had our critic and our people working on responding to a statement announcing a $10-million juggling of the books; it's not even new money, but a $10-million juggling of the books.

So we had our critic responding, our staff being given one piece of information and the minister reading another. These people couldn't run a hot dog stand. When are they going to get it right?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the member's point of order. Can the minister be of some assistance in this regard?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'd certainly like to apologize if the statement that I made did not get to you on time, because that obviously is totally unacceptable.

In terms of the one that you did receive, that was a media release that we sent out this morning which I had indicated to the critic in your party in a note yesterday, since I missed him in person, that we would be making and indicated in person to the opposition critic in the Conservatives that we'd be making.

We were not making that as a statement in the House because, as you pointed out, in fact it is existing money. On the other hand, it is money that Tourism Ontario, I know, and the tourism operators I met with yesterday were quite happy to have redirected into the needs that they face now in the 1990s instead of what the --

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

Mr Mahoney: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: You raised a point of order. If you wish to raise a new and different one, fine, but I'll deal with this one first. In fact, the member has a point of order. Indeed, the standing order calls for two copies. As the minister has indicated, there was an error for which she has taken responsibility. Hopefully, that type of error will not occur again.

The member has a new point of order?

Mr Mahoney: The point of order would be, and I appreciate the apology, that the minister has taken an opportunity to now in fact make a ministerial statement announcing this $10-million adjustment of funds. I just heard her. It will be in Hansard. I would like to ask for unanimous consent for five minutes' response time for each party.

The Speaker: The member will know that at the moment that I was aware that the minister was not sticking to a point of order, but indeed straying beyond that, I stood. The moment the Speaker stands, the microphones are cut off; there is no taping and the camera is on the Speaker. In fact, whatever the minister wishes to announce was in fact not announced.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, on another point of order, and I normally wouldn't raise a point of order before question period, but I'd like to give you some time to consider this point of order, which will arise immediately when we get to orders of the day today: If you will note on today's business sheet for Wednesday, June 16, under "Orders of the day," the first item of business is order number 22, which in fact is a deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 38.

The second item of business is number 9, committee of the whole House on Bill 96, which is OTAB. That is being done pursuant to a time allocation motion which the government passed last week.

If I might read just very briefly, in part, from that time allocation motion, it goes on to say, "In relation to Bill 96,

An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, the period of time following routine proceedings when Bill 96 is called as the first order of business until 5 pm on that same sessional day shall be allotted to further consideration of this bill in committee of the whole House."

I requested earlier today that the government House leader consider deferring the vote on Bill 38 until later in the day, perhaps after we vote on Bill 96, which we will have to do at 5 pm in any event, because if he does not agree to do that, and so far he has not, in my opinion it would appear -- and I'm asking you for guidance on this -- that it will not be the first order of the day. It will be the second order of the day and Bill 96 can't be dealt with today then.

I would ask you for your consideration of that, and when we get to orders of the day later on, I'd appreciate an

interpretation from you on whether we can deal with OTAB in committee of the whole this afternoon.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound raises a serious point of procedure. May I say first that I appreciate the fact that he has raised it now and that I indeed will deliberate on the matter and be able to provide an answer by the end of routine proceedings.

In the interim, of course, there's always the opportunity for the three House leaders to discuss the business of the House and perhaps come to some agreement that would accommodate the wishes on both sides of the House. But I will have a response for you before we reach orders of the day.

I would like to return to the member from Mississauga West. Although there was not a statement made, if the member was asking for unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement, indeed that's perfectly in order and I will now put that question.

Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement? I heard at least one negative voice.

Mr Mahoney: I'm curious towards your ruling. Maybe you could help me. Did you say that there indeed was a ministerial statement made? Clearly, Hansard will show that before you stood up and turned off the microphone, comments were made by the minister. I would ask the government to at least allow a couple of minutes for each opposition party to respond in this place to this announcement.

The Speaker: I apologize if I did not make myself clear. There was not a ministerial statement. I interrupted the minister at the moment that she had strayed from the point of order. I then put a question to the House allowing for unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement. That has been denied. It is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My questions will be to the Premier. We all support responsible restraint. I want to tell you today that we do not believe that Bill 48, your social contract legislation, saves the taxpayers money. It simply puts off costs until the future. I want to give you some specifics of that.

The legislation very specifically states that employees who perform critical functions -- and this would likely include at least health care workers, police and firefighters -- could be required to take up to 36 days of their normal vacation time as unpaid leave over three years. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance denied that this provision would cost transfer partners any additional money in the future. But, Premier, I bring to your attention

section 26 of Bill 48, which deals with special leave and which states very clearly, "The employer shall grant to the employee the same number of compensating days off," and, "The compensating days off...may be carried forward to future years...after March 31, 1996."

That simply means either you don't save the costs today or you put them off until tomorrow. I ask you how you can possibly defer these kinds of costs until some distant point in the future. I ask whether you have looked at how many people will be affected by this special leave category. Have you even begun to assess the impact of future costs that this provision will bring?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think the member, frankly, on this occasion is just wrong. The purpose of this

section is to allow for flexibility in scheduling matters. I think it's important to emphasize as well that the member has already turned her attention to what happens where there are no agreements after August 1. We remain optimistic that in fact agreements can be achieved in sectors and that this can happen.

When she talks about this question of compensating days, what it says is:

"The compensating days off,

"(a)" -- she didn't read this part -- "shall be paid days off, taken on mutually convenient dates;

"(

b) may be carried forward to future years...after March 31, 1996; and

"(c)" -- listen to this one, because you might not have heard this one -- "may not be converted to money."

What we are talking about here is time off. We're talking about recognizing that there has to be some flexibility with respect to scheduling in those areas where simply providing for unpaid leaves of absence may not be possible. That's all it does.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, let me try and explain the legislation to you, and we have read it in some detail. The legislation says "shall." Now, I do not have legal training, but I would understand that that would be interpreted as being mandatory -- no choice, no flexibility, no mutual agreement other than perhaps when those days are to be taken off. This is for a category of workers called "essential services." That's why they need some special consideration. They cannot leave their work without having somebody else take their place at a cost to the employer. This is a deferred cost, and I am appalled that you do not understand that and have done no assessment of the impact of this cost.

Premier, the bottom line is that this clause, and many other parts of this bill, ensure that your bill is not going to accomplish the kind of spending restraint that you set out to achieve. I want to give you more evidence of that.

When you released your final social contract proposal, it included a provision to protect people who were earning less than $30,000. At that time, you said you could bump up that threshold from $25,000 to $30,000 by using $400 million in pension savings. We are now told that this same $400 million in pension savings will be used as an incentive to encourage municipalities, school boards, hospitals and colleges and universities to reach a deal.

Premier, I'm asking you how you can use the same $400 million twice. Are you going to use it to protect workers earning less than $30,000 or are you going to use it to reduce the cuts the transfer partners are going to have to make? You can only use it once. Which is it going to be?

Hon Mr Rae: I would just say to the honourable member again, we are of the view -- we are determined to negotiate this with our partners -- that there can be savings with respect to pension contributions for future years on an actuarial basis. That's true, that's reasonable and we think that is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

I also want to stress, since the member has raised the issue of pensions, that the legislation makes it very clear that nothing in this bill authorizes the government to take any money out of a pension plan, which is a canard that is being spread by some people. I think the member, in terms of her approach to the numbers, is simply wrong. I think she's misinterpreted the first question and I think she has the second one as well.

Mrs McLeod: I think quite frankly that you don't understand the legislation you presented in this House earlier this week. I would say to you that this is not responsible and that it means one of two things: either you don't plan to bring this legislation forward or you live in a dream world and don't ever think you're going to have to implement it. This is completely irresponsible action.

One more example, one more question, Premier: Last week you were quoted -- I heard the quote directly -- finally acknowledging that comprehensive solutions will not work and that's why you were bringing in the legislation.

I believe you should have realized that last April when you told workers in the city of Hamilton that they should be exempt from any provisions that would be reached in a social contract because they had done enough.

I would think you would surely realize that if this legislation is to be fair and equitable, as you want to keep describing it, there would have to be many exemptions. You must be aware that there are many municipalities and school boards and hospitals and colleges and universities across this province that have already implemented wage freezes or unpaid leaves.

Those Hamilton workers, who, you'll remember, you were prepared to exempt, had already taken unpaid leave. Metropolitan Toronto already has imposed a wage freeze and unpaid leave. I ask you today, will employers that have already implemented wage freezes or unpaid leave be exempt from the provisions of Bill 48 or will their workers have to make extra sacrifices? What are you going to say to the Hamilton workers now?

Hon Mr Rae: The member says she heard the quote. I can only say to her that the word saying there would be a blanket exemption for any group of people or for any municipality, to suggest that, is not something that I would say. So I would say, you got the first question wrong, you got the second question wrong and the assumption of the third question is wrong as well. You're batting zero for three, as I count it. I say that with the deepest of respect.

I would simply say directly to the honourable member, obviously -- and this again is where the legislation is intended to provide a degree of flexibility and so are the negotiations intended to provide a degree of flexibility -- the purpose is to recognize that where people have already made a substantial sacrifice or where they have already taken steps, such as the ones that have been suggested, obviously that is a factor that would be taken into account; no blanket exemption, but obviously a factor that would be taken into account.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: Be careful, Premier, because I believe it is you who have got it wrong, and zero out of three means "out." I say to you, Premier, in utter frustration, if you really believe this is good legislation, bring it in and let us vote on it now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's nice that this is a popular place, but perhaps we could also have some questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Again to the Premier, over the past couple of days we've been concentrating all of our energies on one of the worst pieces of legislation ever presented in Ontario. Now we've discovered that the Health minister has just quietly introduced another bill that is equally shocking. I might describe it as another Michael Decter marvel. This Minister of Health has been making up health care policy on the run and the bill that she has introduced now gives her the legal power to keep doing that.

Premier, for your awareness, the expenditure control plan act that this minister introduced on Monday gives the minister and her bureaucrats the power to determine what medical services will be delivered, how often a patient can receive a specific medical service and how often a doctor can provide a particular medical service to a patient.

Bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health are not qualified to make these kinds of decisions and I ask you whether you really believe that the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health are the best ones qualified to decide what kind of care a patient gets?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I think members of the House are aware, this ministry, under the leadership of my predecessor and again this year, has been making remarkable attempts and success in reducing health care costs. This year we have clearly outlined in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance some expenditure control measures that need to be taken if we are in fact to contain costs this year. In order to achieve that, we are actively, as we speak, negotiating with the Ontario Medical Association.

As in the case of the social contract legislation, we have introduced legislation that will ensure that we in fact meet those financial targets whether or not we can succeed in the negotiations, and I am confident that we will succeed. But to suggest that anything we have suggested as a way of controlling our expenditures is going to have the effect of diminishing the quality of health care services in this province is in fact not the case.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, the powers that you have taken unto yourself with this legislation are incredibly sweeping. You have already referenced in your answer the work, the leadership, of your predecessor in the Ministry of Health, and I would, quite frankly, today agree with you.

I would express my dismay that the action that you have taken in bringing forward this legislation has destroyed those very positive steps that the previous Minister of Health was taking: to work jointly with the medical profession, to get health care costs under control and still provide quality care to patients.

I ask you why you have abandoned the efforts that were being made by your own government to determine how we can provide effective and high-quality health care in a cost-effective way. If you planned to negotiate, why did you need this legislation to give you these kinds of sweeping powers?

Hon Mrs Grier: This government set out to negotiate a social contract that would enable us to achieve our budgetary targets and at the same time ensure that a contribution to achieving those targets was made fairly by all people who received remuneration from the public taxpayers.

Part of that was to increase our efforts to work with the medical profession and other stakeholders in the health care system to better manage the resources that we now have and to ensure that we protect medicare and maintain it as a high-quality, affordable and accessible system. If we are unable through negotiation to contain those costs, we have introduced legislation that enables us to obtain those savings without negotiation.

I remain fully confident that because of the desire of the medical profession to maintain the negotiated status that has been achieved through the framework agreement, we'll be successful, but we cannot put a health care system at risk by not making it very clear that there are savings that have to be obtained.

Mrs McLeod: It is absolutely crucial that we all understand what this bill does: that this bill gives this minister, gives any minister, far too much power to make medical decisions on the patient's behalf.

The Minister of Health has said that she hopes to negotiate the savings targets that the Minister of Finance has set out, savings targets that are going to be achieved by clearly restricting the medical services that patients can receive. She needs this bill to give her the power to make unilateral decisions about those medical services, and there is nobody who has confidence in this minister's ability, or any minister's ability, to make those kinds of decisions about what constitutes effective medical care.

I want to know how this minister and this government plan to use the powers that this legislation gives. How will the minister and her bureaucrats decide what kinds of services are going to be cut from medicare? How are they going to decide what services should be limited? On what basis will you decide what services are medically necessary? When did Ruth Grier and the Ministry of Health bureaucrats become qualified to make these kinds of decisions?

Hon Mrs Grier: First of all, let me make it very plain that none of the expenditure control measures that we have discussed relate to medically necessary services. When you ask the question of how in fact decisions will be made with respect to those expenditure control measures, let me say to you that all of the suggestions we have made are entirely consistent with our goals of reducing the growth of expenditures and maintaining the system, and it is our intent, it is our desire and it is our expectation that we will continue to make those decisions in consultation with all of the people involved.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question's to the Premier, on the first chance we've had to ask him about his social contract legislation. Premier, on Monday I set out six guidelines that we hoped to see in your social contract legislation. They weren't there. Our proposals are designed to assist with permanently downsizing the cost and the scope of government without creating chaos. Our six points were a sound, constructive addition, I believe, to your legislation.

I know you're looking for solutions to downsize the size and cost of government, goals that only two parties in this province agree with, and we are supportive of those goals. But given that your bill was rather hastily drafted and given that it has some flaws, I believe, because of that, I would ask you this: Are you prepared to look at the types of amendments that we are putting forward that we believe will, without as much chaos, lead to a more permanent downsizing of the size and cost of government?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would say to the honourable member that of course we would consider any reasonable amendments. I've seen a number of the proposals that the honourable member has put forward and I would say of the six points that he makes that there's much merit in the House having an opportunity to discuss those.

I was intrigued by the Liberal leader suggesting that we have a vote right away. Certainly we're ready for one and happy to have one. We're also happy to have amendments moved in committee of the whole and for that discussion to take place. But look, I would say without any hesitation that any reasonable amendments that are put forward by any member of the House would be considered by a reasonable government, which we certainly are.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, we too are ready to begin the debate today or a vote today on second reading, getting on with the amendments.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I hear the Liberal interjections, but clearly the lines are being drawn between those who seek change and reform --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre.

Mr Harris: -- and those who don't, who want to play the old politics of the past. We understand that, and if those are the politics they wish to play, I wish them luck.

One of the components of our plan is an immediate three-year public sector hiring freeze. When coupled with a wage freeze that would commence on the anniversary date of all contracts, this will assist in leading to a long-term structural downsizing in both the cost and the size of government -- not the only answer but an assist. With some flexibility for essential programs we all agree with, with retraining, which we think should be a strong component as well, I believe this is a very constructive, permanent plan, an amendment that should be acceptable to you.

I would ask you, since I've raised this before, and then we detailed it a little more on Monday, will you agree to consider this proposal that, unlike the legislation you've put forward, does not gut existing contracts and does not lead to unnecessary layoffs?

Hon Mr Rae: We don't think our legislation either guts anything or should lead to layoffs. Our view is that we are giving a six-week period during which there need to be extensive discussions and extensive negotiations. There is that provision in the legislation specifically to allow and to provide for that.

Obviously we looked at some of the proposals that the honourable member has put forward. At the senior management group level there is a freeze. In what we call the common services policy areas there is already a freeze in place. We've severely restricted access to external hiring within the public service for several months now.

We're also finding that through the voluntary exit programs and through the early retirement programs that we've put in place, there will in fact be a major, serious reduction in the size of the public service to achieve the objective which the member has put forward.

I've been asking for several months now about the relative merits of a complete freeze versus some flexibility that allows you to deal with special circumstances. If you just have a freeze, you then end up hiring people on contract all the time, which is what your previous administration did whenever we went into those areas. I want to avoid that kind of a fake numbers game. We want to get the real numbers down.

We also have to recognize that if we --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- simply said, "Well, we'll carry on all contracts until they expire and then add on," you could be looking at a freeze in some instances that could extend until 1998, which struck us as really quite unfair and unrealistic in the circumstances.

I would say to the member that we're looking hard at the proposals that he's bringing forward and that others are bringing forward --

The Speaker: Will the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and I'm quite happy if we have the debate and the vote today, tomorrow, whenever the opposition is ready to vote and debate, so are we, and we're ready to get on with getting it into committee as soon as possible. The --

The Speaker: Will the Premier please take his seat. Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: Premier, I want to be very clear so that you know that unlike the Liberals, who in government and in opposition dismissed restraint out of hand -- we've seen that -- we are trying to offer constructive proposals.

I'm prepared to work with you to improve legislation that all Ontarians can live with. We need legislation that encourages leaner, more efficient government, and your legislation, Premier, does do that. We agree with that. But your bill also penalizes municipalities, school boards, unions and groups from permanently downsizing, and in some cases only puts off the inevitable until 1996.

For example, Premier, when we talked to George Thomson at the briefing on this legislation, I gave him an example that if a municipality came to an agreement with its employees that permanently downsized at the end of three years by 10% -- double the achieving that you were hoping to achieve, but it took three years to do it -- that would not be acceptable. In fact, under this legislation, he confirmed to me that wouldn't be acceptable.

What we are trying to, by way of amendment, allow in your legislation is, instead of thwarting the long-term downsizing and then rewarding it -- encouraging the short-term days off, which will only have to come back to us -- we're trying to look for a permanent solution. Would you agree that if we can find permanent long-term solutions to reduce more than you're after, that would be preferable to short-term solutions that are going to have to be picked up again perhaps in legislation?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me just say to the member that I'm delighted to hear some of the suggestions he has. I must say that we're trying to find --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Your office is shuddering.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I don't see that. I think you're all quite relaxed, from what I can tell.

I would say to the honourable member that we're obviously interested in the kinds of solutions he's putting forward and the kinds of proposals that have been put forward as we would from anyone else, as we would from municipalities, from colleges and universities and others who would be putting forward ideas, and others in the public sector and in the private sector.

We do have to get on with it, however. We do have to set clearly some kind of framework that will truly encourage negotiations, which is why in particular I accept his offer to get on with the debate and to get on with the vote on second reading. That's fine with me and fine with our party. Get it into committee of the whole and get some real discussion on the amendments on a practical basis. I'm delighted to do that, delighted.

TAX INCREASES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question's for the Premier, a question on your taxation policy. Tomorrow, around noon, we're going to see angry taxpayers again making their annual pilgrimage to Queen's Park to express their concern about your taxation policy. Once again, they want to tell you just what they think of your budget. They're fed up with having to shoulder the high cost of government, that they're having to pay more than their fair share of the New Democratic Party's policies and platform costs and the high spending they inherited from the Liberals before them.

It's high time for you, as a government, to understand the very negative impact that your taxation policy is having on the people in Ontario. The damage it's causing is long term: the loss in jobs to those people who are losing their jobs because of the high taxes, the curse that you're placing on businesses that is causing them to lose confidence in Ontario, the lack of competitive advantage that we have in Ontario over what we used to have, the need for a government to give encouragement and hope rather than take it away.

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

Mr Cousens: How will you explain, Mr Premier, to the people at Queen's Park tomorrow that despite your rhetoric on the budget and despite the fact that you've increased your spending this year, how you can ask them to fork over another $2 billion?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm listening carefully and I'm locked in concentration as I listen to the honourable member. I would say to the honourable member that I think what he's suggesting is really quite out of keeping with the facts as I think most people understand them. The fact of the matter is, programs have to be paid for. Your philosopher king in the United States, Ronald Reagan, simply reduced revenues, raised expenditure dramatically and left his country with an enormous, huge, structural deficit, and we're not advocating that kind of a program --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Is that what your Rhodes scholar friends told you?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: It may not be the message the member wants to hear, but we are intending to pay for current programs more and more out of current revenues and that has to be the direction that we take. We believe strongly in a good health care system and a good education system, good roads, good highways, good social services, and we believe in paying our bills and we don't believe in putting it off for ever and ever. That's the approach we have to take as a province and that's the approach we have to take as a country.

Those of you over there who preach, "You can have it all and you'll never have to pay any taxes," that is one of the great modern myths of the 20th century and you are the really fiscally irresponsible people leaving future generations with a debt which they will not be able to afford. That's what your legacy will be.

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

Hon Mr Rae: That's the legacy of irresponsible Tory philosophy and Tory tax policies. That's the legacy.

Mr Cousens: I can't believe it. I think you had too much time in Washington with the Rhodes scholars and you couldn't find out what the real people were thinking. You're almost assuming that the people who are coming here tomorrow are stupid, as if they're ignorant and they don't understand what it means, and by our asking the question we're stupid and ignorant. We're not. We're concerned; we're angry; we're upset. The tax wall has been hit in the province of Ontario. We've reached the point where you've got to stop taxing the life out of the people of Ontario.

The Liberals raised 33 taxes and they had a great policy: Tax and spend, tax and spend. Well, you're coming along with the same kind of high tax policy and the public are saying: "Stop it. Stop trying to bleed us so that there is no life left in our corpse."

Don't con the people of Ontario into believing that there is too little revenue in the province of Ontario. That's flat-out nonsense. You have the revenue. You've got more money this year than last year. You're spending more money this year than last year. The problem you have is that you as a government are still spending too much.

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

Mr Cousens: When will you stop bankrupting the province of Ontario and the taxpayer?

Hon Mr Rae: John Robarts, year over year, never spent less on programs in a subsequent year than in the previous year. Bill Davis never spent less in one year than he did the year before. Neither did David Peterson. The first government that has done this in 50 years on program spending is the New Democratic Party government of Ontario. If there's one group of individuals who talk out of both sides of their mouth and who preach fiscal responsibility but practise the opposite when they're in office, it's the Tory party of this province, and I think it's time we called their bluff.

Mr Cousens: It's one big shell game and what a sham it is now, because the way the taxes are now being spread out to the local taxpayer, where the province has downloaded so much to them, with only one taxpayer in the province and you're hitting him, the Liberals hit him, and then you've made the regions and municipalities hit him, there's only so much money and you're taking too much.

I started by asking the Premier about the rally tomorrow. When the people make their pilgrimage, you know, in the past -- I asked him, expecting he'd be there, but he's probably not even going to come, because most of those cabinet ministers, when there's a rally, they used to run to the head of the parade. Now when the parade comes, you can't even find them. They're not even around. So I challenge the Speaker and ask him, come to that group and explain to them the vicious tax circle.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy: You're challenging the Speaker?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What's your question?

Mr Cousens: I'm coming to it, honourable friend. I want you to explain how the vicious circle works. You increase taxes, then people have less money to spend. Then prices go up. When prices go up, people spend less, and then when they spend less, business has to cut back because they don't have as much business to generate. Then Ontarians start to lose their jobs. Then the government has to increase the amount of social services to those who lost their jobs, and then taxes go up again.

How do you explain this vicious tax circle to the people who are going to be coming tomorrow, and will you come out tomorrow and talk to them when they come here to Queen's Park?

Hon Mr Rae: When I hear someone from the Conservative Party talk about downloading -- you were at the convention on the weekend. I wonder, did you turn to any of your federal friends and say, "Why have you ripped $4.5 billion out of the guts of the provincial budget of this province?" Did you do that? Well, I wonder. I wonder, where were you? Where were you, when the federal government has taken $4.5 billion in transfer payments on the CAP alone?

What they've done on the Canada assistance plan has been as bad and serious for Ontario as the national energy program was for the province of Alberta, and look how they quickly they fixed that problem for Alberta. They're ready to respond to other governments. They're not ready to respond to the needs of 10 million people in the province of Ontario. The Tory party's got a lot to answer for when it comes to the state of finances in the province of Ontario, a lot to answer for.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga West. The member for Markham, a point of order?

Mr Cousens: I want to answer the Premier's question he was asking me on what I was doing in Ottawa --

The Speaker: No, no, no, no, the member for Markham, questions on this side, replies on this side. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I was listening. Did the cock just crow three times, did I hear? I wasn't sure.

The Speaker: Does the member for Mississauga West have a question?

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Bob Mackenzie. I have a bill here. It's Bill 48,

An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program.

My question to the Honourable Bob Mackenzie, the Minister of Labour, sir, is, do you support this legislation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): To the opposition critic, I support the legislation.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Let's try a supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: Some guys will do anything for a limo, I'll tell you.

Mr Speaker, I'd like to you read you some quotes, if I might. I will be brief. October 1, 1992, who said this?

"We don't think this country can go down a low-wage route.... We think there has to be an involvement, in the province of Ontario, with workers as well as business, and that is essential if we're ever going to begin to turn around the kind of economic situation we have."

Guess again, a quote:

"I want you to know that I agree with my Premier's position" -- that's a good decision -- "I think one of the things that's wrong in this province is that in a very tough economic situation we have not decided that one of the important things we have to do is involve the workers themselves in the decisions that affect them."

July 6, 1992:

"The need for labour and management to work together in a spirit of cooperation, involvement and trust is greater now than at any time in Ontario's history....

"Finally...we hope to usher in a new era of peace and non-confrontation in labour disputes. We intend to introduce a number of measures to promote the smooth operation" --

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Mahoney: -- "of the collective bargaining process and to offer protection for the jobs of workers involved in labour disputes."

And finally, this quote --

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

Mr Mahoney: -- saying that we are "encouraging more participation and cooperation between labour and management, reducing the level of industrial conflict and streamlining the process of collective bargaining."

All those quotes, sir, appears in Hansard, attributed to the Honourable Bob Mackenzie.

How can you consider that this bill in any way whatsoever streamlines the collective bargaining process and involves the workers in issues of concern that directly affect them? Have you not abdicated your responsibilities to the workers of this province?

Interjection.

The Speaker: The question has been placed, and I ask the member for Chatham-Kent to come to order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If I thought I were abdicating my responsibilities to working people in the province, I would not remain in this position. I'm in this position and I'm supporting them. I'm supporting this legislation for all the reasons that were outlined by the member across the way. We either are going to involve workers in the decisions that affect them, we are going to protect the economic status of our province, or we're not going to be able to supply and provide the services that we've given workers in this province, and we've got to recognize that very clearly.

The Speaker: New question? The leader of the third party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The leader of the third party has the floor.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I have another question for the Premier. Along with the concerns we have about some things missing in your legislation, we have some real concerns about one specific aspect I'd like to raise today, that is, the awesome, unprecedented powers, that have been given to the Finance minister under Bill 48.

Premier, I would ask you this: Given the current level of cynicism about your government's handling of spending your way out of deficits and now this about your handling of the social contract process, and indeed, I say with great sincerity, cynicism about all politicians and about the whole lot of us in general, would you not agree with me, upon second look at the legislation, that it would make more sense to have a neutral third party make the decisions that under your legislation appear to be exclusively left to the Minister of Finance?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I guess the reasoning behind the bill is simply the need to provide for some flexibility in the course of these negotiations. For example, I noticed that there was some criticism today of the fact that the minister was going to be allowed to say, "These are the structures of the sectors." The point is, we've had a long period of negotiation. There's been a substantial consensus reached on all those things. We didn't want to get too bureaucratic and we wanted to allow for an element of flexibility. I think that's the philosophy that's behind the act.

Mr Harris: I agree with you that this is a very unusual bill and circumstance, and I agree with you that you are trying to provide more flexibility than previous governments have brought in: Progressive Conservative here and Liberal in Ottawa, because we've never had a Liberal one here try to actually control spending. I've supported that extra degree of flexibility, that extra discussion. But we can do that without giving all the power to the political appointee, to the Minister of Finance. When former governments brought in legislation that, let's all admit, infringed upon the collective bargaining process to flow in its normal way, it did a couple of things.

Number one, which I've already talked about today, it respected the anniversary date of contracts, which is one of the things I think we have to talk about in your legislation. But secondly, it set up independent bodies to adjudicate, if you like, or to arbitrate, the legislation or those things.

So I would ask you directly, Premier: Given that it's an awesome power never before in any legislation -- I appreciate the flexibility you're looking for -- will you agree to look at amending Bill 48 to empower an independent third party instead of the minister, to put more impartiality in allowing that flexibility?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me just say in general that of course if you have amendments, we will consider them.

The first part of your questioning today was about the size of the bureaucracy and the need for us to avoid large bureaucracies. It wouldn't be difficult for a government to create a huge bureaucracy to deal with an issue like this.

There's provision there for a process of adjudication with respect to agreements and how they're operated. That's clearly set out, so the minister is not exercising an adjudicative role. The minister is exercising his role and responsibilities as minister. He is fully accountable to the House for the judgements he makes.

BICYCLING POLICY

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. It's about bicycles, which as he knows are an increasingly popular form of transportation and recreation. I'd like to ask some questions about how he can encourage this.

As he knows, the Rouge Valley Park will likely be a popular spot for cycling, and there is a lot of satisfaction with the development of the Rouge park in my riding. Can the minister indicate how his ministry will be helping to make the roads of Scarborough East safe and accessible for the growing number of cyclists?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member for Scarborough East will be aware that at Transportation, we're spending more than $3.5 million annually to create new bike routes, bike paths, and we're presently working with the people of Scarborough to create a waterfront trail for cyclists between the communities of Burlington and Trenton.

The member of course is aware that we are dedicated at the Ministry of Transportation to better education. We're spending more money than ever before to inform cyclists, and of course we do support wholeheartedly the safe cycling initiative as well.

Mr Frankford: GO Transit is an important provincial service, with the Guildwood and Rouge Hill stations in my riding. Can the minister tell us what steps will be taken to make the use of GO more effective to cyclists?

Hon Mr Pouliot: A twist of political fate: The timing from my friend and colleague couldn't be any better. I have just received a note, and I'm quoting: "New secure bike racks," brand-new, "at Rouge Hill and Guildwood this summer." I want to thank you for your interest and indeed the focus of the question.

In terms of GO Transit, when we're talking about integration, we will include cyclists and we will make it possible for people to bring their bikes on the GO buses. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank my colleague for his interest.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. As might be expected, at a time when there are simply no jobs for our young people and when it is now universally recognized that education holds the key to our future, more and more young people are deciding to pursue a post-secondary education. Here are some of the numbers: for our colleges, 118,000 students have applied for 70,000 spaces; for our universities, 88,660 students have applied for 45,000 spaces. This means that over 91,000 students will be refused admission to our post-secondary institutions in September.

I want to repeat that because it's very important. Over 91,000 students are going to be refused admission into our colleges and universities this September.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I certainly share the concerns of the member and everybody else that the numbers and the applications to go to community colleges and universities have increased considerably over the last few years and that the infrastructure to deal with those applications has not increased rapidly enough.

The numbers will go up considerably for first-year enrolment this year. As the critic for the Liberal Party will know, with the acceptance of 70,000 for first year, that will be a considerable increase in first-year enrolment at our colleges.

Given that everyone in this Legislature, without exception -- I'm very comfortable saying that -- agrees that the key to our future lies in educating and training more and more Ontarians, why are your government's policies keeping over 91,000 students out of our colleges and universities?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member obviously knows that with the huge increase in applications for post-secondary institutions it would be impossible physically to deal with the entire demand. You know that and I know that. It makes a good question, but he knows the practical difficulties.

It's also interesting to note that full-time post-secondary enrolments in colleges increased by 7.3% in 1992-93. Over the period from 1989-90 to 1992-93 college full-time enrolments have risen by 25.2%. The government is doing everything it can, given the financial constraints we all live under, to increase enrolment and, at the same time, do that with very limited increases in dollars.

If the member really were concerned, what should have happened is that when the money was pouring in, in the 1980s, we should have been increasing the infrastructure, adding to the size of our colleges and dealing with some real problems. But you ignored the problem when all the money was pouring in from 1985 to 1990.

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

Hon Mr Cooke: You know that's the case. Now we're having to deal with another mess that you left us.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. This morning the regulations to accompany Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, were introduced. Unfortunately, they're being released today at the same time as second reading on this bill begins. It's unfortunate because many people had been led to believe that there would be about a two-week time period between the regulations and the second reading of the bill. Now, unfortunately, there's absolutely no time for people to take a look at the regulations and come forward with their opinions.

However, as I've only had a cursory glance at the legislation, I am very concerned that the regulations deal very differently with organized and unorganized workers. The legislation states that if the workers are unorganized, you consult. If the workers are organized, they are part of the process and they have a membership on the coordinating committee.

In fact, it goes further, to say that in reference to employer, it shall be deemed to be the employer and bargaining agent that are being referred to. It appears that this is going to be as skewed and as much in favour of unionized employees as was Bill 40.

Mr Minister, if this bill is really about fairness and equity, as you keep saying it is, why is there a double standard and why is the treatment for unorganized and organized workers so very different?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): First of all, I'd like to clarify that I'm not a Mr Minister, but I'm a Madam Minister. I just would like to clarify that.

Interjection: It's an employment equity issue.

Hon Ms Ziemba: It is an employment equity issue, it certainly is.

I also want to make just one clarification for you. First of all, the regulations are a very important part of the legislation and we all recognize that. This is one of the very first times that regulations have been released before second reading. The usual way of doing things is that the regulations are done after third reading. I think we've given people a good opportunity to take a look at the regulations, to give us their opinions, and we've given them till October 29 if they want to come in with a formal position. I think this is a very open process and I know that we have spoken together and we want to keep that open process going.

I know there have been several points put on the table today, Mr Speaker, and I did want to clarify this. But I also want to say to the member, we're very pleased about Bill 40 and we want to continue to make sure that we do have a good process in place with employment equity as well, with our friends in the labour movement. It's very important to us, but we also recognize that in unorganized workplaces there has to be a concern to make sure that people are part of the process as well and that we have put that into the regulations.

Mrs Witmer: The minister has totally, totally neglected or chosen to ignore responding to the question I asked, which is, why is the treatment different? I'd like to ask you, Madam Minister, how is the employer to deal with the union and non-unionized employees fairly?

Hon Ms Ziemba: The regulations very clearly put into place a process where both the employer and the employees are part of not only the consultation process but also setting up the equity plans. This is very important because if we are going to have legislation that works and if we're going to have regulations that work and are effective, we have to make sure that not only the employer but the employee are part of the process to make sure that this is really done in a fair way and that there's no resentment built up on either side, and I think the regulations very clearly spell that out.

These are draft regulations and there's plenty of opportunity before the final setup of the commission to have input to further strengthen those regulations, to further make sure that refinements are made to make this the best and most practical, workable and effective piece of regulations that we can have in the province of Ontario.

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. The Ontario Heritage Act requires municipalities to publish a notice in local newspapers on six occasions announcing the designation of heritage property.

However, in my riding, East York has the distinction of being the only borough in Canada, and it does not have a local paper serving its community. The Ontario Heritage Act does not recognize a borough as a municipality. Will East York be required to advertise in the larger municipality of Metro Toronto? This would be a costly procedure for a community with a population of only 101,000.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I want to thank the member for raising this matter with me on behalf of the people who are working to preserve heritage sites in East York, and I know that the member himself has been in fact very active in helping to lead the protection of that community's history and heritage.

The member's absolutely correct that the Ontario Heritage Act, as it now reads, leaves East York in a difficult situation and in fact there are other communities throughout Ontario who have raised the same kinds of concerns.

The notice provision is in fact costly and outdated in its implications to municipalities. It's something that the ministry's advisory committee on heritage recommendations has made a recommendation to me to have changed.

Our new legislation is now being drafted. I'm very hopeful that when we are able to introduce it in the House, we'll be able to get the support of all parties to remedy the kinds of problems that the member for York East has pointed out. I'm sorry that I can't immediately solve his problem, but I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future new heritage legislation will be able to do so.

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The minister will know that we in Ontario are in a competitive situation for investment, and I think that the minister will acknowledge that any recovery we're going to have is going to be an investment-led recovery. The minister will remember that last week I questioned the Minister of Finance as to the corporate minimum tax, and now I'd like to ask the minister her opinion as to what the impact of this Bill 48 is going to be.

We know that there are unsettled financial markets. The financial markets are waiting to see whether or not this government can in fact implement this bill. We also know that one of the great competitive advantages that we in Ontario have is our quality of life and our labour stability.

I'd like to quote from a statement made by Mr Barry Weisleder, president of Local 595 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, in which he says:

"Do the 10 million or 11 million residents of Ontario use hospitals? Do they seek education for themselves, for their children? Do they need to use the roads? All of these services are delivered by public service workers and I can only surmise that all of those services are at risk."

We also have a situation where the Minister of Health has made a statement, and again one of our strong, competitive advantages has been the fact that we have a great health care system which is in peril.

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

Mr Kwinter: The question that I have for the minister is this: Do you not feel that this legislation is going to impair our competitive advantage and, more importantly and more personally, as a former negotiator for OPSEU and the minister responsible for attracting investment to this province, are you personally going to be supporting Bill 48?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I've had the occasion over the last number of weeks to meet on numerous occasions with representatives of the business community with respect to the issue of confidence in Ontario: with respect to attracting investments, with respect to increasing in fact what is already an export-led recovery of our economic situation and also with respect to consumer confidence, a number of issues that are of concern of course to the government and to all Ontarians.

During the course of those discussions, we've had very specific discussions around government fiscal policy and the importance of government addressing the issue of the debt and deficit. There has been tremendous support expressed by those individual business leaders I've spoken to for a direction of ongoing debt reduction, deficit reduction, and understanding the importance of that to capital markets and to the competitiveness of our province.

Combined and within that are issues like Ontario Hydro rates, which are being addressed by restructuring of Ontario Hydro, health care costs, which of course is an important cost driver overall within government. I think that all of these issues with respect to the ability of the government to achieve its fiscal directions are critically important to the competitiveness of Ontario and to building our economy. It's one of the reasons why the government has taken a very strong stand with respect to our fiscal directions.

Bill 48 is an important part of achieving the goals that have been set out by the Treasurer in the budget, and I will be supporting the bill when it comes to a vote.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to refer to the standing orders,

section 23(j), which indicates that the Speaker may call a member to order if that member has charged another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood. I am looking for a place in the standing orders, and cannot find one, that would require the Speaker or the House to direct a member to correct the record when issues have been presented that aren't correct, although there may be a situation in the one that I'm going to relate to you where the Minister of Health indeed does not have full factual detail with respect to an issue.

On several occasions recently, the Minister of Health has indicated to the House that negotiations with medical practitioners are proceeding and that the content -- Mr Speaker, this is very important and please do not call me to order until I've completed my point -- of those negotiations includes such issues as physician resources, determining appropriate medical services and other methods that will ensure that people receive services that will contribute to better health care.

The minister said today that as we speak those issues were on the table in negotiation. Mr Speaker, that is not true. Those issues are not on the table, and the --

The Speaker: Sorry, would the member please take her seat. The member knows that she does not have a point of order. There is nothing in the standing orders which addresses the situation that she raises. Members may rise to correct their own record indeed.

What the member has brought to my attention is a dispute between herself and the Minister of Health, a difference of opinion, and often we find those differences on the floor of the House during oral questions. Indeed, I think the matter to which she referred was part of the subject matter which she addressed earlier today. I'm afraid that there is nothing in the standing orders which will be of assistance to her.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In view of your response then, I would like to ask for the consent of the House to ask the minister, after consultation with her officials, to bring a report to the House tomorrow that accurately reflects what in fact is on the negotiating table which does not include the pieces of information that she provided to the House today and on previous days. The information that she has brought to the House is not true.

The Speaker: The member in fact is asking for unanimous consent for a minister to make a statement. Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement? No, there isn't. The member for Parry Sound.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, I just wanted to add one more point to the point of order I made briefly, because I know you're going to be considering it shortly.

The only other point I wish to make, other than the fact that the orders of the day, the business sheet, says that the deferred vote on Bill 38 is indeed the first order and that committee of the whole House on Bill 96 is the second order, which of course would be in contravention of the time allocation motion, in that if indeed, I would submit to you, a vote is regarded as an order of the day, and the first order of the day in this case, if it's so done -- I want to make it clear that I'm not saying the government did this -- but a government could in the future deliberately have its whip defer a vote to eat into time set aside or allocated by a time allocation motion.

I don't think -- in fact, I know that is not what was intended by the three parties when the rules were negotiated in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point, the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I would defer to the government House leader if he wants to respond to that point.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I've already passed a few comments to you. There are a couple of additional comments I'd like to make on this particular point as well.

First of all, let me reiterate what I've already said, which is that the matter which the member has raised is a procedural matter. It is a procedural technique in the rules that was agreed to by the three House leaders and ultimately passed by this House in order to safeguard all parties in certain circumstances around the taking of votes.

The deferred vote is not, as has been suggested by some, a called order. It's an automatic order of the House because of the nature of the standing orders and because of the nature of its existence as a procedural mechanism, which, as I repeat, was designed to protect all three of the parties in the House and, for that matter, any other party that might at some point exist here. It could be any one of the whips of any one of the three parties who moves that deferral motion.

In any event, that kind of deferral cannot be seen as a called government order, and in that respect I'd just like you to think that through very carefully in your consideration of this.

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate the fact that the government House leader is saying that under the rules any one of the three party whips could have asked for the vote deferral. However, that was not indeed what happened: It was the government that ordered the business.

My concern is very much along the same lines as the member for Parry Sound in that the government is continually telling us, as it did yesterday in the debate -- I've lost track of time on debates so much, maybe it was the day before, but in the late-night sitting debate in which the government House leader refers to the rules and the traditions.

We have seen, I know you would agree -- in fact, this week alone I've raised two points of order based on the rules in this book and in both cases you have confirmed that indeed my points of order were valid, but there appears to be no remedy to these things. You simply say, "The member has a point of order and let's carry on with the debate" or "with the business."

If the government House leader is truly interested and concerned about following the rules and procedures outlined in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly instead of selectively interpreting them to suit his own legislative agenda's purpose, or selectively saying that it could have been one of the opposition whips who submitted the request for a deferral of the vote, then I'd suggest, with due respect to you and to him, that the government House leader is being much too selective about interpreting these rules.

I believe the member for Parry Sound has raised a point of order. We did not draft the time allocation motion; the government drafted it. It clearly says the first order of business on that particular sessional day. It doesn't say that maybe you can have a vote thrown in, in front of it.

I believe the point of order is valid. Mr Speaker, I'd like your ruling, and I'd particularly like you to tell us what the remedy for this is.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga West, I trust he recalls that I said I would have a ruling for you before we reached orders of the day, and I intend to do that. I appreciate the contribution he has made, as well as the member for Parry Sound, the House leader for the third party and the government House leader.

I must say that in reaching a decision, it has to be around a matter of procedure and not a consideration of good intentions. I will do my best to come back as quickly as possible.

I believe the Deputy Speaker is prepared to carry on. We are at an order of routine proceedings, the presentation of petitions.

Mr Mahoney: Before petitions, I have a very brief point of order. Mr Speaker, I've looked in here, and it must be here somewhere, for the ruling that would guide you in instructing the government how to react to this, but I've just received a communication that MCTV television studios in Sudbury conducted a poll on whether or not the Premier should resign and 85% of the callers said he should.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

PETITIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

That's signed by 52 signatures and I've also affixed my signature to this petition.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

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

"Whereas the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, compiled of scientists and government representatives, added seven species to their list, making a total of 236 plant and animal species endangered; and

"Whereas the above-noted further additions will make it difficult for Canada to meet its obligations as outlined in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity;

"Whereas as a result of the fact that Canadian spaces and species do not receive any lawful mandatory protection, we will quickly lose our beautiful, natural wildlife, upon which we place much pride;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium to protect all species and their habitat that are placed on the Canadian endangered list."

This petition is signed by 299 students at the Zion Heights school --

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Have you affixed your signature?

Mr Harnick: -- and I have affixed my signature at the top.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here signed by many hundreds of residents in my riding. They're very concerned about the legislation, the OMPP, which has eliminated the right of innocent accident victims to sue for economic loss. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the OMPP" fails to deliver cost-effective -- oh, excuse me -- "currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits;" no, it must be a mistake here.

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

CONTRAT SOCIAL

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition adressée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que nous sommes en désaccord avec la façon de procéder de Monsieur Rae face à la coalition ;

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante», une pétition ou une protestation justement du contrat social.

C'est commandé par M me Nicole St-Jean de l'AEFO de la

section catholique de Prescott et Russell à Casselman. J'ai apposé ma signature et j'appuie à 100 % cette pétition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Mr Speaker, 266 constituents from my riding of Oakville South and the surrounding area have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 164."

GAMBLING

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Mr Speaker, as you know, the rules of this House will not allow a member of cabinet to read a petition, so I'm reading this petition on behalf of the member for Frontenac-Addington, Fred Wilson:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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 (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive 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."

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On behalf of Mr Doug MacDonald, a good citizen of Mississauga, I'd like to present a petition of 150 names he managed to collect:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

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

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting decided to loosen the guidelines for films and videos for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening will result in permitting some very gross and indecent acts in films and videos; and

"Whereas these acts include bondage, ejaculation on the face and insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of true human sexual activity but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviants; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature to:

"(

a) Cancel the new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board, May 6, 1993, on adult sex films and videos;

"(

b) Ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Honourable Marilyn Churley, to review the criteria for appointments of members to the Ontario Film Review Board; and

"(

c) Ensure that prospective appointees reflect traditional and moral values of the people of Ontario."

I'm happy to add my support to this petition.

GAMBLING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from 94 of the citizens of Niagara Falls, which petitions the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, "That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

MADAWASKA HIGHLANDS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to submit a petition prepared and signed by Reeve Gilbert Welk and others in and around the township of Brudenell, all of which signatories are singularly unhappy with the Ministry of Natural Resources plans with respect to further controls on the Madawaska Highlands area in Renfrew county.

GAMBLING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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 activities invariably attract criminal activity; and

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

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

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

That is from the Reverend Hunt at St Paul's United Church, on Rebecca Street in Oakville, Ontario.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here signed by many hardworking people from my riding, people like Dianne Johnson, Josie Guignard, Richard Davidson, Gene and Josephine Stozelecki. They petition us, sir, that:

"Whereas we feel that the Canada-US free trade deal has done more immeasurable damage to the economy of the province of Ontario, causing the loss of more than 45,000 jobs in Ontario alone; and

"Whereas we feel the proposed North American free trade agreement will have an even more devastating effect on Ontario, resulting in a loss of not only more jobs but also in a reduction in our environmental standards, our labour standards, our workers' rights, the quality of our social life and our overall quality of life;

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal with whatever means is possible and we petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal now."

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): The saga continues. I have another petition continuing with the petition that I've been bringing on a daily basis, another 440 names addressing Premier Rae, Treasurer Laughren and Minister Buchanan.

"We, the undersigned, request that you seriously consider reversing your decision to close the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology."

I'll affix my signature to this too.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 439, employed at the Sherwood Park Manor in Brockville, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ontario government must immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it and not scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty.

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: Free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services."

I've affixed my signature in support.

GAMBLING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition originating from the Centennial Rouge United Church in the Highland Creek area of my riding expressing opposition to gambling and calling on the government of Ontario to cease all moves to establish gambling casinos.

ABORTION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by more than 200 parishioners of St Theresa's parish in Cornwall who believe that the task force of abortion service providers is clearly opposed to social justice. The petition states that, "Human life begins at conception," and that "Abortion knowingly and willingly puts an end to human life."

I support this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

GAMBLING

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted with 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:

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

That's signed by a number of my constituents and by me.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

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

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have over 100 signatures and I have affixed mine.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

That is signed by a couple of hundred of my constituents and by me.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I have a ruling with respect to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Parry Sound.

The vote was deferred last night to immediately following routine proceedings Wednesday, June 16, 19