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

June 2, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ANNIVERSARY OF QUEEN'S CORONATION

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

BOATING SAFETY

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

DUNDAS KITE FESTIVAL

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

WOMEN'S ISSUES

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

RACE RELATIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

TOURISM INDUSTRY

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY PROGRAM

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

GAMBLING

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE COMMUNAUTAIRE

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS CERTIFICATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ACCRÉDITATION DES UTILISATEURS DE BATEAUX À MOTEUR

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

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF QUEEN'S CORONATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I rise today to pay my respects on this happy occasion to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth on the 40th anniversary of her coronation. I'm sure that I speak for the people of Ontario when I convey our congratulations on the Queen's 40-year reign.

Today, when change engulfs many countries in strife and torment, we must pause for a moment to reflect upon all that we enjoy here in this great province: our proud Canadian heritage and our peaceful history, as symbolized by the crown and the monarchy. People the world over come to Canada in search of a life that is free from war and terror under the protection of a monarch whose rule embodies the spirit of tolerance, the rule of law, democratic government and tradition.

The monarchy of course is not immune from the pressures of the modern world that we all experience, but with grace and good intent Her Majesty has shown her willingness to change and respond to new demands and duties. In her acts and thoughts, she retains our loyalty and respect.

Today is indeed a special occasion, and I take great pride in speaking these words: Long live the Queen.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Today we are marking a most important Canadian anniversary. Forty years ago, on June 2, 1953, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was crowned Queen of Canada at Westminster Abbey. Five days earlier, on May 28, Her Majesty issued a proclamation by which she became the first monarch to officially bear the title Queen of Canada.

During the coronation, Her Majesty took a solemn oath to govern the peoples of Canada and her other realms according to their respective laws and customs. This ancient oath, taken by the Queen to the people of Canada -- not to the country nor to the Constitution -- is actually older than the oath of loyalty to the monarch taken by subjects and agents of the state, such as police officers.

On this great day of the fundamental rights and freedoms we enjoy as a community living under the crown, let us remember that such oaths have always been taken to emphasize, first and foremost, the supremacy of the person in our society.

As someone who's had the privilege of meeting members of the royal family, such as Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales and His Royal Highness Prince Edward, I join with all members of the Conservative caucus in expressing our sincere love and loyalty to the head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada, especially on the 40th anniversary of Her Majesty's coronation. God save the Queen.

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): National Access Awareness Week symbolizes and encourages the increasing integration of persons with disabilities into all aspects of Canadian community life. Technological advances and increased public awareness are making a full and independent life possible for more and more people.

The accessible house will be open for public viewing at the Peterborough Armoury this Friday, June 4, from 9 am to 9 pm and from 9 to 5 on Saturday and Sunday. It is hoped that more than 5,000 people will visit. Trained tour guides of all ages, many of whom are disabled, will demonstrate the modifications embodied in this home.

The city of Peterborough, the Peterborough Council for Persons with Disabilities and the local branch of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp have been working since October to bring this project to Peterborough. They deserve our thanks for bringing the accessible house to Peterborough during National Access Awareness Week. We hope that you will be able to visit this display.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I had the pleasure of attending the first planning meeting of Action Paramedics on May 25 at the Ottawa General Hospital. The purpose of this meeting was to mount a campaign that will promote CPR training within our community, to seek support for firefighter defibrillation and a paramedic program for Ottawa-Carleton.

The campaign is only in its infancy, but it continues to acquire momentum daily. At the end of the day, when the campaign meets with success, as it surely will, the people of Ottawa-Carleton will be trained in CPR through classes offered in our high schools.

Our firefighters, who arrive first on the scene of a cardiac arrest, will be able to restore a heartbeat through the use of defibrillators and our ambulance attendants, who arrive shortly thereafter, will be trained to carry out full paramedic duties so necessary to maintain life until the emergency ward is reached.

Ottawa-Carleton has, I regret to say, one of the lowest survival rates for patients who experience a pre-hospital cardiac arrest in North America. Residents have a better chance of surviving cardiac arrest if they live in any one of more than 50 Canadian cities and towns that have paramedic programs.

There has been a groundswell of support from the residents of Ottawa-Carleton wanting access to the same emergency services that are currently enjoyed by many other areas in Ontario and across the country.

As the member from Ottawa South, I wish to draw the attention of the House, and especially the Minister of Health, to the lack of paramedic services within Ottawa itself and the many lives that are lost needlessly.

I am delighted to be a part of this campaign, and I wish to commend Dr Justin Maloney of the base hospital program and Sandra Clarke, executive director of the Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation of Canada, for their vision and diligence in pursuing a comprehensive emergency treatment program for Ottawa-Carleton.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Later today, I will be introducing a private member's bill that I hope will increase the public awareness of the need for boater safety and education courses and help to acquaint operators with the rules of navigation and safe boating.

You are no doubt aware that this will be the fourth time that I have attempted to educate the public that there is a real problem with careless and uninformed operation of motor boats on this province's waterways.

None of my previous bills made it through the legislative process successfully, but I was gratified by the great deal of public attention they generated and the enormous amount of support they received from law enforcement officials, the medical community, cottage associations, individual members of the public and friends and relatives of boating accident victims.

I recognize that the contents of my bill may not satisfy everyone with an interest in recreational boating. That's why I urge my colleagues here in the Legislature to eventually send it to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings and possible amending.

I know there are those who do not support the idea of a motorboat operator's certificate, there are those who believe that the maximum $1,000 should be higher and there are those who do not think long-time boaters should be forced to take a boater safety and education course. To those people I say I included those features in this bill to get discussion and debate under way, and I'm certainly open to amending the legislation to meet concerns that may be raised during public hearings.

There's got to be an education process for people not acquainted with the rules of safe boating and, if my campaign saves one life, then it's worth it.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to take

part in the celebration of Italian National Day. I want to reiterate some comments I made on June 2, 1992, in this place.

In a referendum on June 2, 1946, Italians chose to become a republic, ending the monarchy in Italy. In Italy this is a national holiday and the official celebration is held in Rome. The parades and air shows are televised throughout the country.

Here in Canada celebrations are also held, usually the first Sunday in June, and there are many events in which Canadian Italians participate. There are more than 460,000 people of Italian heritage living in Ontario and they have made a significant contribution to the social, economic and cultural life of the province. The love of art, music and education and architecture which Italians brought with them has enriched each community in which they have chosen to live. Many early immigrants helped to build the homes and the infrastructure that we all now enjoy. The new generations are entering into all areas of community life, including the political structures.

I join in celebrating Italian National Day with pride and in recognition of all who have made a contribution to our heritage.

[Remarks in Italian]

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr James J.

Bradley (St Catharines): I well recall the various critics for the NDP, when in opposition, lamenting the downloading of costs and responsibilities to the local level of government, and wonder where those critics are today as municipalities are compelled to pick up the tab for the Workers' Compensation Board coverage for hundreds of students and other on-the-job trainees; as engineering departments are forced to assume a greater portion or the entire cost of needed sewer and water projects; as the repair of broken roads is left to the local public works departments to finance; as insurance premiums are raised by the provincial government or the cost of sand and gravel boosted by the Ontario Treasurer; as school boards are required to continue mandated provincial programs with fewer provincial dollars; as hospitals are instructed to maintain quality health care with a smaller allocation from the Ministry of Health; as senior citizens' homes are expected to serve a growing population with less financial support from the NDP government; as transit authorities endeavour to serve a growing population with less money from the MTO; as recreation service needs are met with little or much less financial backing from Queen's Park; as the requirements of vulnerable individuals are addressed with lower funding from the province.

Where are the voices of indignation and concern that rang through this legislative chamber and in the union halls, community auditoriums and council chambers in years gone by? What's wrong, folks? Has the cat got your tongue?

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): May 31 to June 6 is National Access Awareness Week, a time when we reflect on the rights of disabled persons to accessible education, employment, housing, recreation and transportation. National Access Awareness Week is a way to raise society's awareness of barriers that prevent disabled persons from participating in the social and economic life of our nation. This week, we celebrate improved access and identify areas where there are still barriers to be removed.

Over the past year, there have been important advances in access. For example, the Toronto Transit Commission is retrofitting subway stations to make them wheelchair accessible.

There are still areas with serious access problems. For instance, I have tried to help three adults whose learning disabilities make it very hard to communicate using the written word. Computer technology and government programs should be available to them, but barriers within the Ontario NDP government have blocked their every attempt to gain access to these tools and services.

Finally, there have been frustrating setbacks. Provincial funding of many services for disabled persons has been reduced. Even though these services should be considered essential, these cutbacks are robbing disabled persons of basic human rights. I urge this Bob Rae NDP government to protect the rights of disabled persons when they reform programs and reduce spending.

DUNDAS KITE FESTIVAL

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): On June 4, the annual Dundas Kite Festival will be celebrating its 16th anniversary. From June 4 to June 6, downtown Dundas will be the place to be. The annual festival is sponsored by the town of Dundas, the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority and Chapman Books. Ms Joanna Chapman is the festival founder.

Kicking off the weekend celebration, there will be midnight madness shopping on Friday night, a sidewalk sale on Saturday, and on Sunday, June 6, everyone will be out flying their kites at the Dundas Valley Conservation Area on Governor's Road in Dundas. There will be a fine array of entertainers. Music as diverse as country, blues, reggae, Dixieland, jazz, rock, folk and classical will be complemented by clowns, jugglers, magicians, karate demos, line dancing instruction and the ever-popular karaoke machine, just to name a few.

There will be lots of great things for the kids to do, including free face-painting and a kite-making area where a professional kite maker will be showing kids how to make their own kites. This festival is really a celebration of spring and it's an event for the entire family. So come to the 16th annual Dundas Kite Festival this weekend. Bring a picnic and spend the day.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yesterday, my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade told the Legislature about Jobs Ontario Community Action. Under this initiative, the government will invest some $300 million in community initiatives over three years. Jobs Ontario Community Action is a new way of making things happen locally. It is a recognition that communities themselves are the best equipped and best able to stimulate local economic activity.

Jobs Ontario Community Action will create greater cooperation in communities and it will support new partnerships: partnerships with local government, community groups, labour, business, educational institutions, cultural groups, credit unions, cooperatives, equity groups and other interested citizens.

Some of the people who have already been pioneering the sort of partnership I'm talking about are with us today in the gallery. I'd like to recognize Judy Goldie of the Canadian Co-operative Association; David Walsh of our local economic project; Frankie Liberty of the Economic Developers Council of Ontario; and Peter Nares of Self-Employment Development Initiatives.

As my colleague said, there are three main thrusts to the Jobs Ontario Community Action program: community development to help communities build their capacity to organize and plan for the future; community financing to help communities invest in themselves; and community capital to provide support for capital infrastructure projects identified as priorities through the planning process.

Today, as a component of the Jobs Ontario Community Action program, I will introduce legislation to address the area of community financing. This legislation, entitled the Community Economic Development Act, will provide tools to help communities invest in themselves and it will allow municipalities to participate directly in new ways to support economic development initiatives in their communities.

In our consultation with community organizations, we discovered that there is a financing gap for this kind of entrepreneurial activity. Small entrepreneurs often lack sufficient collateral to qualify for bank loans, and other businesses can't afford the costs of pursuing private share placements or stock market issues to bring equity financing to their operation.

That's why our government feels strongly that this legislation is both timely and necessary. Through it, we are helping to narrow this capital gap.

The Community Economic Development Act will empower communities to raise their own investment capital, forge new economic partnerships and work with both traditional and non-traditional sources of expertise to provide capital for entrepreneurial opportunities.

Let me briefly outline these new tools and mechanisms.

To provide a vehicle for communities to coordinate their economic development activity, the legislation enables municipalities to participate in the establishment of community development corporations and support their operations.

Community development corporations will be non-profit organizations operated by a board of directors that will ideally reflect the wide diversity of people and organizations of their communities. The government intends to provide some financial assistance from Jobs Ontario Community Action to help communities set these organizations up.

Among other things, a community development corporation could sponsor new community financing tools that would also be created through legislation that I am introducing this afternoon: community loan funds and community investment share corporations.

Community loan funds will give local investors a chance to support small businesses in their community. The funds would provide access to loans in the range of $500 to $15,000 for all types of microenterprises. The government would guarantee the principal for local investors who put their money into these funds.

Community investment share corporations will be set up by local groups and they will provide a source of equity financing for enterprises and benefit the community as a whole. Again, the government would guarantee the principal.

The government is allocating $10 million for the community loan fund guarantees and $20 million for community investment share guarantees. We estimate that over the next five years, 40 community investment share corporations and 30 community loan funds will become operational in communities throughout Ontario. This will help communities create about 4,000 jobs.

The legislation will also permit municipalities to use more creative and flexible ways of financing facilities that benefit the entire community, such as community centre complexes, water and sewage facilities, roads and transit facilities. It would allow them to forge partnerships with the private sector to finance these public facilities. Municipalities will also be able to make better use of the pooled investments and borrowing arrangements among certain public sector institutions.

This legislation is an important part of our government's 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work. By encouraging local investment in local ventures, it will support strong, self-reliant local economies which are so vital to Ontario's financial health.

This represents one more step along the road to economic recovery. It places investment power where it belongs -- in communities throughout the province -- because our government believes that it is local communities that will lead the way to jobs, growth and economic prosperity.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I don't know why it takes two different ministers to announce nothing in this House. On two different days we've heard the same thing. Yesterday afternoon, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade made the very same announcement as the Minister of Municipal Affairs today, and yet no new dollars were introduced in this enabling legislation.

To my surprise, yesterday the Minister of Economic Development said: "The funds for this program will come from a consolidation of a number of previously existing programs with support from Jobs Ontario Capital. Commitments made under these previously existing programs will be honoured."

One of my first questions to the minister is, how many dollars are left in this $300-million program in which they're supposed to spend $100 a year? Very few dollars are left, so it's only a commitment.

I find it very strange that this minister says, "Look, we're creating another partnership with communities, with municipalities," and yet only a few days ago they took away $2 billion of possible investment, through taxation, from consumers' pockets. Unconditional grants to municipalities were cut by $110 million and now they're saying, "Let's create a new partnership." Now that you've got all the responsibilities -- downloading, I call it -- they want to create a new partnership.

I don't know what people in Chatham and Kingston and the Windsor area and other areas that were part of the relocation program will say of today's announcement. These people expected to create jobs and have the necessary tools to create a better investing environment, and today the minister's announcement says nothing new. It's a fancy program. I wonder what small businesses, which produce 80% of all our jobs in the province of Ontario, will have to say about this new, fancy program. Not too much, because there is nothing in this program that will encourage them. They would like to get their unconditional grants back so that they can create jobs in their own municipalities.

Mr Speaker, again I want to point out to this House and point out to you that I find it very strange that it takes two ministers to announce a nothing program in this House.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I'd also like to comment on the announcement by the minister. Unfortunately, it is really a program that is quite grandiose in its concept, but that's all it is. It is just rhetoric and there really isn't very much in the way of substance.

Just to give you an example, in the minister's statement he says that the government is allocating $10 million for community loan fund guarantees and $20 million for community investment share guarantees. These are going to be allocated over a period of five years and they estimate that they will have 40 community investment share corporations and 35 community loan funds. That works out to eight share loan fund guarantees a year and five community loan fund guarantees.

Those community loan funds have got a maximum amount of guarantee of anywhere from $500 to $15,000. That is really a very insignificant amount of money to make any kind of impact anywhere in Ontario. We're talking about $500 to $15,000 for eight projects in Ontario in any given year over the next five years. In the other programs it's proportionately the same thing. So what we have is a program that is great in rhetoric, sounds good, makes good publicity, but if you take a look at it, it means absolutely nothing. I predict it will have very little, if any, impact on what is happening in this province.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to take the opportunity to make a few comments on the statement made by the minister today. This is the greatest episode of downloading on municipalities that I have ever seen. They have taken away a lot of the transfer grants, a lot of the transfer money. Now they're asking the municipalities to provide some financing and investment within their communities to try to help make the projects move ahead that they have.

The government is not looking at the long-term projects for the municipalities. They want the entire municipality to support community centre complexes, water and sewage facilities, roads and facilities. They want the local municipalities to be able to set up an investment whereby people can lend money to the municipality and the municipality in turn would add some money to it. The municipalities would end up in debt more than they ever have been. This is the greatest downloading I have ever seen.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The statement that's before us today addresses essentially economic development and community investment, and I must say, to be fair, that I think it's well-intentioned. But when I say that, I'm aware of the fact that, for example, in the city of North York there are some 11 million square feet of empty industrial space as we speak. There's a great deal of vacant office space. In the borough of East York, which I represent, one third of one of the prime industrial areas is vacant at this point.

We certainly need job creation, economic development in the province of Ontario. However, if you talk to the business community, such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as I have; such as the Ontario Chamber of Commerce; such as the Metropolitan Toronto board of trade, and if you ask them, "How do we promote economic development?" this is not the scheme that you come up with. The business community will say, "To create jobs, to create economic development, don't increase the taxes." That's number one. They're being taxed to death and they can't afford any more taxes.

The business community will say, "Repeal Bill 40, set a proper economic climate for industrial growth, for business growth in this province and it will happen." It won't happen if it's being generated by government.

Through the budget, which we're having a hard time debating, 50,000 jobs are going to be lost and there's going to be a depressing impact on economic development in the province of Ontario. We're getting confused messages from this government. On the one hand, the government, through its budget, is putting forward a program that is going to kill business in this province. On the other hand, they come forward today with an economic development plan that's doomed to failure because they are not setting the table.

The second part has to do with community investment within the municipalities. This has been described as downloading, and I agree with that. If we're really interested in promoting good community projects such as the Sheppard subway line, such as the extension of the Spadina line to York University, then let's get on and do it.

Are we interested in roads? The very minister who has made the statement today is the former Minister of Transportation who killed the Red Hill Creek Expressway in the city of Hamilton. On the one hand the minister is saying, "Let's support roads, let's support transit," on the other hand he killed the Red Hill Creek Expressway, an expressway that was desired by the citizens of the city of Hamilton, an expressway that was desired by the council in the city of Hamilton.

So let's be consistent. In my own municipality of East York, we would like the minister to support that the Leslie Street extension go to a joint environmental assessment review and Ontario Municipal Board hearing. The minister won't support that. This is a project that would create economic growth in the municipality of East York and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; this is a project that would improve the roads system in Metropolitan Toronto, and yet the minister will not support that project. So where is the consistency? There is none.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): In April 1993, when the social contract discussions were first initiated, this government and the Premier said that these were going to be new methods for openness and accountability to conduct public sector business. The Premier said -- and this question is to the Premier -- that decision-making affecting the public service would be fair and would reflect the input from those affected.

He said you couldn't carry on your social contract negotiations without all of the participants at the table, but we've learned that there are now direct dealings going on solely between the government and CUPE. While other unions and the employer groups are excluded from the talks, the direct deals are being made with CUPE.

I want to know from the Premier what has changed and why he has decided to deal exclusively with CUPE while the others stand around twiddling their thumbs waiting to hear the results.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I accept the questions from the deputy leader of the Liberal Party in good grace, or House leader, whatever title he's been given this week. I just would say that his description of what's going on I think is a little bit at odds with my understanding of the facts. There have been any number of bilateral discussions between the government negotiators and any number of trade unions and any number of employer groups.

He may do his best, as I suspect members of the opposition would want to do, to upset the apple cart and describe things in ways that will cause ill feeling. That's certainly not my approach. There is a strong commitment by the government to taking a positive view. There will be a series of discussions which we hope will produce a comprehensive social contract, and there are not going to be any particularly special arrangements with any particular group of individuals. However, the Minister of Health, for example, has had discussions with the Ontario Medical Association, as one would expect.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think there's anything unusual or untoward in the fact that there may have been -- I'm not sure what discussions the member is referring to -- some discussions between a particular group of employees and a particular group of representatives of the government. I would think that would be perfectly normal in the circumstances, and I would think any set of discussions designed to get this thing --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- done would be helpful and constructive.

Mr Elston: I was just trying to be helpful, because the rumours are rampant at the talks at the Royal York. In fact, there are a number of organizations that have been shut out of the private meetings between Mr Decter and Mr Ryan and Ms Darcy. In fact, there has been a considerable exclamation at the length of time those doors have been closed to the participants.

There is a belief that while some employer groups will have to make the tough decisions that Mr Premier told us about yesterday, they are excluded from what has become a direct dealing between the province and one single union, to the exclusion of other organizations. We have even heard, and there are rumours rampant at the talks this morning, that there has been a special document concerning job security delivered solely to CUPE, to the exclusion of other unions.

I want this Premier to tell me what it was that has changed between April 1993, when he released his initial bargaining strategy, and yesterday and today when he has obviously delivered something special to keep at least one of the unions in the talks, that being CUPE.

Hon Mr Rae: I have a lot of affection and respect for the member opposite. We've known each other in this House for a long time. I know that the better side of the member would not want to be somebody who based -- yesterday we had questions based on headlines in the newspapers, which has its own perils, and I'm speaking from some experience in this regard -- a lot of experience in this regard. I would say to him, it's one thing to set his next set of questions on rumours which I can tell the honourable member are quite false.

I can just answer his second question by saying that since the premise -- and I'm here going back to just the simple logic -- of his question is false, the rest of his question is based on hot air and I don't intend to further dignify it by a further response.

Mr Elston: I am really cut by that one. This fellow is really quick on his feet. The Premier got his headline today in the paper, that he lashed out yesterday. It's very interesting because he unveiled to the newspapers his strategy about legislating these people or not legislating. It tells me something about the way this guy plans to conduct his new and open negotiations.

I just want to ask a single question to the Premier: Will he confirm, as we have been told, that in fact the Premier will be attending the talks tomorrow at the central table so that he can conduct the discussions and so that he can finalize the arrangements with respect to this social contract?

Hon Mr Rae: There are no such plans, I say very directly; not at all.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Yet.

Hon Mr Rae: No, there is no such intention. I would say to him directly that it is true that I am going to the Royal York Hotel this afternoon at 4 o'clock, but I want to tell him it's to have a meeting with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the many good friends, my friends in the business advisory committee. The member from Wilson Heights will remember those conversations between former premiers and the business advisory council.

I will be in the Royal York Hotel between 4 o'clock and 5:30. It is a closed meeting with me and several business executives, which I know will cause deep resentment and concern in the hearts and ranks of the members of the Liberal and Conservative parties, but I can assure you that the members' interests, from what I've experienced in the last couple of months, are well represented around that table. That's the purpose of my going there. I am not planning to visit any other parts of the hotel, possibly a coffee shop if I stop for a Coca-Cola or something, but I have no other plans --

Interjection: Soda.

Hon Mr Rae: Or soda. I can't give any advertisements.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Why not a Pepsi?

Hon Mr Rae: Or a Pepsi-Cola or a Sprite or any other drink. But I have no plans to visit any other parts of the hotel this afternoon or tomorrow.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Recent actions of your government have made a mockery of the NDP's claim to represent and protect the interests of women in this province. As you are well aware, the Minister of Health has proposed draconian restrictions on new doctors in the areas of family medicine, paediatrics and psychiatry. These new doctors will for all intents and purposes be denied the right to practise in most of Ontario.

As the minister responsible for women's issues, you must be aware that 80% of the doctors in these three specialties are women and the vast majority of new women doctors are in these locked-out specialties. You must also be aware that only 23% of doctors in this province are women. This policy is going to further limit a woman's right to choose a woman doctor.

Where were you as the advocate for women when this devastating decision was made at the cabinet table and will you do your job and go to bat for these young women doctors and the right of women to choose a woman doctor?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Mr Speaker, this question belongs with the Minister of Health and I refer it to her.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I asked the minister specifically as the advocate for women in this province. My two supplementaries are meant for other ministries.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I listened carefully. The member did in fact invite the minister to respond. In her question she indicated that it did have something to do with health, and the minister under the standing orders has the opportunity to refer the question, which she has done, which is perfectly in order.

Ms Poole: It's really unfortunate that the minister responsible for women's issues is refusing to advocate for women in this province and refusing to answer questions, because it's going to be interesting to see how the Minister of Health defends the conduct of the minister responsible for women's issues on child care.

With great fanfare this government has announced wage enhancements and down payments on pay equity to boost child care workers' salaries. Right now we're in the midst of debating pay equity legislation to assist the child care sector. Yet in the social contract talks your government is undoing all the progress made in raising critically undervalued child care workers' salaries.

You have proposed that child care wage subsidy payments be rolled back and frozen for three years. You have proposed slashing salaries and benefits for all child care staff earning $25,000 or more a year, and recently in your generosity you raised this to $30,000. You have proposed that wages and benefits be frozen for three years and that new staff will start at 5% below current levels.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Ms Poole: The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care has walked away from the table in disgust and with good cause. This is a mockery. This government has taken with the one hand and given with the other.

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

Ms Poole: Surely the minister responsible for women's issues would have agreed that child care workers have already paid the price and shared the pain not only now but for the last years and decades.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Ms Poole: I would like the Minister of Health, since this has already been referred to her, to answer why the minister responsible for women's issues, as an advocate for women's --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please. I've asked the member several times to please place a question.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, I did ask the question. I asked the Minister of Health if she could tell us why the minister responsible for women's issues has not advocated that child care workers be given an exemption from your social contract manipulations.

Hon Mrs Grier: I guess I fail to see how that was supplementary to the first question, but I'm more than happy to answer it, because one of the points that I think the member opposite has failed to grasp is that this government, as a government, is concerned about women's issues and that the actions this government has taken both to advance the progress of women in this province and to protect the interests of women is exemplary and more than any other government in this province has ever done.

If the member wants to be specific with respect to child care workers, I would remind her of the additional number of spaces, 8,200 spaces that this government has approved recently and which are being taken up at a very fast rate in response to part of our Jobs Ontario Training program. We're the only government that's ever done that.

Secondly, the floor on the social contract of a $30,000 limit will in fact exempt many child care workers from the provisions of the social contract. I suspect that's not anything her government would ever have done.

Ms Poole: It's obvious that this minister is not up to date with what her government is not doing for women in this province. First of all, she refers to Jobs Ontario and what a wonderful job it's doing. Let me tell her that of the 20,000 spaces they had allocated for the child care component of Jobs Ontario, only 300 were taken up last year.

Do you know why, Minister? It is because you have advertised this program and the minister responsible for women's issues advertised it as a program that was geared to women and to helping them escape these low-paid jobs. But let me tell you that two thirds of Jobs Ontario placements are men, so I don't know how you can defend your record in this regard.

Secondly, as far as the social contract, much of the social contract still applies to the rest of the child care workers who are going to have their wage enhancements taken away. It will make a mockery of what you claim to be doing with pay equity, and I would like to say to you, you cannot defend what you are not doing for women in this province.

I want this minister to give me an answer. Has the minister responsible for women's issues been advocating on these issues at the cabinet table, and if she has, why have you not listened?

Hon Mrs Grier: If the question is, who is advocating for women at the cabinet table and around this province, I stand here proudly and say every single member of this government.

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier on the social contract talks. There are some who, perhaps for political reasons or otherwise, want the social contract talks to fail.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Are you amongst them?

Mr Harris: Premier, you know that I am not one of those. You would know that I have supported the social contract talks. I have supported you in initiating them. I have supported and applauded your initial efforts and I've supported the goal, as I understand it, to reduce the size and the cost of government. You would know why, Premier -- and I'm not at the table. You know I'm not at the table, so I don't know what is happening there, what is at the table. Some from your side suggest they're working because I'm not there, and perhaps that's true.

My good friend Sid Ryan has now said that he will continue negotiations as long as they include job security. I really would like to ask you about this, because there is a difference between job security, which I understand employees being concerned about, which means no one is fired as a result of these talks, and position security, which means that the public service remains at the same size that it is today.

I would like you to assure me that what Michael Decter is trying to achieve at these talks is not a short-term fix, not a one- or two-year fix to help you through a couple of budget years, but in fact a permanent downsizing of the costs of the government payroll. Can you give us that assurance?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Without commenting extensively on the entire

preamble of the member's question --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Which was extensive.

Hon Mr Rae: -- which was extensive and very interesting, I would say to him that the short answer to his question is yes, that what we are looking for, and the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, has stated this very clearly in the brilliant budget speech he delivered 10 days ago, is a major restructuring of the public sector and that this involves the permanent reduction of $2 billion in terms of the total compensation and payroll costs in the broader public sector.

Mr Harris: Thank you, Premier, I appreciate that, because when we had things like pay pause, that sounded like a one- or two-year fix, or 12 days off. If that was a temporary proposal while you made the permanent changes, then we could still be with you. But if it's temporary, we cannot.

I want to be very clear that I have consistently said that we have a hardworking and dedicated group of individuals in the public service. The problem is that you and the Liberals over the last eight years increased it to such a size that the taxpayer base couldn't sustain it. I think you realize that and recognize that, and it's something that had to be done and we support that's something that has to be done.

I want to be very clear that I don't believe it is the public servants' fault that you and the Liberals hired all the extra ones that weren't sustainable, that in fact this was a management problem over the past eight years, that high-spending government is not the individual's fault.

Given that natural attrition in the broader public service would mean nearly 56,000 fewer jobs over the next three years if you had a hiring freeze, quite frankly, 56,000 jobs through attrition with a hiring freeze is about 12,000 to 15,000 more than you need to achieve at the end of your three-year period, a permanent 5% reduction in the size and cost of the civil service. Has this been put on the table in the negotiation talks, so that at the end of the three-year period we have a permanent downsizing, not a one-year fix or not a June fix but a permanent downsizing?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: Is that on the table?

Hon Mr Rae: Obviously the issue of attrition is something that we're keenly aware of, as well as the question of whether there are any people hired to replace people who are retiring or who retire early in response to various incentives or the natural attrition rate.

The only thing I would say to him is that we have found -- and I think this is an experience that's shared by all governments throughout the country -- that the attrition rate is somewhat different today than it was four or five years ago, as one would naturally expect, given the overall circumstances we face in the economy. But obviously, the issue of attrition and the natural changes in the size of the public service, teachers and everyone else, is one of the factors that's part of the overall framework for a discussion.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the figures are changing a little bit, and you know I'm concerned about the upsizing of the private sector as well. It's one of the reasons people seem to be hanging on a little more. But without retirement incentives, whether early retirement or any golden handshakes, the current rate, as I understand it, is about 2%. Over three years, that would downsize over 6% of the civil service, and the goal at the end of three years is to downsize by 5% or something a little less than 5%.

I suggest to you that natural attrition will allow you to structurally downsize government at the end of the three-year period and still provide a cushion for cabinet to provide exceptions. There will be some areas obviously -- fire, police; perhaps in teaching we will look at some areas -- where this will not work, but this would be a permanent solution; not a slash-and-burn 12 days off -- that solves it for one year -- but a permanent solution.

I want to be clear to you -- I'm not at the table, maybe the reports are not accurate -- that massive layoffs to meet an artificial target hurt everybody and solve nothing, but a logical plan over the three-year period gives us a permanent downsizing in the size and cost of government. So I would ask you if this is at the table. I note that you have pulled a gun and have said: "Bang. If we don't settle, we'll do it unilaterally." That, I'm sure, is facilitating the talks.

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

Mr Harris: Would you not agree with me that that kind of permanent proposal is far better for all concerned than the short-term fix of 12 days off without pay, those types of proposals which will only be good as long as the 12 days off without pay are in effect?

Hon Mr Rae: I admire the sense of humour and irony of the leader of the third party.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Come on. You liked me better before.

Hon Mr Rae: I like you too and I haven't lost my affection for you either, even when sorely tested.

I would say to the leader of the third party that I think he's perhaps stretching things a little when he suggests that I'm the one who's originated the term "Bang." I think he's the one who came up with "Bang, bang, bang," and I just said that's what he would do. If he is now realizing that he doesn't want to be Mr Bang Bang Bang any more, that's his problem.

Mr Harris: I do.

Hon Mr Rae: He still does? Okay.

I would just say to the honourable member, attrition is a factor, but if he thinks that attrition alone can effect a structural change, he's mistaken, because part of what we are also discussing is all the issues that are at work in every large organization around the world: the question of delayering, the question of simplifying structures, reducing the number of layers between the people who are delivering services and those who are in the senior levels of government.

The need for us to deal with that issue in a sensitive way does involve, in our view, some earlier retirements, some other voluntary exit options, as they're called, and various ways of dealing with the issue as well as attrition.

In terms of looking at attrition as obviously one of the factors that must be borne in mind, as we look at a three-year approach to the restructuring, which will be in a sense the first three years, because restructuring is something that needs to go on literally all the time in this world of very rapid change in which we're living, then that's the approach that we're taking.

Mr Harris: I appreciate that, for example, in education alone you can save more than 5% without one teacher losing a job. There are some layers there above the teacher in the classroom that have to be dealt with, and I think you're aware of that.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question to the Premier is this: With the exception of massive tax hikes, perhaps the most destructive thing that your government has done to this province and the private sector and the ability to upsize has been your unbalanced and unfair labour legislation.

This Friday is the first anniversary of the introduction of Bill 40 to workers and employers in this province. We told you when you introduced this bill that if you didn't amend it substantially, it was destructive legislation that only helped union bosses, not union workers. But you have been so fixated on the social contract, perhaps, you have ignored the private sector. They need help. Bill 40 is a barrier to many people in the private sector, to employers and employees. I would ask you, for the sake of upsizing the private sector, will you agree today to revisit Bill 40?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): No, and I think the -- I'll leave it at that: No.

Mr Harris: Premier, let me give you one little example of what Bill 40 means.

JBL Househelp and Janitorial Services in Windsor: This is a small company that is owned by Abiola Afolabi. She runs this business with the help of her family. She won a contract with the Windsor Utilities Commission. However, under Bill 40, she was told that she would be forced to hire the employees of the firm that currently has the contract. Since this was too costly and unacceptable for her and her family business, this forced her out of the business. She withdrew from the job. She lost the contract.

Can you explain to me how legislation like Bill 40 that drives people out of business, that is a barrier for new business people wishing to bid on contracts -- in this case government contracts is this barrier -- can you explain to me how this is fair legislation?

Hon Mr Rae: If I may say so, again, the leader of the third party was in government himself. He will no doubt know from his colleague and good friend and ideological supporter, the former Minister of Labour Bob Elgie, that successor rights and the principle of successor rights and the issue of subcontracting, particularly of services, is an issue on which there have been various kinds of legislation for some time.

This legislation was strengthened by this government, it's true. But here we're looking at situations where the services that were critically provided were provided by the employees, who were providing the services in the contract to which the member is referring. It's those employees, it's those workers, who I would imagine would not be making a whole lot of money, who would not be among the higher paid.

We're attempting to create some sense of security for them in their workplace so that by virtue of some government action that's taken or some other action that's taken with respect to subcontracts, we're trying to ensure that the people who are providing those services are in fact provided a degree of security.

I think that's a reasonable approach. I don't want to see, every time a contract changes -- we don't want to see people thrown out on the street by virtue of the fact that people have undercut the bids. It doesn't add to any jobs. It doesn't create any new jobs. You're not talking about any new employment being provided. We're talking about services being provided and we're talking about providing some degree of security for the people who are working there. I think that given the fact that those people tend to be lower paid, those people tend to be women --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- they tend to be newly arrived immigrants in the country, it seems to me those are the workers whom we want to be providing a degree of protection for in Ontario in 1993.

Mr Harris: Mrs Afolabi came to Canada from Nigeria 10 years ago -- perhaps that isn't recent enough for you -- believing that this was a place of opportunity, but your government is putting up roadblocks. She planned to do the work, she and her children.

This morning, as well, I met with a group from the black business community. They told me that "fairness" does not exist in the vocabulary of your government. I thought this was a very strong statement for them to make. But in fact they said that access to government contracts, equal access, was the biggest barrier that they found, both government and private sector contracts, getting a foot in the door, that for new businesses that black business people were developing, this was their biggest concern and biggest problem.

Diamond Tobin-West, of one of the groups I met with this morning, president of Cadd and Microcomputer Specialists, explained this to me: The black community believes it does not have fair access to government contracts and its program.

Bill 40, for example, favours the incumbent. Bill 40 favours the status quo. Bill 40 favours the establishment. I ask you how you can continue to defend legislation that makes --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Listen to a Tory?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Durham East.

Mr Harris: -- it difficult for new companies, new Canadians, to get a break and get access to government jobs.

Mr Mills: How can you say that?

Mr Harris: All she wanted to do was save the taxpayers money and do the job. All she wanted was a fair chance.

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member -- and I've listened carefully to his question -- that in terms of what he is proposing today --

Mr Harris: Is to scrap Bill 40.

Hon Mr Rae: I know what your ideological line is. I'm just saying that in your attempt to draw the argument, I think you're adding an element which is, if I may so, most unhelpful, to be polite, about trying to resolve the issue. The suggestion --

Mr Harris: That is the result. Thirty black business leaders told me this morning that is one of the problems.

Hon Mr Rae: I suppose now he's going on the record as saying that Bill 40 is racially discriminatory. Is that what he's saying now?

Mr Harris: I'm telling you what the black business people told me. They said Bill 40 is a barrier to access.

Hon Mr Rae: No, you're not. Don't get away with that. I'm saying to you that you're lowering the tone of the entire debate by adding an element that has nothing at all to do with the issue.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Don't change the words. Typical dipper, changing the words.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: You use your own words and I use mine. Check Hansard for mine.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, you've just used them.

Mr Stockwell: Typical dippers. You haven't got advance --

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Went too far, Mike.

Mr Stockwell: They came to us, Floyd. That is what they said. Typical dipper.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West remains out of order.

Mr Harris: He can sit wherever he wants.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): He can't interject from wherever he wants.

The Speaker: Yes, not even the right seat.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Over the past couple of months the education system has been given notice that between your expenditure control package, the social contract and the increased taxes and fees announced in the recent budget, our public education system will lose close to $1 billion. Given that school boards have just reached the halfway mark in their fiscal year, can you tell school boards, is this figure your bottom line and will public education lose any more funding this year?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think that what the member has done is take the figures from the expenditure control. He's taken the social contract discussions and taken the same assumptions that some school boards have taken across the province that the money is just going to be pulled out of their budgets and that there's not going to be a social contract arrived at. I don't believe those are the assumptions that he should operate under or that any of us should operate under.

I'm very optimistic that an agreement will be achieved, and if an agreement is achieved, then there will be arrangements made where the school boards will save money as a result of the social contract and the provincial government will not have the negative impact on school boards or the local taxpayers that you're predicting.

Mr Beer: It is very interesting that the minister, for the first time, starts talking about what may be some sort of plan as to how he is approaching this whole issue, because what school boards don't know, what teachers don't know, what parents don't know, what this Legislature doesn't know is, what is your plan? How are you going forward in working with your partners? Because I think you would accept, as do I, that a billion dollars is a lot of money and that we all share that we want to see quality education in the classrooms where our kids are.

My second question is, when, and will you begin today to tell us what your plan is? Because you're responsible for the education system of this province. Tomorrow, according to the standing orders of the House under

section 58, you should be presenting the estimates for the Ministry of Education. I would assume that in those estimates you will be setting out very clearly how these expenditures are going to be held.

In addition, we would like to know what other plans you have. Are you going to be lifting mandated programs from school boards? Are you going to be bringing in legislation to affect collective agreements and pupil-teacher ratios? Are you going to be doing the same thing with respect to working conditions? Are you going to be announcing your general legislative grants for 1994 so school boards know what they're going to be working with in 1993 and 1994? The greatest enemy we have right now in the chaos that is out there is the unknown.

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

Mr Beer: Will you begin to tell us what your plan is? You're responsible. Your government is responsible. What is your plan to bring about these changes?

Hon Mr Cooke: The critic for the official opposition may be in the dark, but the school boards, the teachers and all the people in the system who are involved in the social contract negotiations and have been involved with the Ministry of Education in explanations as to what the expenditure control plan is for the education system know exactly what the plan is and know exactly what the goal is, through the social contract negotiations. They know what's going on. They know what the plan is. I suggest that the critic for the official opposition should get up to date and find out what the plan is.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Attorney General. This morning in Kitchener, three neo-Nazis entered a store owned by a Jewish proprietor. They uttered death threats and anti-Semitic slogans. They then proceeded to demolish the store. They have been arrested.

You would know, as I think all of us in this House would know, that anti-Semitism has been on the rise around the world and that Ontario, Canada, has not been immune to the escalation of racism, hatred and anti-Semitism. Last winter, it took days for a swastika to be removed from the side of the Legislature. Last week in Ottawa, an anti-racist group clashed with the neo-Nazis. While there is apparently sufficient evidence today against Ernst Zundel, no action has proceeded by the government of Ontario.

I think we in this Legislature all share and have learned in sharing that we are guilty by our silence. I think you have the power to act and I think you have been told that there is enough evidence for you to act. How long is your ministry going to remain idle on this matter?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Our ministry has not remained idle on this issue and in fact has been working very closely, not only with the police who are involved in the various incidents that the member mentions, but also in working with our federal colleagues around the various issues of law that arise.

I certainly am aware of the accusations that have been there and I can assure the member that when I am advised that there is enough evidence for us to proceed by the ministry, then that would obviously be what my choice would be. To this point, there are issues that I cannot discuss in this Legislature that have not given me that assurance at this point in time.

I want the member to understand that we share very, very much the concern that he's expressing about the various incidents that have happened. We have met recently with members of the Jewish community to talk about the various issues that arise, their concerns, our concerns, what kinds of things we need to do. I think the member should know that in our federal-provincial-territorial meetings of ministers of justice last week, we also discussed, on a national basis, the concerns that we have across the nation and the inadequacy of some of our Criminal Code tools to deal appropriately with it.

I would like the member to be very clear that once I am assured by those within the ministry that there are grounds to lay charges, as I must give permission to do in any of these cases, then that would certainly be the course of action I would take.

Mr Harris: It's certainly well known out there that legal counsel has advised there is sufficient evidence to bring charges against Ernst Zundel and that's not happened.

We are hearing all the time from police that they are not receiving the support from your ministry that they feel they should be getting, based upon the information that they are gathering and that they are bringing forward.

We have had an anti-hate law for 22 years, and only four charges have been laid and there have only been two successful prosecutions in that 22-year period.

Some racist organizations, as we see this rise, obviously feel for some reason or other that they have been given carte blanche to spread their hatred in this province, and when you look at the record you can understand why they feel that way.

I say to you that we as legislators must send a clear signal that racism, that anti-Semitic behaviour, is unacceptable, that this takes priority, that we are going to provide the resources, that no society, no matter how much consumer goods it may give us or money it may give us, is worth its salt if we allow this to happen. Our education system is part of it, and I don't think there's been enough.

I think that all of us as legislators are going to have to do more, and I'm asking you, as the minister of justice, as the chief minister of justice in Ontario, to commit today that charges will in fact be laid wherever there is evidence of racial injustice, that we will be proceeding, that if we lose some of those cases, we can then say the law needs to be changed. We have enough examples here of behaviour unacceptable to Ontarians that if we don't lay charges and if we don't take these actions, we're going to be sitting here with a 22-year-old law that is not getting the job done.

Will you commit to do that on all of our behalfs?

Hon Mrs Boyd: It would be entirely inappropriate for me to make a commitment around laying charges against any individual or group in the direct way that the member is suggesting, and he knows that absolutely in this case. I have already told him that where the legal advice I get tells me that there is a case that can be successfully prosecuted or even has the hope of success in the court, that would be my course of action.

The member is well aware there are very conflicting legal opinions around the issues in these cases, and that is extremely important.

The member was quite clear that yes, there had been charges laid but there had been very few successful prosecutions. Every time there is an unsuccessful prosecution, we see an increase in this behaviour because the law is so inadequate that we are not able to get successful prosecutions that have adequate penalties.

So we are concentrating on two things. We are indeed looking at the merits of every case, and I can assure the member very strongly that I take my responsibility extremely seriously, and when we believe the merits of any case warrant a charge and a prosecution, that would be the course of action.

The second thing I can assure the member of is that there are many other things we need to do to counter racism and that our government has taken many of those actions and will continue to take those actions, and we are pleased to hear the support of our opposition friends in that regard.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Premier. Last month I stood in this House to raise the issue on behalf of 3,000 auto workers at the GM van plant, as their plant was about to be closed as a result of free trade, which the federal Tories rammed through this country, and not Bill 40, as the leader of the third party has indicated.

Today we've heard about an announcement in General Motors in Oshawa that the Oshawa truck assembly centre will receive some dollars.

Interjections.

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

Mr Owens: If he's going to heckle, Mr Speaker, at least he could sit in his right seat. I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Contrary to the prehistoric fearmongering coming from the third party today, I'd like to ask the Premier to explain to this House, and particularly to those members of the third party, the role of the government in this historic announcement in Oshawa today.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): There was a good-news announcement today in Oshawa. I was expecting the question on this to be coming from either the third party or the official opposition, but I appreciate very much the question coming on the first anniversary of Bill 40, because in fact General Motors has announced that in a competition with two US-based plants in Indiana and Michigan the Oshawa plant was successful in its bid for a third shift at the truck plant in Oshawa.

Ontario played a constructive role. I met with the chairman of the Canadian company, Mr Peapples, together with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. We had some very good discussions, together with the auto workers. Ontario is providing $5 million to assist in retraining workers displaced from other GM facilities, which we think will help to put people back to work.

I can tell the honourable member that we're very proud of our association with this successful announcement today. I think if you add this announcement today to the announcement yesterday which the Minister of Natural Resources made, it shows that all the naysayers and the doom-and-gloom participants on the other side have got it wrong and that in fact Ontario is a good place to do business, that people are choosing to do business here and that they're choosing Oshawa as a site to do business.

We're very proud of our association with the good citizens of Oshawa and with the auto workers in Oshawa. We're proud to be walking both with the citizens of Oshawa and with the good citizens of General Motors as we create new jobs in the province of Ontario.

Mr Owens: By way of supplementary, as I indicated in my initial question, 3,000 workers --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Durham East, please come to order.

Mr Owens: I, along with the members for Scarborough West and Scarborough East, attended the funeral service for the Scarborough van plant. Again, in case the members across in the third party didn't hear, 3,000 jobs were lost in Scarborough as a result of free trade.

Premier, my question is to you. As part of the continuing economic program of this government, how will this announcement benefit the members of my riding as well as other Scarborough ridings?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, the other aspect of the news which I think is good even in difficult times is that the workers who've been laid off at the Scarborough van plant will be redeployed initially to fill these new jobs in Oshawa. The skills that have been built up in Scarborough for many, many years will be put to good use in the new truck shift line in Oshawa.

I can say to the member that I think this is an indication, it's a vote of confidence, even in a time of change and of dramatic reduction of its overall workforce by General Motors in North America -- it's shown very clearly that, case by case, Chrysler has chosen Ontario, Ford has chosen Ontario, GM has chosen Ontario. I think it's time that members of the opposition started to choose Ontario as well and recognize that there are a lot of good things going on.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Attorney General.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. I'm not sure she heard. The member for Mississauga North has a question for the Attorney General.

Mr Offer: Yesterday I asked a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. The question focused firstly on your government's regulation that at least 30% of soft drinks be sold in refillable containers; secondly, that the average monthly refillable figure for the last six months was about 7%; and, thirdly, that no charges had been laid since June 1991. I'm now going to ask a page to take over a copy of the Hansard of yesterday's questions.

You will see in the minister's statement it reads: "The question of charges is one that has been considered carefully and the decision was made some time ago and that decision is under review, that we should try to negotiate agreements that would make it possible to resolve this issue without charges if that were an appropriate way to move. However, we are actively considering a number of options."

The investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of Environment is supposed to be independent. As the Attorney General of this province, is it proper and appropriate that the independence of this branch be compromised by any interference as to whether charges will or will not be laid?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm not sure that I understand the implication of the member's question. If he is suggesting that the independence has been compromised, I would be concerned about that. It is the job of the enforcement branch of the ministry to look into each case and determine on the facts of the matter whether or not charges should be laid.

If the decision is that charges would be laid and the legal advice is that indeed it is a prosecutable offence, then obviously our ministry would support that decision.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, I hope the Attorney General will read the question and answer of yesterday's Hansard. With respect to your response to my question, will you commit to this Legislature today that you will investigate and report back to this chamber whether there has been interference in the independence of the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of Environment in the laying of charges in this matter?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Certainly I will.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Treasurer and it concerns his budget. Tourism and hospitality operators have reacted with shock, anger and frustration two full weeks after the announcement of your budget. You've destroyed our prospects with foreign travellers by eliminating the provincial sales tax rebate program, you've destroyed our prospects with business people by reducing the meals and entertainment write-off to 50% and you've destroyed the holiday plans of thousands of Ontario families by confiscating their disposable income through your income tax hikes, that double whack that takes effect July 1, the start of the summer tourism season.

How can you possibly justify this devastating kick in the teeth to the thousands of Ontarians employed in tourism and hospitality who are going to lose their jobs because of your budget?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Wellington would really have to stretch his argument a long way to make the case that this budget would do any damage whatsoever to the tourist industry. On the contrary --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Could I be allowed to make the counterargument, at least? The member talked about the rebate. I think the day is gone when governments -- and we're no exception here in this case -- can continue to have a program with a supporting bureaucracy when less than 1% of tourists ever applied for the rebate. I don't believe that we should continue to have programs that have that small an uptake. I think it makes no sense whatsoever.

On the question --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate your assistance, Mr Speaker. On the question of the meals and the expenses, a meal deduction, companies being allowed to write down meals from 80% of the cost down to 50%, that is hardly punitive. That's already been recommended as a move to take place in the United States, so it would hardly be a surprise to tourists coming to this province that we're reducing it from 80% to 50%. I think that's only fair. There's nothing untoward about that.

Finally, for hotels in the greater Toronto area, the cancellation of the commercial concentration tax I believe will save the industry about $15 million a year. So, if anything, I would say this is a pro-tourism budget, certainly not an anti-tourism budget.

Mr Arnott: Certainly we on this side were pleased that the commercial concentration tax was lifted. It only applies to the greater Toronto area. There is a lot more to the province, and the member for Nickel Belt knows that very well. But by your answer it's clear that you have no understanding whatsoever of the devastation you've caused the tourism and hospitality sector with your budget, with your tax increases on top of five years of Liberal tax-and-spend policies and 33 separate tax increases.

Your policies don't invite people to come to travel and vacation in Ontario. Your policies are telling people to stay away from Ontario. How do you expect the tourism industry in Ontario to recover?

Hon Mr Laughren: The one part of the member's first question I didn't respond to, because I was running out of time and the Speaker was looking askance at me, had to do with the question of income tax. Surely to goodness the member opposite, the member from Wellington, doesn't expect that people in the tourist industry should be exempt from the level of taxation that other people in this province have to bear.

Mr Arnott: No, they can't afford to go on vacations.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, you cannot separate people in the tourist industry and say that they shouldn't be assuming their fair share of the burden.

Finally, I hope the member from Wellington would never ask me to justify the tax-and-spend policies of the Liberal government when it was in office.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY PROGRAM

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. The internship program that the Management Board administers is a valuable employment equity program that has been quite successful over the past eight years. I understand that this program has been cut. A number of my constituents were quite hopeful this program would provide the work experience and environment they would otherwise not have access to. Could the Chair please clarify the status of this program?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for the question. This is a question that's similar to the one that the Leader of the Opposition raised a couple of weeks ago, and I'd like to take a moment to clarify the situation.

Firstly, let me tell the member that we have not cancelled the employment equity internship program. In fact, during the expenditure reduction process we made a very explicit decision not to cancel it. It is true that there will be no first-year applicants accepted into the program this year. The program has been a very successful program over the last eight years but because, as members will recall, we announced in last year's budget a staff reduction of 2,500, which we've been proceeding to implement over the course of the last year, we haven't been able to take the graduates of this program into the civil service.

We've had a hard time placing people, so all of the second-year participants in the program will continue this year, there will be no new applicants taken in this year, and then next year new applicants will be accepted into the program again.

Mr Malkowski: I'm wondering if this cut will affect people who have recently been placed for training and work experience.

Hon Mr Charlton: All of those currently in the program will continue to the end of the program.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, I just gave you notice that I would be rising on a question of personal privilege. As the opposition critic for women's issues, this afternoon I directed a question to the minister responsible for women's issues. The minister in turn referred my question to the Minister of Health.

Mr Speaker, if you look at

section 33(

f) of the standing orders, it states, "A minister to whom an oral question is directed may refer the question to another minister who is responsible for the subject matter to which the question relates." I specifically draw your attention to the words "who is responsible for the subject matter."

My question was very clearly one about the minister's advocacy on behalf of women, and it also very clearly asked the minister where she was as an advocate for women on this issue and if, as minister responsible for women's issues, she would go to bat for women.

My question was not directed to the Minister of Health for a very good reason. This policy has a major impact on women and it is the minister responsible for women's issues' job, in fact her duty, to advocate for women. The major job of this ministry is advocacy. It cannot spend large sums of money. It does not have direct responsibility for a lot of programs. Instead it's an advocacy position within many ministries.

It was very clear that the referral was inappropriate and in fact the Minister of Health was not in a position to answer my three questions, which were all related to the minister responsible for women's issues' advocacy on behalf of women relating to health care, child care and Jobs Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I will tell you, if you allow the minister to refer questions of advocacy, then ipso facto you have denied me the right and in fact the ability to do my job as women's issues critic for the official opposition. I can't even file a notice of dissatisfaction, because the minister responsible for women's issues would not be required to answer, the Minister of Health would, and she can't answer those questions on advocacy.

This issue has ramifications far beyond women's issues. Questions for critics on any advocacy ministry, whether women's issues, seniors or francophone affairs, could be impacted by this precedent.

Mr Speaker, I would ask you to look at the Hansard from today's proceedings and to give me a decision whether in fact this question was appropriately referred, because it is my feeling that if this is denied, then I cannot appropriately do my job in this Legislature as opposition critic for women's issues.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I'm going to deal with this point of order and --

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: But you didn't ask the question. With respect, I'd be happy to hear the member later on his particular point of order.

To the member for Eglinton, while I stand by the ruling which I made earlier, I am of course pleased to take a look at Hansard. What I observe is that there seemed to be some genuine misunderstanding as to the precise nature of the question being posed, and in the view of the Chair at the time, the question had an implication of health matters. Therefore, when the minister asked, as is her right to do so, to refer the question, I allowed that referral to occur.

The member is quite right that, based on the circumstances, she cannot file her dissatisfaction except with the minister who responded. However, the confusion has been noted and it may be that the minister responsible for women's issues may wish to discuss this matter with you outside of the chamber or the member may wish to come back to the House at oral questions on another occasion to pose the question.

Having said that, as I stated before, I am always pleased to take a look at Hansard and judge accordingly. The member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: I was a bit confused too in the response from the Minister of Health. When she was asked, "Who's the minister responsible for women's issues?" she said, "All ministers are." The point where I'm confused is, why is it then that we do have a minister responsible for women's issues in the meantime, and spending all that amount of money in that ministry, then to say, "All ministers are responsible for women's issues"? I feel there has been confusion over on this side.

The Speaker: The member doesn't want to raise a point of confusion, I'm sure.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Mr Speaker, on that point, surely the member would understand that even in my responsibility for natives, all ministers should be ultimately responsible for taking into account aboriginal rights in making decisions.

The Speaker: All members are responsible for a number of things. The member for Eglinton has a new point.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, if I could just make one further comment before you review the Hansard, I just wanted to quote you directly from my questions today, the last two paragraphs of my question. It said, "Minister, where were you as the advocate for women when this devastating decision was made at the cabinet table" --

The Speaker: Would the member please take her seat. I've already indicated to the member that I'm pleased to take a look at Hansard, and what she is quoting from now are remarks which are contained in Hansard.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which has been signed by a number of members of Eden United Church, which is opposing the establishment of gambling casinos in the province of Ontario. The petition reads:

"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."

As I've said, this is signed by members of Eden United Church.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My petition is 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."

I have signed my name to it. It's from St Paul's United Church in Orillia and it has 97 signatures.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Peterborough, 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."

There are about 117 signatures to this petition.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

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

"We strongly object to the latest obscenity that this government has foisted on the taxpayers of Ontario and in particular the senior citizens of Ontario. I am referring to Floyd Laughren's $4-billion reduction to health care services.

"The senior citizens of Ontario deserve more and better consideration from the government of the province of Ontario, and while some of us may be a bit feeble, most of us have a very long memory."

I have signed this petition.

GAMBLING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this 100% and I'm very happy to sign it.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Another petition from Windsor, which adds to the thousands of signatures from Windsor alone against casino gambling:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown conclusively 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 at any time to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

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

I'm very pleased to affix my signature to this fine and important petition.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by approximately 40 individuals from my riding and it reads:

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

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

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That petition is signed by about 100 constituents and by me.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

This petition is endorsed by 5,200 residents from Ontario, the town of Port Elgin and the surrounding area around the Bruce nuclear power development and I affix my signature.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here:

"Whereas we feel that the Canada-US free trade deal has done 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 losses of not only more jobs, but also a reduction of our environmental standards, our labour standards, our social standards, our workers' rights and our overall quality of life;

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal with whatever means possible, and we ask Mr White, the MPP for Durham Centre, to present the petition on our behalf to the Ontario Legislature and to forward it, on our behalf, to Ottawa."

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition. As you know, Mr Speaker, this is a petition that includes some 15,600-plus signatures in support of the continued operation of Bruce A.

GAMBLING

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and 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."

Signed by 43 people in the Ingleside, Lunenburg, Newington area, and I have affixed my signature to it.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with 91 signatures which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the Rehabilitation Centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome.''

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

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

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all the units at Bruce A."

As you know from previous petitions read in, there are several reasons for supporting Bruce A. I won't read those out now. I have attached my signature to support the petition. Over 15,600 people have also signed this petition.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here:

"Whereas we feel that the US-Canada free trade deal has done 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 that the proposed North American free trade agreement will have an even more devastating effect on Ontario, resulting in losses of not only more jobs, but also it will cause a reduction in environmental standards, labour standards, workers' rights and an overall quality of life,

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fight this deal with whatever means possible, and to petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal now."

It's been signed by folks like Jim Freeman, by the McCloskeys, and Len Burns here, and I affix my name to it as well.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 25 seniors in my riding who are concerned about the reduction in health care services, causing the Ontario drug benefit program to be jeopardized. I also signed this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting the City of London and Covent Garden Building Incorporated

Bill Pr85,

An Act to revive The Optimist Club of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Your committee begs to report the following bills with amendments:

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting the City of London

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Town of Gravenhurst

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr85,

An Act to revive The Optimist Club of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would like to make a brief statement on one of the appointments in that report, Ms Rosemary Brown, to the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I wish her success on behalf of all of us. As Mr Curling said in the committee this morning, this is a very important appointment to a very important commission, agency, in this province and we wish her Godspeed in her work on behalf of the people in this province.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE COMMUNAUTAIRE

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

Bill 40,

An Act to stimulate Economic Development through the Creation of Community Economic Development Corporations and through certain amendments to the Education Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act / Loi visant à stimuler le développement économique grâce à la création de sociétés de développement économique communautaire et à certaines modifications apportées à la

Loi sur l'éducation, à la

Loi sur les municipalités, à la

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et à la

Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement d'une ceinture de promenade.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): This act, which is a fairly large and complicated act, gives communities in Ontario new ways to raise their own investment capital and forge new grass-roots economic partnerships through legislation which we've just introduced. It also contains amendments to the Planning Act that will save both time and money by creating a smoother and more efficient and effective planning and development review process.

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS CERTIFICATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ACCRÉDITATION DES UTILISATEURS DE BATEAUX À MOTEUR

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

Bill 41,

An Act to provide for the Certification of Motor Boat Operators / Loi prévoyant l'accréditation des utilisateurs de bateaux à moteur.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The bill, which applies only in respect to motor boats propelled by engines of at least 10 horsepower, prohibits the operation of such a motor boat by any person who does not have a motor boat operator's certificate.

The bill requires every person to carry a motor boat operator's certificate while operating a motor boat to which the bill applies and to produce it when requested to do so by a police officer. If unable or unwilling to produce the certificate, the motor boat operator is required to give the police officer his or her name and address.

The bill creates the offences of careless operation of a motor boat and impaired operation of a motor boat.

Finally, the person who contravenes any of the provisions of the bill or certain regulations made under the bill is liable to pay a fine not exceeding $1,000 and in some cases to have his or her motor boat operator's certificate suspended or revoked.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr Owens, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 17,

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

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have any opening comments?

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): In February of this year the Premier announced our government's economic renewal strategy. In this economic renewal strategy we stated quite clearly our commitment to invest in jobs and public infrastructure. These two items are extremely vital in keeping Ontario competitive.

I'm pleased to be here today to take action on the strategy with the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993.

This piece of legislation will establish four crown corporations that are mandated to seek new sources of funding and innovative partnerships with the private and public sectors. It also creates new ways of financing capital projects for the education and health sectors.

From the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp we will be able to speed development of rapid transit and highways within the province. Projects such as the Eglinton West subway, the Sheppard line, the Spadina lines and the Scarborough RT expansion will create jobs and benefit local businesses as well as aid commuters across the city.

The corporation will seek innovative means of financing, such as contributions from businesses that benefit from their proximity to the transit lines. Tolls will help pay for the building of Highway 407.

The Ontario Clean Water Agency will assist municipalities to provide more cost-effective water and sewage services.

With the Ontario Financing Authority we will be creating an agent with expertise and focus to manage the financing activities of the province in these corporations.

As part of the financing authority, the Province of Ontario Savings Offices will become part of the financing authority and their mandate will be not only to receive the deposits of Ontarians, as they have in the past, but also to develop new financing instruments and develop a more business-like and entrepreneurial operation.

Some questions have been raised with respect to these corporations. One of these has been accountability. I'm here today to tell this House that these crown corporations will clearly be accountable to the government for their activities. Each crown corporation will have a board of directors that reports to a minister. They will receive their policy direction from the government and annual reports will be tabled here in the Legislature.

This type of accountability will allow the government to keep its finger on the pulse of the corporations while allowing these corporations to operate in the entrepreneurial and more creative way that this province needs in terms of bringing capital investment to the province.

In terms of the new types of financing that we will be looking at, we will certainly be looking at loan-based financing. This will enable universities, hospitals and school boards to access loan-based financing, which will be a help to them in terms of spreading out the payments for projects over a longer period of time. The loan-based financing for capital projects will provide, as I say, a more stable approach to the funding and will allow projects to get up to speed in a faster manner.

This change, which we are describing as being transparent, will not affect the costs of these partners. We're clearly being open about the changes and how they will affect our transfer partners. I think the important thing to note here is that these partners have been consulted with extensively on these changes.

In closing, I want to reinforce that this is a new way of doing business in the province of Ontario. It is going to allow partnerships to exist between the private sector and the government through these crown corporations to develop the important capital infrastructure projects that would otherwise not be possible. It will enable the government to do more for economic renewal and job creation across the province during a time of serious fiscal constraints. We'll be able to, again, move ahead with the project sooner. It will also enable us to take advantage of lower construction costs that are now available.

Ontario's ways of developing infrastructure must keep pace with the reality of today's competitive world. The entrepreneurial partnerships that this bill allows will encourage efficient and more cost-effective operations. By using new and creative ways to invest in jobs and infrastructure now, we're laying the foundation for a strong and competitive future for all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to begin the debate on what's called Bill 17. I guess I would first indicate to the government that we have some significant concerns regarding the bill.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Surprise, surprise.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education and Training said, "Surprise, surprise." I'd just say to him that I asked the Premier in December if he would consider bringing forward this legislation early so we would have an opportunity to look at it before the budget was presented. I asked the question of the Premier: "Premier, my question is this: If you put the budget together on the basis of these capital corporations, prepare it on a basis on which we have had no discussion, will you undertake to send to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, when its pre-budget hearings are taking place, your proposals?"

The reason we wanted to do that is that fundamental to the budget is this new way of funding capital. There are some major concerns about this. The government may not want to have a full and open discussion on this, but I think the people of Ontario deserve it.

While the Minister of Education may barrack over in his seat about the need for it, I would say to him that these capital corporations will be spending literally billions of dollars, running up literally billions of dollars of debt, and I think it's important that the people of the province have a debate about it.

I would expect that this bill will be sent to our committee, that there will be an opportunity for a thorough and open debate, that the public will be involved in looking at it.

The reason I say the bill is very important -- I will give you a few examples and then we'll get into some details.

In the budget the Treasurer talks about loan-based financing. Just so everyone out there understands, the province spends about $600 million a year -- this may get the interest of the ministers -- on school, college, university and hospital capital. That's been going on for years and years and years, $600 million to $700 million a year. The government says it will spend again this year $600 million on that, and it is anticipated, I gather, that you will continue to spend $600 million a year.

One of the objects of this bill is to allow that to continue to go on, not in the form of grants -- it used to be that the province provided school boards with grants for this capital construction. The school board got approval to build a school; the province then provided a grant for that school. Similarly with hospitals, the hospital got approval for an expansion or a new hospital; the province provided the money.

What's going to happen now, and I'm not sure many people are aware of this, is that the schools are going to have to, believe it or not, borrow that money on the province's behalf. The schools will have to go out and borrow the $600 million that used to come in the form of a grant. They're going to have to borrow that money and lend it to the province. So the province is going to, each year, under this bill and under the budget, go out and ask school boards and hospitals to borrow for them, for the province, $600 million a year.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's not true.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education is shaking his head and saying, "That's not true." That is true. That's exactly what's going to happen. What's going to happen under this bill is, every year the province is going to run up about $600 million of brand-new debt. It won't show up on the province's books, though; it will be on a school board's books or on a hospital's books -- $600 million. What we're going to do is add that kind of debt, hidden debt, to the people of this province. That's one thing we will be wanting to look at very clearly.

The second thing is that the parliamentary assistant said that these are

schedule 4 agencies and they will be subject to the normal scrutiny by the Legislature. The jargon that's used around the Legislature is that they are

schedule 4 agencies. They're independent, arm's-length agencies. They will have their own board of directors. They will be like workers' compensation; that's an independent agency with its own board at its own arm's length.

That's the second thing we will want to look at, the arm's-length nature of this, and whether this an area where we want to, as a public body, turn over to an independent, arm's-length agency the decision-making and the authority to make those decisions. I'd say to the public: That's a debate we need to have. Daily we hear in the Legislature, when a question might get asked about something like workers' compensation, "I'm sorry, but that's an independent agency that has the authority to make those decisions." That will be the second thing.

The third thing is that one of these agencies, called, I guess, the Ontario Financing Authority, will take over all of the authority for managing our roughly $80 billion worth of debt. This is an enormous part of the day-to-day operations of government. The way we as an elected body monitor how we manage that $80 billion worth of debt is extremely important, but it's going to be turned over to this

schedule 4 crown agency, the Ontario Financing Authority. We'll want to understand: What's the public benefit in doing that? What's the public benefit in turning over $80 billion of management to an independent

schedule 4 agency?

Mr Owens: Lower borrowing costs.

Mr Phillips: The member says, "Lower borrowing costs." I will want to have the evidence of that, then. The parliamentary assistant says there will be lower borrowing costs. That will be something we'll want to see, because it is my understanding that this authority is going to take on the responsibility for raising more capital than just for the province. It will want to raise capital for school boards; it will want to raise capital for hospitals. If that's going to result in lower interest costs, then we'll want to see the evidence of that.

I think everyone out there should recognize that we're talking about a significant number of people. The number, as I understand it, will be about 3,000 public servants who currently are in the public service doing work in the various ministries and will be transferred over to these organizations -- 3,000 people, I suspect, with an operating budget of, I don't know, a couple of hundred million dollars. This is an enormous transfer of numbers of people from the traditional public service over into these

schedule 4 agencies. Again, we'll want to know what the benefits of that are. The parliamentary assistant, I hope, as we move to public hearings, will have an opportunity to tell us the reasons for that.

There are elements in here that we're attracted to and that I support, our party supports. We will not be without positive comment on what we think are some of the positive elements in here that we will hope to retain as we attempt to modify the bill.

I don't think there's any doubt but that we do need to look at new partnerships with the private sector. I think the public expect it. There are some really creative opportunities to be doing that. In my own community of Scarborough, there's an opportunity for some private sector involvement in rapid transit that sounds attractive. I understand that, and we will be supportive of attempting to find the mechanisms and the vehicles for that.

I think there are probably many examples in the transportation area where we can be looking at private sector and other involvement. There may also be some in the realty area and some in the transportation area. So that element has our support.

The second thing that has some attraction for us is that it does provide an opportunity to invest countercyclically. I think one of the challenges in government is that when the economy is moving along very, very well, it's a time when probably the investment by the public sector in infrastructure should slow up a little bit. We should probably find the vehicles that we can invest countercyclically, and this bill provides that opportunity where we can have some flexibility in that.

I don't think there's any doubt that our economic success in Ontario does depend on a solid infrastructure. I think we've been fortunate to have a good sewer and water system, but those things aren't guaranteed. I think the transportation system has been good, but those things aren't guaranteed and there's no doubt that our future economic success depends on ensuring that in the province we do invest in these areas, that we stay ahead of the problem.

I've tried to outline for the public and the government, which is moving forward with this bill, our concerns. They are real and substantial, and I would say that none of us should underestimate how important this matter is.

We are talking about setting up an agency to manage, for example, The biggest issue of bonds in the world last year. I think the biggest issue of bonds in the world was done by the Ontario government. So we're talking about setting up an agency that's going to manage that magnitude, that size of financing.

The reason I'm highlighting the school, the college and university and the hospital capital on this new way of financing, which essentially is to get the school boards to borrow the money so the province can fulfil its obligation, the province says, "We'll pay it back over 20 years."

But I say to the government, we are going to run up, every year, almost $600 million worth of debt there. Six years from now, the debt just in this one area alone, where we'll have the province asking the school boards and the colleges and the hospitals that borrow the money, the debt in that one area alone will be equal to the total debt of the province of New Brunswick.

I just use that as an illustration of the magnitude of spending and debt we're talking about here. The budget calls it loan-based financing. If one just read it, you would think: "Gee, this sounds interesting. The province is going to loan money to the school boards." It is exactly the opposite; the school boards are loaning the money to the province.

What the budget says here is that this will not impose any additional cost on the institutions, on the school boards, as the province will provide the institutions with annual instalments required to repay the loans. So it is a loan, not from the province to the institutions; it's a loan the opposite of that.

We are dealing here with a matter of an enormous amount of money and one that I hope the public will take an interest in when it moves to our committee and we'll have an opportunity to comment on it.

I want to spend some time on a little bit more detailed discussion on each of these areas, because the bill probably has three major components. The one is providing the format for a new way of financing school, college, university, hospital capital. The second component of the bill is this whole new way of managing the financing of the province, and that's the Ontario Financing Authority. The third area of the bill is the setting up of these capital corporations, the transportation capital corporation, the sewer and water capital corporation and the realty corporation. I'd like to spend a few moments dealing with each of them.

The first one is this funding of the school, hospital, college, university capital. I went back many years, and the province spends about $600 million to $700 million a year in this area. Based on everything I've read, I suspect the province plans to continue to spend at that rate. Everything I've seen from the government says we have to, if anything, increase our spending on capital, so I expect we're talking each and every year of spending $600 million to $700 million.

As I said, effective April 1, 1993 -- this is already retroactive in the bill -- rather than it going in the form of a grant, in the form of a loan payable by the province. The province is going to owe $600 million a year.

I did my own calculations. If the government has better calculations, I'd like to see them. In fact I've requested them and I'm sure I'll get them shortly. In fairness, I just requested them yesterday and I'd hope as we move to the committee we can see them. So it's not a question of the staff not giving them.

But the numbers I have say, just on the capital of the schools, colleges, universities and ho