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

April 18, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE

DUFFERIN AREA HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

UXBRIDGE FAMILY RESOURCES SHOW

STUDENT DEBATING COMPETITION

ORGAN DONORS

INJURED WORKERS EDUCATIONAL NETWORK

RETAIL SALES TAX

BICYCLING SAFETY

CONSERVATION

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

CANCER TREATMENT

TENDERING PROCESS

ONTARIO HYDRO AGREEMENT

CHILD CARE

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

TOW TRUCK INDUSTRY

ALCOHOL SMUGGLING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

GUN CONTROL

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

GUN CONTROL

AMMUNITION CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Last Thursday marked a very important achievement by six municipalities in my riding of Brant-Haldimand because now the county of Brant and the city of Brantford have access to the enhanced 911 public emergency reporting service.

I congratulate the councils of the city of Brantford and the county of Brant on this important achievement. A great deal of time and effort has gone into bringing this important initiative to the residents of the entire county and the city.

The proposal was initiated by the council of the county of Brant some four years ago and required a great deal of research and coordination by county and city staff and the strong support of the Southwestern Ontario Wardens' Association.

This important initiative was accomplished locally without any involvement or assistance from the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. This was a perfect opportunity for the government to work with the county to provide leadership so other communities across the province could benefit from their experience. However, the province was of little assistance, and now other municipalities are looking at the Brant county-Brantford initiative as a prototype.

Brant county will be the first jurisdiction to use the most advanced 911 system that is available. Small municipalities in rural areas will benefit from the Brant county example because of the unique billing system: a few cents on each subscriber's telephone bill.

I congratulate the city and county on this important initiative.

DUFFERIN AREA HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the House today to acknowledge all the hard work and dedication the Dufferin Area Hospital Auxiliary has provided to the community of Orangeville and district. The hospital auxiliary is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year.

With a membership of 180 volunteers, the auxiliary has provided support to the staff and patients of the Dufferin Area Hospital by operating a gift shop, assisting at the admitting desk, in the emergency department, operating rooms, ambulatory care, and has even provided clerical support in the labs, as well as fund-raising for the hospital building and equipment fund.

As with many organizations in our community, the Dufferin Area Hospital has been busy raising funds for the new hospital. Later this week the Dufferin Area Hospital Auxiliary will fulfil its pledge to the hospital building fund and turn over the last instalment of its five-year commitment to the building fund of $350,000.

I would like to congratulate the Dufferin Area Hospital Auxiliary for all the important duties it performs in and outside the hospital. The care community would not be able to have the wonderful quality of care that it has currently without the support and assistance of the Dufferin Area Hospital Auxiliary.

As politicians, we often talk about how communities must look after themselves by focusing on community-based programs. We can all learn valuable lessons of community support from the Dufferin Area Hospital Auxiliary and how it has worked tirelessly in our community for over 40 years.

I wish them all the best and hope their next 40 years are as successful as the previous 40.

UXBRIDGE FAMILY RESOURCES SHOW

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'm pleased to rise in the Legislature today to inform the House about the Uxbridge Family Resources Show to be held at the Uxbridge seniors centre on Saturday, April 30, 1994, between 10 am and 4 pm.

The family resources show is sponsored by the Durham West Childcare Initiative. It's a celebration to promote the importance of the family and togetherness in our communities. It will be a forum for family organizations and clubs that demonstrate the resources and services they have to offer the Uxbridge community in a fun and festive environment in celebration of 1994, the International Year of the Family.

The day's events are going to include some children's entertainers, the Joseph Gould Jazz Band, which you've heard me speak about before because it has won gold, karate demonstrations and story readings. There will be a supervised children's play area, refreshments and many information displays, all about family resources and services in the Uxbridge area of my riding.

The Uxbridge Family Resources Show will be a great opportunity for everyone in the Uxbridge area to find out about the many local sports clubs, service clubs, schools and churches in the community.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to announce that right here in the Legislature today. I invite anybody who might be here or watching or who lives in the Uxbridge area and all members of the Legislature, including yourself and your family, Mr Speaker, to attend and enjoy the show at the Uxbridge family show. It'll be the 1994 -- it might be the first one of many to come -- Uxbridge Family Resources Show.

STUDENT DEBATING COMPETITION

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): Recently the Ontario Student Debating Union held its 1994 provincial seminar and debating competition at St Andrew's College in Aurora. This competition was held to select the Ontario participants for the Canadian student debating championships to be held later this month in Winnipeg.

Six students representing different geographical regions of the province and from three different debating categories were selected from the Aurora debate. The top bilingual competitor was Neil McGraw of Collège Notre-Dame in Sudbury. The top French-language debater was Stéphanie Malherbe from the Lycée Claudel in Ottawa.

Next month all of these competitors will be meeting with the Lieutenant Governor here at Queen's Park. I believe all the competitors deserve our congratulations and the winners our best wishes for good results in Winnipeg.

ORGAN DONORS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): The week of April 17 has been designated as Organ Donor Awareness Week, and on behalf of my caucus colleagues, I would like to take this opportunity to raise public awareness about this important issue.

Last year 566 Ontarians received organ transplants, transplants that meant a chance at a new life. Sadly, almost 1,000 others are left playing a waiting game, uncertain that a donor organ will ever become available. Unfortunately, this tragic situation occurs because the public is unaware of the importance of donated organs. Too few people in Ontario have signed organ donor cards and discussed their wishes with their families.

This critical need for donors is what prompted the Mutual Group to take action and launch, in the fall of 1992, a national organ donor awareness program, By Mutual Consent. This program believes that by providing accurate information about organ donation and encouraging families to discuss this important issue, some of the barriers that currently prevent donation from occurring can be broken down.

I congratulate the Mutual Group on making a solid commitment to organ donation and I would encourage all members of this House to join the Mutual Group at a reception to recognize national Organ Donor Awareness Week this Wednesday evening.

In conclusion, I urge you to remember that each person in this province can make a difference in addressing the critical need for organ donors by signing an organ donor card and ensuring that our family members are aware of our wishes. "By Mutual Consent" we can break barriers to organ donation.

INJURED WORKERS EDUCATIONAL NETWORK

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to inform the members of this Legislature of a book launch that took place in my region on March 24. The Waterloo-Wellington Injured Workers Educational Network, which was formed last spring, officially launched its first project, A Guide to Filing a WCB Claim.

The network serves a multipurpose role in our community. It provides a localized support group for individuals seeking information, support and advice. The network is a community-based organization bringing together diverse agencies, organizations and groups which deliver services to injured workers in the Waterloo-Wellington area.

The booklet is written in plain language. It offers dos and don'ts and explains the process and the steps that are involved. For those individuals, especially those not having union representation, who have never had to deal with an injury claim before, it can be rather intimidating when they do not know what to expect. As with anything else, education is a key element to understanding, assisting and guiding.

The educational network is composed of various individuals and representatives from local unions, employee associations, injured workers and representatives from various service organizations and agencies at the municipal and provincial levels. Each of these representatives brings to the education network valuable experience and understanding of the system and the process.

I wish to take this opportunity to commend this group for its efforts, its understanding and its desire to enhance service delivery and empower injured workers through education. The booklet is unique in that it provides information specific to the services in the Waterloo-Wellington area, unlike other more general brochures which are available.

I understand this is the first of many projects for the Waterloo-Wellington Injured Workers Educational Network and I wish it well in its joint efforts for information-sharing and education.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): The Minister of Finance has announced today that he has decided to reduce his tax on the brew-on-premises industry. I have raised concerns about this tax on at least five occasions in this House and I have spoken to the minister informally about the problems his tax would create and has created.

My first response to the minister's announcement today is to say thank you. My second response is to ask him two questions.

First, why did he not reduce the tax earlier, when it was plain for all to see that it was killing business and putting people out of work?

As soon as the tax was implemented last August, sales volumes plummeted by as much as 50%. Shortly thereafter, people started losing their jobs and businesses started to close. In fact, to date, over 400 people have lost their jobs and dozens of operations have gone bankrupt or into receivership. The minister steadfastly refused to lower his tax, while employees lost their jobs and small business entrepreneurs lost their businesses and their homes they had put up for security. This tax reduction comes too late for these victims.

My second question for the minister is this: Why did he ever even implement this tax at such a high rate in the first place?

You-brews had been a small business anomaly in Ontario. They were growing and thriving during the recession. They had created 2,000 jobs and 235 small businesses before the tax took its toll. Our Minister of Finance cannot be forgiven for failing to recognize that this fledgling Ontario small business industry, instead of being penalized with taxes for growing, ought to have been, at a minimum, left alone to prosper and to create jobs.

The new tax took a success story and turned it into a tragedy. The minister, incredibly, turned a silk purse into a sow's ear.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'd really like to congratulate the London Free Press, the Toronto Sun and other media for promoting safe cycling and the wearing of bicycle helmets.

In Ontario two million cyclists, including almost 500,000 people over the age of 15, rely on bicycles as their primary means of transportation. The Highway Traffic Act recognizes bicycles as legitimate vehicles entitled to share the road. They must be equipped with a working bell, horn and proper lights.

As of October 1, 1995, approved bicycle helmets will be mandatory when cycling. At Queen's Park, a bicycle safety team has been formed to effectively implement this legislation. It includes representatives from the ministries of Transportation, Health, Education and Training, the Solicitor General and Correctional Services and Culture, Tourism and Recreation as well as the Ontario Head Injury Association, the Children's Bike Helmet Coalition, police services, the Ontario Cycling Association and cycling groups from both Toronto and Ottawa.

The mandate is to raise bicycle safety public awareness and modify behaviour in order to reduce the number of bicycle accidents, the resulting injuries and their associated economic and societal costs. One of the team's goals for 1994 is to increase the acceptance of helmet use and to educate the public on the correct way of wearing bicycle helmets.

I'd like to show the Legislative Assembly this wonderful poster, produced by the government, to encourage young children, especially adolescents, to wear their helmets and to be safe.

CONSERVATION

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): On Friday, April 15, my colleague Fred Wilson and I had the honour of unveiling for the Napanee Region Conservation Authority its conservation strategy. The NRCA, together with other agencies and the public, has developed a shared vision for the Napanee and Salmon River watersheds and a clear path to get here. The conservation strategy will guide the authority's activities over the next decade. The 1990s have brought new challenges to the authority but also many opportunities. The strategy offers creative ways to deal with expected challenges and a way to deliver the programs efficiently and effectively.

Innovative ways to manage resources include new partnerships with the public and other agencies, improved public relations and outdoor education, better protection of environmentally sensitive areas and involving residents in efforts to improve the health of the natural environment. The strategy turns its focus to anticipating and addressing problems before they occur rather than reacting to them later.

The Napanee Region Conservation Authority will also improve its financial situation through various means of increasing its resources and improving efficiency.

The application of the conservation strategy will contribute to improvements to wetlands, woodlands and wildlife managed by the authority and ultimately to improvements in water quality in the Bay of Quinte.

I would like to congratulate the NRCA board, its chairman, Wayne Parks, its manager, Terry Murphy, and all those who contributed to the conservation strategy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): This is National Citizenship Week, and it is being marked across Canada this week to celebrate the privilege of belonging to this great country, Canada. It is a time to thank Canada for its generosity and to ask ourselves how we can contribute to its future.

Ontario has always valued the immense contribution immigrants and refugees have made to the province's social, economic and cultural life, and unless we are from the aboriginal community, we are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants. It is therefore ironic that the federal government chose to announce decisions last Friday which will affect newcomers, immigrant settlement organizations and all Ontarians.

Federal Immigration Minister Sergio Marchi said that effective May 15, the adjustment assistance program, also known as AAP, will be restricted to government-sponsored refugees. Effective June 1, fees for immigration services will increase, including the introduction of a $500 application fee for permanent residency for successful refugee claimants, who were previously exempt.

As my colleague Tony Silipo, Minister of Community and Social Services, pointed out to reporters at a press conference last Friday, changes to the AAP will hurt an estimated 5,000 indigent independent immigrants and in-Canada refugees living in Ontario for less than a year. Since many of these people will not be able to find work immediately, they will have no option but to seek social assistance until they are employed. This will end up costing Ontarians an estimated $16.5 million annually in additional social assistance costs alone.

It is unacceptable that the federal government continues to download costs to this province. The decisions Ottawa announced last Friday come on top of the ceiling on Canada assistance plan payments and signal a continuing abdication of financial responsibility to the people of this province. Before Ottawa released its budget in February, this province asked the federal government, and especially our Ontario colleagues, to address the cap on CAP issue. It didn't, and now it is exacerbating the situation with its latest action.

The AAP has been on the books since 1948, providing necessary assistance to newcomers. Ontario will be particularly hard hit by Ottawa's changes because it is home to 59% of all immigrants and refugees who come to Canada, yet it receives only 39% of federal immigration funding for settlement and language training. Ottawa spends $760 on every immigrant who comes to Ontario, compared to $1,900 for those who settle in Quebec and $1,500 for those who settle elsewhere in Canada.

I am dismayed at this unilateral federal action, which was made without appropriate consultation with either this government or community partners despite the fact that Ontario is about to begin negotiations with Ottawa on a provincial-federal immigration agreement.

This just emphasizes even more the need for a bilateral immigration agreement. According to Mr Marchi's statement, Quebec is exempted from the federal decisions because it negotiated a bilateral accord signed in 1991.

Ottawa's decision to modify the AAP will have a devastating effect on many newcomers to Ontario and indeed to Canada. The restriction of AAP will result in ending federal financial assistance for food, clothing and housing to eligible indigent refugee claimants who have been accepted as UN convention refugees to Canada.

I'm also concerned that legitimate refugees, unable to pay the newly introduced application fees, will not have access to landed immigrant status, denying such refugees their full participation in our society. Several community organizations have already expressed fear that the federal government's actions last Friday will add new obstacles to refugees who have left life-threatening situations to come to Canada. Community organizations serving newcomers will have to deal with additional pressures resulting from these changes.

The changes to AAP, the continued cap on CAP and the absence of fair treatment for Ontario in settlement and language-training funding are not fair. They are not fair to Ontario, they are not fair to the newcomers who choose and want to contribute to our society, and they are not fair to the many organizations that help newcomers settle and integrate into our province.

I am therefore calling on Mr Marchi to rescind his decision on changes to the AAP and to discuss with his provincial counterparts, as well as community partners, how we can all work together to provide appropriate support to newcomers in the most effective, efficient and cost-efficient manner.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Responses?

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): It is quite unclear, frankly, just what the purpose of the minister's statement has been today. If we look at the first two paragraphs, I think all of us in this House can well agree with the minister that we want to celebrate National Citizenship Week, that we want to celebrate the fact that so many people continue to choose to come to Canada, to become Canadians, to participate in Canadian life and to give to this country their talents and all that people from all over the world can give. All of that we support in what the minister has said and we believe equally in that.

But the rest of the statement is one where frankly what one hears is a kind of selective outrage that's going on. The minister chooses to talk about some things the federal government has done. What about her own government and what it has done to refugees and what it has done to people from other countries who have come here?

Why, if this government says it feels so strongly about the issue of refugees, did the Minister of Community and Social Services last summer say that for sponsored immigrants on welfare, their cheques were going to be cut to $50? That was done last summer, done with no discussion, just wham, it was done.

If this government feels so strongly about the question of refugees and immigrants, then why did the Minister of Health rise in her place only a few short weeks ago --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Beer: -- to announce that she's taking $48 million out of the system in terms of helping refugees, in terms of allowing foreign students to be on OHIP?

What we have here, I simply say to the minister, is that there's an awful lot of hypocrisy that's going around, both federally and provincially, on this issue.

The minister says, "We're going to sit down and start to negotiate a federal-provincial agreement." Well, where have you been? This is 1994. Where were you in 1993? You could have negotiated an agreement. Where were you in 1992, in 1991? You have not negotiated an agreement, and by the minister's very own words, the fact that the Quebec government had an agreement meant, therefore, that it was protected from this change. Where has this government been in arguing the case for better immigrant settlement and adaptation and better treatment of refugees?

I remind the minister responsible for citizenship that it was the federal Liberal government that finally acted on the question of work permits. This was something that we and I, as minister, had put to the previous government, and it is something Mr Axworthy moved on and said yes, it makes sense. Refugees don't want to get social assistance, they want to work, and a way of doing it is to ensure that they can get work permits.

Again there needs to be a negotiated settlement to ensure we have the dollars necessary for those settlement programs. The question is not, does the federal government have a responsibility? We agree with the government. They do have a responsibility. But this government has a clear responsibility, knowing full well that there is no immigration agreement between the federal and provincial governments and knowing full well that the Canada assistance plan is going to end and will have to be replaced with something else.

Where are you? Where are your ideas? Where are your plans? Where are your proposals to sit down with the federal government, with other provinces, if you wish? Remember that in terms of immigrant settlement agreements --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Beer: -- there are six provinces that already have signed agreements with the federal government.

This government has been in office since the fall of 1990, and it never seemed to be important to them in 1990 or 1991 or 1992 or 1993. Now, all of a sudden, we get this statement from the minister, which is supposedly having something to do with National Citizenship Week, and what it turns out to be, in the words of Jim Bradley, is that it's number one and number two and whatever other numbers are at play where you blame everything on the federal government.

There are things that the federal government, of whatever political stripe, does that we may not like, but what we have to do in this place is to call the government's tune and say, "If you've got specific proposals to improve the way in which immigrants and refugees are dealt with, then let's put them forward."

Go out and negotiate that agreement. Go out and make changes to the ESL agreement. Recognize good things that the federal government has done, such as allowing the work permits. But that's what you should be doing: getting up today in this House and announcing what positive measures you are going to do. Are you going to go back and change what the Minister of Health did earlier this spring and change what the Minister of Community and Social Services did last summer? That's the challenge.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Let's just take it right to the people. Let's go to the people now. We're ready.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It's your time. The member for Burlington South.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I am quite shocked at the machinations and the responses coming from the Liberal benches.

At the outset can I just simply say that nothing in this announcement today changes the capacity of Canadians to welcome new Canadians. Nothing in this announcement today diminishes the compassion that our country has to welcome new Canadians. What in fact is contained in this document, rightly or wrongly, is a clear understanding that all Canadians are having to struggle with the ravages of a recession and that all Canadians are sharing in the responsibility of seeking solutions to the economic times we find ourselves in.

I think it's fair for our country and indeed this province to look upon today's announcement just as a worker who's been laid off at the General Motors plant in St Catharines has to look at today's announcement, just as a family struggling to survive on social assistance in this province, just as a small businessman who's laying off several of his long-time employees. All Canadians, and that includes all of us who are ourselves the products of new immigration to this country, have a responsibility to look upon this announcement as a new challenge.

The largest opportunity that faced the leadership of the Ontario government on this issue was opened during the Meech Lake discussions. It's very clear that it was in those discussions and in that context that Quebec clearly enunciated its vision of where it belonged in our country. It tabled in those discussions what its view was on immigration and what it was prepared to do to determine its own future with respect to immigration.

At that time, David Peterson, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, chose not to take a similar position for Ontario, and so today's announcement is clearly an indication of the failure on the part of the Ontario Liberal government in 1989 and 1990, during the Meech Lake and subsequent discussions, to deal with the issue of a federal agreement.

Today the Minister of Community and Social Services, who stands in this House on a weekly basis and is, quite frankly, assaulted by all members of the House for the problems that exist in this province, problems around the growing number of our citizens on social assistance, the growing number of vulnerable children in this province -- this is yet one more issue that has fallen on to his table, along with the Premier's, to deal with with the federal government.

I listened intently to the member for York-Mackenzie, who presented himself for the leadership of the Liberal Party, and I am sure that he personally has his own sense of priorities for this province that he would have brought had he become the Liberal leader. For that reason, I suggest that he save his speech, the one he gave to the government and to the Conservative Party of Ontario today in the House, and share that with the 98 federal members who were just recently elected.

The dialogue should begin immediately with those individuals who won in the last federal election to represent Ontarians' interests, not just the Ontarians who are today paying the taxes for this province -- we're told time and time again that Ontario taxpayers pay a disproportionate amount, a larger share, in order to share in the vision of our country. But it's equally important that those 99 or 98 federal Liberal members of Parliament begin the dialogue as to what kind of home we are going to provide for new Canadians in the province of Ontario.

There will always be a home for new immigrants in Ontario. It's part of the vision of Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. But I remind all members of the House that nothing in this announcement today diminishes the capacity of our country to welcome these people and nothing diminishes our ability to work with these people and their families to ensure that they become contributing members of an Ontario society to assist us back on the road towards prosperity.

That's what Mike Harris believes and that's what the Progressive Conservative Party feels about this announcement today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General. If anybody needs the protection of gun control legislation in this province, it has to be the Attorney General, because she keeps shooting herself in the foot.

She has done it again at the SIU, the special investigations unit, where the SIU has had to suspend a special investigator who was hired under circumstances where he was subject to charges for obstruction of justice and forgery with the Waterloo police department. Minister, you know that you've had this problem in the past; in fact, in December, with another hiring. Would you please tell the people of Ontario why and how this could have happened again.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): As the member is well aware, appointments to the civil service are not done by politically elected officials. There is a process that goes forward, and a very clear process that goes forward, under which people are hired under the public service. That process was followed in this case.

The member is well aware that the allegations that have been brought were not known to either the Waterloo Regional Police or to the SIU, that thorough checks were made and thorough reference checks were made, and that this has arisen subsequently. One of the issues we need to be clear about in this kind of case is that this kind of allegation can arise no matter how much care in hiring is undertaken.

I would simply say to the member that we take very seriously the concerns that have been raised about the personnel in the SIU. We have undertaken and are continuing to undertake with the various police organizations in the province a review of the hiring practices to ensure that they meet the standards that are followed by the police. I will have no further comment on the particular allegations that have been made.

Mr Chiarelli: Minister, you will be judged by your conduct and you will be judged by how you fulfil your responsibility. You are the minister responsible to the people of Ontario and to this Legislature for the SIU. On December 14, you were asked a question by the leader of our party about Mr Fred Winston, another case where a person was hired without any proper checking of credentials, a person who was hired as an investigator of our police across this province.

If you expect the police to have any confidence in the administration of justice, how can you possibly continue to have hiring practices of investigators that show that it's complete incompetence? You are responsible for the SIU and you have to answer.

Let me read briefly what you said to this House in December: "It is not only police officers who have to be concerned about the very serious and very sensitive mandate of the SIU but all of us and all citizens, because this is an extremely important part of our community accountability of our police forces, and it is of interest to everyone in the province that the integrity of the unit be maintained."

Once again, Minister, how can police officers and the public across this province have any respect for the SIU when you can't even hire its investigators in a proper fashion?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The hiring round in which the case that the member has just cited took place and the most recent allegations happened at the same time. We undertook, following that hiring round, a review of the hiring practices because we agree with the member that it is of very serious consequence.

This subsequent allegation has come up, and again I would say to the member that we take it just as seriously as we did before. It was part of the same round, and the review that is being undergone in terms of any future hirings is a very serious undertaking on our part and one that we are doing in conjunction with the partners in the police community.

We agree that the police have every right to expect that those who are investigating their behaviour are beyond reproach. It is of very great concern to us that this sort of problem has occurred, but now that we know it has, we are taking the steps that are there.

This is not a new situation. It is the same round of hiring that went on before and there were obvious flaws which we have already admitted to and are taking steps to ensure do not occur again.

Mr Chiarelli: Minister, you and your ministry have admitted to flaw after flaw with respect to the SIU. It has been a comedy of errors, very sad errors, from the beginning. You have undertaken to review it; you've undertaken audits. Nothing has happened; nothing's come back to this House. There have been no reports on this to the people of Ontario. It is time that you accept your responsibility, that you place some responsibility for this in the hands of the legislators of this province.

I'm asking you now, Minister, will you refer to the standing committee on administration of justice all these problems that have occurred with respect to the SIU? There's only one way that you're going to restore confidence in our police officers and the public across this province and that is to get some sort of open discussion where everybody can get involved in it and where the people can be satisfied that you're actually doing something. So will you in fact refer this matter to the standing committee on administration of justice so that the people of the province can get to the root of this problem?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The audit report and the response of the director of the SIU have in fact been released to all the members of this Legislature. We made an undertaking in our response to the audit report to undertake consultations with the police community, with their official representatives, and with representatives of the broader community who have expressed equally serious concern about the SIU, and that we would be back with recommendations as a result.

We are involved in a very intensive process looking at some of the procedural issues that have been raised, the relationship with the coroner's office, the kind of process that is involved in these investigations and how to sort out the independence of the various forces that are concerned. When that is completed, we will certainly come forward with additional response.

Many of the issues raised in the audit report have already been rectified. In the report of the director to the audit report, there is a very clear accounting of the steps that have already been taken and put into place which have corrected many of the deficiencies that the audit report pointed out.

We have some issue with some of the suggestions that the audit report had and we are discussing those with those most concerned. I would say that in the past few weeks the opposition has been very concerned with referring many issues to the administration of justice committee, and it is very clear that there is a concerted effort to try and ensure that this committee is overloaded in its work. There are many ways to accomplish the same goals, and I will not commit to make a reference to the justice committee of this report until our consultation is complete.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister's own report on cancer care tells of the need for new specialists and new equipment so that cancer patients will get the treatment that they need when they need it.

In fact, that need is urgent. For over two and a half months the minister has been sitting on a report that says that if funding and approvals aren't in place immediately for two new radiation machines at the London Regional Cancer Centre, cancer patients in southwestern Ontario will not be able to get the treatments that they need.

The London cancer centre is already under pressure to meet regional requirements and it's already operating with extended hours. Putting new machines in place takes time, and those machines are needed urgently in less than a year. If the minister doesn't act immediately, it won't be merely waiting lists that we're concerned about but the availability of treatment itself.

I'm asking the Minister of Health if she will commit today to provide the funding and to ensure the speedy approvals and to guarantee that those radiation machines, which are required in the London Regional Cancer Centre, are on stream and operating in less than a year. Will the minister indicate to us that she is willing to act?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As the member is well aware, just recently, on April 8, I released the government's cancer strategy for the future, Life to Gain: A Cancer Strategy for Ontario, a strategy that provides for a network to coordinate services, for a task force to look into prevention, for improvements to support services to meet all of patients' needs as well as expanded treatment.

We are working with the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation to review their needs, of which of course the London cancer centre would be one, and I'm not in a position today to say yes or no to the member's question. But I can certainly assure her that as we review the future plans of OCTRF and the need that it has identified for additional radiation machines and other expansions of the treatment network, I'm quite confident that we are in a good position to meet the needs of cancer patients in the 1990s.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister refers to her report which was issued in April and made absolutely no reference to a document which she had received from the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation two months prior to the issuing of her report, which identified the very specific urgent needs, including the need for two new machines and a commitment to fund those machines at the London cancer centre. The report is quite specific: Without those machines being put into place, there will not be appropriate treatment available in less than a year. In less than eight months, there will not be appropriate treatment available. The minister's had that report for over two months.

Once again, I ask the minister, will she commit to this House today that people in southwestern Ontario will have access to and availability of radiation treatment when they have cancer that requires that treatment?

Hon Mrs Grier: I know, because of the member's very real and genuine concern about this issue, she will be very pleased when I'm able to tell her that her facts are quite wrong. In fact, as we work with the OCTRF to have it review the plans it submitted to us a couple of months ago, we find that the number of machines and the need are very much in sync. I can assure her that people in southwestern Ontario will have the same quality of care and the same access to treatment as people anywhere else in this province.

Mrs Sullivan: I refer to the report, and the report itself says that planning must begin and funding must begin immediately to put those new machines in place. The minister is incorrect in her

interpretation of what's included in that report. The report also says that there are up to 80 radiation oncologists who are in a position of shortfall. The minister is in fact misstating what's included in this report.

I also want to indicate that while her cancer report used fancy words, there was absolutely no commitment to action other than setting up committees, and we need more than that. We need a real commitment from this minister, including a commitment of dollars and a commitment according to a time line.

The minister announced that there would be operating funding for some new machines that were placed in Toronto, Kingston and Ottawa, but made no commitment to increase the operating funding for the Princess Margaret Hospital at which there will be new machines to increase their complement to 16 machines, double the current capacity. It makes little sense for the minister to provide half a loaf when a full loaf is due.

I'm asking the minister if she will commit today to providing appropriate funding to the Princess Margaret Hospital so that it can indeed operate the machines that will now be in place this year.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member quotes from a report that was received two months ago and it says planning should begin immediately. What I'm telling her is, the planning began immediately. The planning now shows the number of machines we need is different from the number in the report she's quoting, precisely because we have committed funding to longer operating and better utilization of the existing machines. I'm sorry she's unhappy that things are getting better for people with cancer in this province, but that happens to be the reality.

With respect to Princess Margaret, I also know that she will be delighted to know that I have in my hand a release from Princess Margaret that commends the government for its cancer network, indicates Princess Margaret's support for what we've done and confirms Princess Margaret's willingness with us to work to meet the needs. The problem is that we have a cancer strategy, we have a plan and we've put funding in place, something that has not happened in this province before.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and it follows a story in the Hamilton Spectator.

Minister, on January 10 a deal was signed between three unions and a consortium bidding on Highway 407. Ten days later, these unions held a fund-raiser for the NDP, and I believe you were there.

I have a copy of a memo from Michael Reilly of the Labourers' International Union of North America regarding that fund-raiser. It says:

"It's important that you personally apply yourself to making the evening a success by calling those contractors and influencing them as to the importance of the said evening in the purchasing of a table, a half-table etc: as much as you can squeeze. Don't take no for an answer.

"I am sure I don't have to tell you that the prestige and the name of 183 is important and must be maintained for all future lobby efforts that benefits."

That evening raised $100,000 for your party. As I've said, I believe, Minister, you were at that.

Eleven weeks later, that consortium that signed a deal with the unions was awarded the 407 contract. Minister, is $100,000 the going rate for government contracts now?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I can assure the critic opposite that there is absolutely no link between a fund-raiser and the awarding of the contract regarding the superhighway 407. Allegations of this type are just preposterous, nothing short of this. I think the member opposite is spooking himself as he dims the light.

Very early in the process, when the process was put forth, cabinet distanced itself from the decision-making process by appointing four deputy ministers to choose a winner. The confidentiality of the process was supervised and certified by Price Waterhouse.

Mr Turnbull: This is extremely serious, Minister. When you announced that the CHIC had won the bid, you said they offered the best value for money. You did not say that it was because they gave the lowest bid. Minister, was CHIC the lowest bidder for the 407 project, and will you disclose the bid to confirm this?

Hon Mr Pouliot: First and foremost, let me set the table so the member opposite will have a clear picture. The request for proposal stated that there shall be no lobbying attempt to any politician or to government officials, so therefore I don't know if it was the lowest bidder. I understand that negotiations are still going on. What took place in the first instance is that a consortium was chosen to negotiate, and within a matter of three to four weeks we are hopeful that all the details will be released.

Mr Turnbull: That answer is absolutely alarming because he said he doesn't know whether they were the lowest bidder. I have a copy of the agreement between CHIC and the three unions. It clearly says that no other workers shall be allowed to work on the 407 project in exchange for a commitment that there will be no strike action taken by the unions. As well, it provides for a wage increase of up to 22% over the five years. I have been informed that the losing bidder did not sign a deal with the unions -- listen to this, folks -- because they were told not to by your staff, Minister. Minister, why did your staff advise them not to sign a deal?

Hon Mr Pouliot: One can really appreciate the tone here. You don't really have to be too clever to tell the member that he's imputing motive and by doing so indirectly soiling the reputation of four deputy ministers, trying to find a flaw in due process.

I go back to his original question. The question that I'm quoting verbatim and answered will attest to it: "Is $100,000 what it takes to buy or secure a contract?" Put your seat on the line when you impute motive, my friend. This is a contract well over $1 billion. Enough is enough. You can't grab a club and say things when you have no responsibility. Put your seat where your mouth is. Of course, the process is flawless. Negotiations are still going on and in the fullness of time we will release all that is to be known and said. We're aboveboard regarding the most important highway project in North America.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): New question. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I guess the question from the member still stands: Why did your staff tell them not to sign the deal? You didn't answer that.

ONTARIO HYDRO AGREEMENT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Chair of Management Board regarding the deal reached by the Power Workers' Union and Ontario Hydro. Under the terms of that deal, not one single Hydro worker will be laid off in the next two years, whether there is any work for them to do or not.

When I asked the Premier about this, I was told that $67 million from the employee pension fund would be used to cover the cost of this unprecedented job security. Today we learned that 6,000 Hydro managers can block the use of this money because they belong to a different union. The bottom line is that the Power Workers bargained away something they had no right to put on the table.

What will this mean to Ontario Hydro now that you can't get the $67 million from the pension fund? I had suggested earlier that this means 600 to 800 employees, who are no longer considered valued employees because there's not work for them, will now be kept on payroll for two years because your government signed an agreement it didn't have any right to sign. What is the cost to the taxpayers? What does this mean to Ontario Hydro?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member should know that the question he's asked should have been directed to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Unfortunately, he's not here today.

I don't have any direct contact with the negotiations between Ontario Hydro and its unions. As a matter of fact, neither does the government. The member suggested in his question that the government signed a deal it had no right to sign. The government is not a signatory to the deal between Ontario Hydro and its unions. I'm certainly prepared to ensure that the Minister of Environment and Energy is made aware of his question so that an answer can be provided.

Mr Stockwell: When this announcement was made, this group over here seemed to have lots of ties to this particular agreement. They stood in this House, applauded and broke their arms patting each other on the back. Now that this deal is derailing, they want nothing to do with it. The fact is simply this, I say to you, Mr Management Board Chair: that you committed to a deal that was going to take $67 million out of the pension fund at Ontario Hydro. You agreed during that negotiation that 800 jobs would not be declared surplus, costing the taxpayers $50 million.

We learned on CBC Radio today that the pension fund money cannot be accessed because 5,000 particular employees will not allow you to touch it. The simple fact remains that you were given $67 million you can't access. You have committed to two years of no layoffs and will have 800 surplus employees coming to work with nothing to do.

I ask you once again: What is the cost to the taxpayers? What is the cost to Ontario Hydro? Does this now jeopardize your promise that Ontario Hydro rates will not go up, considering that you cannot access this money?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member across the way continues to play very fast and loose with words. As I've already suggested, the agreement to which he's referring was an agreement between Ontario Hydro and its employees. I'm not familiar with the details of that agreement. I will ensure that the Minister of Environment and Energy is aware of the question he's raised and that he will receive an answer.

Mr Stockwell: This is from a minister who just stood up and said "playing fast and loose" with the information. He's admitted himself he knows nothing about it, so how do you know anyone's playing fast and loose with any of this information? That's the shame of the whole thing. I've stood in this place and told the Premier about this and he started referring to Professor Irwin Corey, for heaven's sake. That's how much he knew about this particular deal.

I say, through you, Mr Speaker, to the minister: As far as your friend the Power Workers' Union is concerned, it is Ontario Hydro's problem, not the union's. John Murphy says, and I quote from CBC Metro Morning: "If the society does take that position, if they do challenge and are successful in stopping Ontario Hydro getting the relief of $67 million, then the company really has to figure out a way of coming up with that $67 million." In effect, he said: "Tough. We signed a deal. We're going to live by it."

You've signed a deal you had no right to sign, so now you're $67 million in the hole and he doesn't care. He's not conceding anything because he's got a signed contract, a contract I warned you about three days after you signed it.

What assurance can you give Hydro customers that they will not be on the hook for this incredible, expensive and illegitimate deal that will now see 800 employees go to work for two years at Ontario Hydro, costing the taxpayers $50 million to $70 million, and there will be nothing for them to do?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite continues to contend that this government signed an agreement it had no right to sign, when it signed no agreement at all. Perhaps that's a reflection of just how little he understands about that of which he speaks here in the House today.

I repeat my comment of earlier: I will ensure that the Minister of Environment and Energy becomes aware of the questions he's raised so he can provide a full response to the member.

CHILD CARE

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last Thursday I addressed a question to the minister regarding whether his government had put forward a specific proposal --

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Wrong minister.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who else is there to ask, Frances?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. You can start again.

Mr Beer: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I will begin again. My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week I asked a question, whether the minister and his government had submitted a specific project to the federal government for child care reform. The minister in his answer indicated that he had.

I've subsequently learned that not very long after meeting here in the House, the minister had a discussion in his office with representatives from a variety of child care reform groups and that he indicated at that meeting that no specific separate proposal had been submitted for child care reform to the federal government. Just so the minister is clear, we're not talking here about Job Link, which is a program that encompasses many things, but specific to child care reform.

In addition to chatting with people who attended that meeting, I have doublechecked with the office of the federal minister, and as of this morning no specific proposal had been received from this government on child care reform. We have also talked to people in the Ministry of Community and Social Services who have also said there is no specific proposal.

Minister, I ask you to clarify the public record. My question again is simply this: Have you sent to Ottawa a specific, written, cabinet-approved proposal regarding child care reform?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): Let me hasten to remind the member -- if he wishes to look back at Hansard and the answer I gave him, I will say to him today what I said to him then, which is that I have spoken with Mr Axworthy on at least the three occasions I outlined to him about both the child care needs of this province as they relate to Job Link and the child care needs of the province as they relate to child care reform.

I made it very clear to him, as I did to the people I met with last Thursday, that a specific written proposal on the first part, on the Job Link connection to child care, had already been submitted to Minister Axworthy and that a written proposal on the reform initiatives had not been given to him. I said that to him last time he asked me the question, so there's no difference between what I'm saying today or indeed what I said to the people I met with and what I said to him the last time he asked me this question.

The specific written proposal to reflect the kinds of things that I have discussed directly with Mr Axworthy is being put together now and will be going there very shortly.

Mr Beer: With respect, that was not clear from your answer in the House the other day. The answer you just gave is a far fuller and more specific answer. What I question is why you did not give that answer here in this House but chose to wait until you met with the child care advocates. What you said in this House was that you had asked him on several dates. I assumed that therefore a proposal had gone forward.

But we were discussing very specifically proposals around child care reform, because it is you and your government who have been arguing that the federal government is not prepared to fund or to assist in funding child care reform. In Ottawa, Mr Axworthy said they have funds under the strategic initiatives fund to in fact help Ontario.

My supplementary question is twofold. First of all, I find it absolutely incredible that this government, which has been in power since the fall of 1990, would not even have a proposal ready to go as soon as that new government came in last fall, particularly because they had set out the concept of their strategic initiatives fund during the election. You still aren't ready. You haven't put it forward. You've simply said it's going to come.

Would you tell us, will that proposal be to Ottawa before the end of this month and, when it is ready, will you table it in the House?

Hon Mr Silipo: I don't know whether I'm going to be able to table it in the House. That's not necessarily because I would not want to but because in terms of fulfilling the nature of our discussions with the federal government I'm not sure it would be appropriate.

But let me be very clear. I wish I were able to find the Hansard much quicker, but I will find it and I will read it out to the member again on another occasion so he's clear that what I'm saying to him today is in no way inconsistent with what I said to him the last time he asked me this question, that on each of those occasions I met with Mr Axworthy, I discussed the child care needs of the province both as they related to Job Link and also as they related to some of the reform initiatives. I can say to the honourable member that Mr Axworthy was quite interested in both of those pieces.

It's important to point out also that the strategic funds the federal government has outlined were not outlined until the federal budget came out in February. We have been working very hard to get the package together and to provide the written package to Mr Axworthy. But I can assure the member again, as I did the last time he asked me this question, that Mr Axworthy knows exactly what we are asking for, and if he's interested in funding there won't be any excuse for him not to provide the funds.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. It appears that last Friday a gentleman by the name of Wayne Allen was suspended as an SIU investigator. He was hired in spite of the fact that he has been charged by Waterloo police with obstructing justice, forgery and obtaining a secret commission.

My question is a little different from the question from the Liberal Party, which was the party that formed the SIU. My question is quite simply this: When Fred Winston was hired, it was clear that the fault for the hiring of Fred Winston was Mr Morton's. Now it appears that Mr Morton -- and this is the interesting twist in this scenario with Mr Allen -- says: "It wasn't my fault that we hired this person. It was the government's fault because they wouldn't let me properly investigate."

Who does bear responsibility for hiring investigators at the SIU? Is it Mr Morton and his policy or is it you and your policies?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): In fact it is the same question that was asked before. These two people were hired at the same time under the same process, and the allegations that have been made about the most recent case have been subsequent to that. All the employment checks, all the reference checks were done in that case, unlike the previous case, and all of them showed that this person had a clear record at that time. The allegations have surfaced subsequently.

The answer I gave the previous member is exactly the same answer I would give to the member who is asking now: Civil service employment is under the Public Service Act and is clearly spelled out in the Public Service Act. It is true that some of the hiring practices under the Public Service Act are different from the hiring practices under the Police Services Act, and it is exactly that difference that we committed to look into in December. There have been no hirings since December.

In fact, we continue to have those consultations with the police community and with the public service commission on the exact way in which we can ensure that the kinds of difficulties we encountered in that particular hiring round do not continue to plague the agency.

Mr Harnick: The minister says, "Same time, same process." What I have to say is, "Same time, same process, and you hired two lemons."

It's interesting. Mr Morton made a speech this past February, and in response to a question concerning the SIU's hiring practices he stated, "I am the person who takes full and complete responsibility for the hiring of personnel."

What I want to know, Minister, is whether you or Mr Morton will take charge of what's going on at the SIU and accept your responsibility for developing a policy with respect to hiring SIU investigators. Lord knows how many more of them have problems in their background that you don't even know about because you have no policy to deal with properly checking their backgrounds in a place as sensitive as the SIU.

I want to know whether you or Mr Morton will develop a policy for hiring investigators at the SIU so we can hear again that this won't ever happen again.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have several times this afternoon and will again commit to the member that that is exactly what we are doing, in conjunction with the official representatives of the police community and in conjunction with our colleagues at Management Board who are responsible for the operation of the public service in the province. I would say very clearly to the member that that undertaking was taken by the director to me and in response to the audit report, which required the same thing, and that that is precisely what we are doing.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, we have recently heard of the benefits of the tremendous capital investment your ministry is making in my area, in Durham region. Durham region is benefiting dramatically from the expansion of the 407 that's propounded, and the GO Transit expansion to Oshawa is being eagerly awaited. We know it'll be arriving by the end of this year. Some $53 million is being spent to bring this line to Oshawa and some 1,060 person-years of employment are being created. This will benefit Durham region and my riding -- Oshawa, Whitby -- dramatically. Is everything on schedule, Mr Minister?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Indeed a difficult and timely question. Yes, the commitment to expand rush-hour GO Transit service remains, and this will be done in 1994. You're right: The government has committed $53 million to expand GO Transit service to Oshawa. What we want to do, simply put, is to provide a safe, reliable and affordable service and yet honour the commitment to Whitby, where 32 trains will remain in service. This is a win-win-win situation we're looking forward to sharing with the users.

Mr White: Just this morning, I have received in my mail a number of cards -- just this morning's; I haven't received this afternoon's mailing as yet. These cards all reflect the concern of people in my riding not only that we have that GO service the minister spoke about but also that we reinstate an adequate level.

We have from my riding, my constituency, concerned about those issues, people who have used the GO train service for 21 and 22 years, who are having that service cut back. They're wondering why we're spending the capital money on that. Will you be willing to listen to their concerns and look at a fuller level of service as it expands?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Departing from form, with high respect, Mr Speaker, may I have a couple of those cards?

Mr White: I'll give you a thousand.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I say to Harry Smith, I say to Shirley Jones, that we will monitor the demand. If the demand is there, we will go from rush-hour to full-time service in the not-too-distant future, depending on availability of funds. I would like to meet the demand.

TOW TRUCK INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Attorney General in her capacity, as they say, as the chief law officer of the crown. The issue relates to the vultures who hover around parking lots in Metropolitan Toronto and other communities waiting to tow cars away, charge them a big price and inconvenience the people.

Gwen Rideout of Ajax has written a public letter where she has brought to everyone's attention the fact that on a Saturday morning recently, about 1:15, her car was towed from a visitors' parking lot where the posted sign read, "Cars without a permit between the hours of 2 and 5 am will be towed." The daughter was visiting friends and came down at 1:15, but the car had already been towed.

The police refused to press charges of theft. This person feels it was theft, because the car was towed away contrary to the signage that we see.

This is just one example of what we see happening on a pretty widespread basis. Could the Attorney General tell us whether she believes that people who take away and tow cars in these circumstances, the parking lot pirates, should in fact be charged for doing so?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm hardly going to give the member a legal opinion about such a matter, and he's well aware of that. He is quite right that other communities, not just Metropolitan Toronto, have this problem. I must say that it is a cause célèbre in my own community, that we have a very enterprising towing company that is currently the subject of a municipal campaign by someone who is campaigning for mayor on the grounds that the municipality should control these towing contracts.

I would say to the member that there is enough concern about the various jurisdictions that I'm certainly prepared to look at what our ministry would do, but charges of course are laid by police officers. Municipalities do license these towing companies. There is a shared responsibility in these matters. I would be very happy to look into the issue for the member, but it appears to me that this is not a simple matter of making a decision based on the kind of facts that he's brought forward here.

Mr Bradley: Very often the people who are the victims of the vultures who hover over the parking lots are those people who are visitors to Metropolitan Toronto or to other larger centres in the community, because they don't know the practices. They may believe the signs, may believe what people are telling them are the rules.

It is alleged as well that there are municipal law enforcement officers who get up to $30 for spotting cars to tow. They're called bounty hunters. Would the Attorney General tell us whether she believes this is appropriate, for people to be paid as bounty hunters for vehicles that are parked in parking lots, not illegally?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Where the responsibility for parking has been handed over to municipalities, those kinds of decisions need to be made by the municipalities themselves. If indeed the municipalities have made a decision that it is appropriate for them to hire and to enable people to undertake that kind of a situation, that is their decision. What I privately might think of such a thing is hardly at issue. We have indeed agreements with many municipalities about the responsibility for parking, and those municipalities need to take that responsibility where they have assumed it.

ALCOHOL SMUGGLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, the LCBO revenues to the province have decreased by $90 million over the last two years. Do you suppose this is because Ontarians are drinking less?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): That's a very straightforward question. I believe that there are a number of reasons why revenues have dropped in Ontario. Part of it is that people are drinking less.

Mr Eves: Well, surveys done in the United States of America and here in Canada indicate that Canadians and Americans drink per capita almost exactly the same amounts of alcoholic beverage. So the minister will know that in fact Ontarians are not drinking less and that isn't the problem in your declining revenues.

Even Mr Brandt, the conservative man that he is, estimates that the province loses about $800 million a year in revenue to illicit underground liquor sales in the province of Ontario. That translates into at least a half a billion dollars a year in shortfall in revenue to the Treasurer and the province of Ontario.

In the past 10 years the minister will know that seven distilleries have closed in the province. She will also know that there are approximately 300 to 400 illegal wineries operating in the province and she will also know that tobacco smuggling networks are now trafficking in liquor sales. What are you and your government doing about this increasing problem?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, I will say that studies show that people are drinking less spirits and more beer and wine, and that is a fact. But the member did ask about the smuggling problem.

Taxation obviously usually comes under the Finance minister, but I certainly hope that the member is not suggesting that this government reduce taxes on alcohol. We have already lost $500 million from this treasury that could be going to programs that we sorely need in this province, so I hope he's not asking us to do that.

I think he's behind here. The province has been dealing with this problem for a couple of years now. We have put a number of steps in place and will continue to do so. We've set up the illegal alcohol task force. It's important that all government agencies and all of the police community work together on this. It is a serious problem, as the member suggested, and we are doing that.

We established investigative service units to combat illegal activities in June 1993. We've granted officer status to provincial offence officers, who actually have more inspection responsibilities and abilities. As you know, Mr Speaker, the investigative services unit has increased its staff. There is a lot of activity out there.

It's very important that people be educated about this issue as well, because there are health issues related to this. Some of the alcohol that's smuggled contains very dangerous products. I urge all of us in this House to let people know that there are serious health risks involved and that this government is involved with the federal government and will continue to do everything it can to combat smuggling, but we will not be reducing taxes.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services on the issue of student welfare. Many constituents in my riding, including teachers dealing with high-risk students, have expressed concern to me about how student welfare is being abused.

I recognize that some students suffer serious physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse in their homes and that these people need protection at all reasonable cost so they may be educated or trained in a secure environment as they rebuild their lives and take their place in society. However, there is a perception that other students are leaving home merely to collect student welfare because they don't like the rules, the curfews or other parental controls.

Minister, what steps are you taking to curb abuse of the welfare system by those under 18 years of age so that funding will be protected for those who have a genuine need?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question and I do acknowledge that in fact a similar question was asked by the member for St Catharines some time ago. I appreciate this point being raised again because I think that it's an important issue for us to discuss.

Like the member, I would agree that we need to be careful that we keep in mind that the basis for this provision existing in the legislation is to allow for support to be given to those young people who are indeed victims of abuse or in other ways fit the definition of "special circumstances" that is outlined in the legislation. Where there is some outright abuse, part of the work that we are going to be doing through the case file reviews that I announced earlier will help us to check that situation.

Beyond that, as I've indicated earlier in this House, I believe that what we need to do in this area is to define more clearly the rules that apply, define that term "special circumstances" in a more detailed fashion, and then to ensure that it is applied in a more consistent fashion throughout the province. We are doing some work now to outline that and to put that out into the system in a useful way.

Mr Winninger: I would ask then what communication there has been with educators, students and welfare case administrators to ensure that student welfare benefits are used appropriately.

Hon Mr Silipo: Again, I can tell the member that certainly informally the discussions are continuing, but I know there are some specific initiatives that are being taken also with respect to pulling people together in a more organized way.

There is on May 5 in Kingston a session which I think is the first of a number of sessions that are planned that pull together the kind of people the member referred to -- educators, youths themselves, people from the system and others -- to help us look at which specific changes need to be made.

I think that out of those discussions we will have some clarity that we can bring to this issue and then be in a better situation to sort out the perception from the reality of what the problem is here and to continue all of that in the spirit of continuing to provide the support to those young people who need it.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Earlier this month you attended a conference of ministers dealing with the issue of interprovincial trade barriers. In a report of the meeting you're quoted as saying:

"Lankin backed off a proposal under which her government would retaliate against other provinces that don't open their markets to the same degree as Ontario. Instead, Ontario agreed that all provinces would treat all companies as well as they treat their own, with some exceptions."

Minister, that sounds very fair and equitable, but it really is a recipe for inequity. If you'll look at the free trade agreement, I want to give you an example of a situation under the Glass-Steagall act in the financial sector: "Canadian financial institutions, securities dealers, banks wanting to do business in the United States are prohibited because of the Glass-Steagall act." Notwithstanding that, the United States says in Canada they're allowed to do it: "We want to be able to do it in Canada but you can't do it here, but we will give you an undertaking that if we ever change our rules, you'll be able to do it."

That is the kind of thing that could happen under your proposal. Because Ontario is the main economic force in Canada, it is the desirable place for a lot of the other provinces to want to do business. It is very easy for them to say, "This is the way we treat our particular companies in our provinces, but we want to be able to treat your particular companies in the same way as you treat them."

That to me indicates what you're going to have is an extension of the same kind of inequities that we have now where we are prohibited from dealing in other provinces, where the other provinces would be able to deal in Ontario. Could you respond to that?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I thank the member for the question. I actually think we hold a very similar opinion on this issue.

I would take issue with how the press reported a change in position, and I'll set out for the member that there are two approaches. One is reciprocal non-discrimination and the other is national treatment that he's identifying in his question.

Reciprocal non-discrimination, which is the position Ontario has been putting forward in these negotiations as being the basis of how we would proceed with bringing down barriers, says, like we did with Quebec, "Unless you bring down your barriers with respect to construction contractors and construction workers not being able to work in Quebec, then you won't have that access in Ontario any more."

For those provinces that don't bring down barriers, then they would have to deal with the same situation in Ontario, because we feared that this could be a game of negotiations in which Ontario, which is a very open economy to begin with, gains nothing in terms of access to other markets and others continue to have access to Ontario, and that the whole goal of those who want to see interprovincial trade barriers coming down could be thwarted by not having a tough reciprocal approach in this.

The other approach of national treatment has some of the pitfalls that you talked about. There are yet, on the other hand, a number of provinces that feel that this is consistent with GATT and free trade agreements that we've signed internationally.

The position I've taken in negotiations is to speak very strongly for the need to absolutely minimize any general exceptions to this trade deal, and in fact got agreement from the federal government and from some others to take general exceptions out of the overall agreement --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Holy smokes, Mr Speaker, let's go. Time.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- and to move into some of the sectoral agreements, to have very specific, transparent and known exceptions that we would negotiate on.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Is this a tape recording?

Hon Ms Lankin: I will wrap up. My commitment to the province here and the message I delivered at the table was that the success of those sectoral agreements will in fact determine the answer to whether or not Ontario agrees to an agreement that doesn't have reciprocal non-discrimination and moves to a national treatment agreement.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would urge the members to keep their questions short and sweet and the answers short and sweet.

Mr Kwinter: Minister, in all the reports that came out of your meetings, there was one particular issue that I didn't hear anything about, and I think it's absolutely critical to any kind of interprovincial trade barrier resolution. That is the dispute settlement mechanism. In a country where there are no borders, there are no custom forms going from one province to another, how are you going to make sure, without casting any aspersions on our neighbours, that in fact these things are going to carried out? Who is going to be able to police it and who's going to be able to adjudicate any particular abuses if they're identified?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, there are a number of approaches that could be taken on dispute resolution. Ontario has taken the position that it should be effective, ie, it has got to work, it has got to get resolved for people as to questions, concerns or complaints that they have; that it should be inexpensive -- we don't want to see one that would have a cost to private parties or governments that would be difficult to bear; that it shouldn't create a huge bureaucracy to administer this agreement; that it should not involve recourse to the courts and legalities and long-drawn-out processes.

We want to see one that has at its base effective political mechanisms for governments to deal with the issues, government to government, and resolve them within the context of an agreement.

There are a number of proposals that are being developed which come at the possibility of this from slightly different ways. One of the issues is the access of private parties to the dispute resolution mechanism, and at what stages in the dispute resolution mechanism. Those are things that are all currently under discussion and under negotiation, and I'd be pleased to keep the member informed on an ongoing basis.

I want him to know that there are negotiations, meetings going on this week on this issue in Vancouver. We're actually very hopeful that we'll be arriving at a procurement agreement, which will be the biggest piece of all of this.

Lastly, I want to say that the member might read reports from the minister from Alberta, who indicates that there are seven provinces lined up on one side and three on the other. I hope he has been misquoted, because it certainly wasn't the indication of the provinces at the meeting I was at in Halifax. I think in fact there's a growing consensus, and the leadership being shown by the federal government in this has been helpful as well.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Under

section 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is charged with appointing all members of the board of directors of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, including the executive director of the agency.

The executive director is charged with managing "the operations of the agency in accordance with the directions of the board of directors." This individual is to be the CEO of this organization, responsible directly to the board and appointed by the government. The act is very clear about this.

Could you tell us today then why the agency is proceeding to hire, with your blessing and your knowledge, a new executive director through regular civil service competition and make that person accountable directly to the two vice-chairs at the agency rather than the board of directors? Is this not a direct violation of the act by your government?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'd like to get back to the member across the way with that specific question.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time for oral questions has expired.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order with reference to

section 97 of the standing orders, particularly paragraph (d). This

section of the standing orders is with respect to written questions which are placed on the order paper.

I have now 22 questions on the order paper. Five of them are substantially past the period of time when the response is required from the minister under the orders.

Section (

d) of the standing orders indicates that:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question...."

There has been no such a notation with respect to the questions which are overdue. There has been no indication that a minister declines to answer. There has been no indication that more time is required on any of these questions.

The questions refer to the operation of the OHIP fraud line, feasibility studies and cost analyses on the Ontario health card photo identification feature, environmental sensitivities, the chiropractic review and the full accounting of the $647 million which has been promised for long-term care reform.

These are important questions. I have been asked by many organizations and individuals to seek the responses to these questions. We know that the purpose of a written question is that the issue is perhaps not of urgency, which is covered --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you. Minister, perhaps you'd like to give some explanation to the question that is requested of you. Would you have any explanation at all?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): No.

The Deputy Speaker: You have no comments to make? There's nothing the Speaker can do, except to ask the minister. The minister has no comments.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, the standing orders are very specific. They say, "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days," and there are precise --

The Deputy Speaker: Let me repeat to you, for your benefit, what I have said is that the minister heard you. She didn't want to make any comments whatsoever and the Speaker is not in the position also to answer the question for the minister, so I believe that the Chair has treated you fairly.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item number 50.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

GUN CONTROL

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is imperative that we make our streets safe for law-abiding citizens;

"Whereas any person in Ontario can freely purchase ammunition even though they do not hold a valid permit to own a firearm;

"Whereas crimes of violence where firearms are used have risen to an alarming rate;

"Whereas we must do everything within our power to prevent illegal firearms from being used for criminal purposes;

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

"To immediately pass Liberal Tim Murphy's private member's Bill 149 to prohibit the sale of ammunition to any person who does not hold a valid firearms acquisition certificate or Ontario Outdoors Card."

I support this petition and will be affixing my name.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario" --

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Not true. Not true.

Mr Arnott: -- yes, it is true -- "to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards while not providing boards with the required funding to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating costs of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

It's signed by a number of my constituents and I endorse it as well.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I rise to present a petition on behalf of the hundreds of residents who live in my riding in the community known as Wilmot Creek.

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows," and I hope the Tories are listening, particularly the member from Mississauga:

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

I've signed that petition and I know the member for Northumberland is in agreement with that.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, but since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references to sexual orientation should be removed from the code.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing Bill 45."

I have signed the petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Like my colleague from Durham East, I too have a petition, only this one is from the residents of Twin Elms in Strathroy in the county of Middlesex. They petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in leased-lot communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

I have signed my name to this petition.

GUN CONTROL

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by a number of the citizens of the province of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is imperative that we make our streets safe for law-abiding citizens;

"Whereas any person in Ontario can freely purchase ammunition, even though they do not hold a valid permit to own a firearm;

"Whereas crimes of violence where firearms are used have risen at an alarming rate; and

"Whereas we must do everything within our power to prevent illegal firearms from being used for criminal purposes;

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

"To immediately pass Liberal Tim Murphy's private member's bill, Bill 149, to prohibit the sale of ammunition to any person who does not hold a valid firearms acquisition certificate or Ontario Outdoors Card."

It's signed by a number of residents.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AMMUNITION CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS

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

Bill 151,

An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition / Projet de loi 151, Loi visant à réglementer l'achat et la vente de munitions.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The bill restricts the sale of ammunition to persons holding a valid Ontario Outdoors Card with the appropriate hunting licence or a valid firearms acquisition certificate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

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

Bill 110,

An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 110, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'impôt prélevé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la

Loi sur les accidents du travail.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): The government is proceeding with its amendments to the Employer Health Tax Act to ensure that self-employed individuals pay provincial health tax.

Since 1990, employers in Ontario have been helping to fund, through an employer health tax, our health care system. The government is moving now to equalize this situation by requiring people who are self-employed to pay their fair share of health tax as well.

This bill would ensure that self-employed individuals with income of more than $40,000 a year, some of which must be earned in Ontario, pay the employer health tax. Individuals in this category will be taxed on their net self-employment income according to a similar rate system that applies to Ontario employers.

After consulting with stakeholders, the government has agreed to provide the self-employed with a 22% tax deduction on their health tax otherwise payable. This deduction will compensate self-employed individuals for the fact that they were unable to claim health tax as an income tax deduction on their self-employment income.

The government recognizes that Ontarians who earn self-employment income from businesses located in jurisdictions other than Ontario have legitimate concerns about the application of this tax to their self-employment income earned outside of the province. After consulting with these stakeholders, the government has agreed to apply the tax only to the proportion of an individual's self-employment income allocated to Ontario for personal income tax purposes. This will prevent double taxation should other provinces implement a similar tax.

The employer health tax for self-employed individuals will apply to fiscal periods ending after December 1, 1992. There will be prorated relief for 1993 fiscal years which straddle the date of the 1992 budget announcement. The revenues this tax will generate will help the government to continue to provide quality health care for all Ontarians.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise to participate in today's debate as the Revenue critic for the official opposition. I have some very strong feelings about Bill 110 and I'd like to put my remarks today not only in the context of Bill 110, which is

An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act, as it has been stated, but also in the general context of tax policy.

These debates on taxes and tax policy are a very good opportunity for people who are watching the debate to have a better understanding of how taxes -- tax policy, fiscal policy -- have impacts on our economy and perhaps what some of the alternatives are.

I'd like to start this debate by reminding the parliamentary assistant, you, Mr Speaker, and members in this House as well as people who are watching that once again we have an example of a piece of legislation which is a result of last year's 1993 budget tabled by Floyd Laughren almost exactly one year ago. The legislation itself to implement that budget announcement was not tabled until October 26, 1993, and here we are today, April 18, 1994, debating second reading of legislation.

For those who understand the legislative process, they will understand my frustration. We have a piece of legislation implementing a tax which the government has been collecting now since last year. We know that this was part of the 1993 budget. The 1994 budget is yet to come and we have just heard from the parliamentary assistant today that they will be making some changes to Bill 110 and bringing forth amendments.

What I found interesting and frustrating was that just last week we debated the retail sales tax bill, Bill 138, and today, April 18, a week after that debate, where we were in exactly the same situation of debating a piece of legislation almost a year after it had been announced, and certainly almost a year after it had been implemented, we see an announcement from the Treasurer where he is announcing a lowering of the produce-your-own-beer-and-wine tax on last year's tax. We know that the Treasurer will be bringing forth his new budget within a matter of weeks, some are predicting days; most are expecting the new provincial budget before the end of April.

One can only wonder whether it was the debate in the House just last week that convinced the Treasurer to make this change in the tax structure for those who produce their own beer and wine. I would hope that the debates in this Legislature do influence government policy. As the representative for the riding of Oriole since 1985, I have said on numerous occasions that I believe that an individual elected to this Legislature can influence public policy no matter which side of the House they sit on.

Having had the opportunity to serve on the government benches between 1985 and 1990, I will tell you that you can certainly influence in a more direct way the development of public policy as a member of the government and as a member of the executive council, the cabinet, but as I believe is shown by the announcement today by the Treasurer in advance of his new budget, I believe an individual on the opposition benches can influence public policy in a positive way, notwithstanding the fact that it is often in the form of criticism as well as offering alternatives and advice to the government.

I find it absolutely amazing that within weeks of the new budget, the Treasurer would announce that he is going to be amending a piece of legislation in this House, implementing last year's budget, that has not yet completed second reading, and this is just weeks before the new budget. Talk about creating chaos. Talk about creating frustration. Talk about sending out the wrong signal of stability and predictability. As much as we welcome the reduction in taxes to the produce-your-own-beer-and-wine industry -- we do welcome those; it is long overdue.

The announcement today by Mr Laughren, the provincial Treasurer, says that these debates are long overdue, especially if we are going to be able to influence the government not only in the fiscal and economic policies that they are bringing forth to the province of Ontario, but also in delivering the message to them that the number one priority for my constituents in the riding of Oriole and the number one priority of concerned citizens across Ontario is a strong economy and a hope for a job in the future.

There are people who have lost their jobs who always believed that they had secure jobs. There are people today in Ontario who are worried they are going to lose their job tomorrow. Therefore, in order to give those individuals confidence that they will have an opportunity to live and to work and, yes, to play in the province of Ontario, and to give individuals confidence that there will be opportunities for their children in this province, the tax policy of the government is extremely important because tax policy can dampen the economic activity in the province of Ontario.

Sometimes I do feel like a broken record because over and over again we offer the government good advice, we offer them good suggestions and they simply don't listen to us. As we begin the debate on Bill 110, which is an amendment to the Employer Health Tax Act and some amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act, my theme will be similar.

As I said, once again we see a piece of legislation which is a year late, tabled in October to implement a budget that was presented last spring of 1993, and here we are having second reading of a piece of legislation that could affect 38,000 self-employed people, people who consider themselves small businesses, and we know that it is the small business, the singular, often self-employed, the entrepreneur, those who are building small businesses in this province, who make up 85% of the economic activity in the province of Ontario, not just those 38,000 but the hundreds of thousands of individuals who are actively employed in the small business sector.

Certainly, the 38,000 of those who would be classified as self-employed are the ones who have a very significant interest in Bill 110 and are quite frustrated that at a time when the economy is just beginning to recover -- we know that recovery is slow and we know that it unfortunately is not producing as many jobs in the private sector as we would like -- they see Bill 110, which yet again is anything but an economic stimulus. It is a further economic depressant, particularly for those individuals who, for the first time, are having to face a new tax. I have said this before and I will say it again: Tax reform should not mean tax increases.

We heard Bob Rae proudly stand in this House and refer to his new tax commission, a mandate for looking at fair taxes in the province of Ontario. What people thought that was going to mean was the moving around of taxes, tax reform, making sure that people paid their fair share. But more and more I've heard people refer to the NDP tax commission not as the Fair Tax Commission but as the More Tax Commission. If there is one thing that the province of Ontario cannot tolerate at this time, as we just begin to come out of this recession, it is new taxes.

I believe that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes, and if in fact this were a tax reform bill that extended the opportunity to pay a fair share, one could legitimately argue that the overall rate could be and should be reduced for everyone.

I think there would be tremendous support for the notion that says, "If you are going to expand the base on the tax to include those who rightly should pay their fair share, then this should not be yet another revenue grab, this should not be seen as the government attempting to take more, and certainly at this important time in Ontario, as we want to see economic recovery and jobs created in the private sector, this should not be a time when government takes additional dollars out of the economy in the form of new taxes."

Bill 110 will take additional dollars out of the economy in the form of new taxes on the 38,000 self-employed individuals who will have to pay the EHT. What I'd like to say again, since we are now discussing the employer health tax, is the history of where this tax came from. It's important to put on the record that at the very same time that the employer health tax was brought into being in the province, Ontario health insurance plan premiums were eliminated. So in fact you did have real reform. You had the elimination of what some saw as a very unfair tax called premiums for health insurance benefits, called OHIP. Those premiums were a tax, and that tax was unfairly being paid.

Why was that tax unfair? Because what we saw in the province of Ontario was that the OHIP premium was being paid by some employers; some employers were paying all of it; some employers were paying part of it; some employers were paying none of it. We saw as well about 11% of the population of Ontario were paying their own premiums, and who were those people who were paying the premiums? Primarily they fell into the category of those who could least afford the premiums: the working poor.

The other thing that we saw was a huge bureaucracy collecting premiums. Yet we know that because of the values of compassion within the province of Ontario, if there was someone who could have and should have paid their premium but didn't, and found himself in a medical emergency, he did receive care. No one was turned away. As it should be, we responded to the needs of individuals in the province of Ontario by looking after those who were in a needy state of medical emergency.

Then the policy of the government said -- and this was not just the policy of the Liberal government; this was also the policy of the Conservative government before us, and I believe that it was a just policy: "If you pay three months in back premiums, we will cover you for all of your expenses." So it was very unfair, in my view, to continue OHIP premiums. We know that there was only a small portion of the total costs of health care in Ontario paid for by OHIP premiums. The intention of the employer health tax was never to pay the full shot of the health care costs in the province of Ontario.

One of the benefits of our single-payer plan in Ontario, that's our Ontario health insurance plan, is that health costs are funded from numerous sources. In the past it was premiums; now it is the employer health tax which pays today just a portion -- I think if you would look at the figures you would see that the employer health tax today is paying for about 16%, 17%, maybe 18% of the cost of health care in the province of Ontario.

Where does the rest of the money come from? That's a very good question as we debate the employer health tax. We know that some of the money, some of the resources we spend on health care through the Ministry of Health, comes from personal income tax, a portion of it comes from sales tax and a portion of it comes from corporate taxes as well. Some of it undoubtedly will come from the varying fees and licences.

How can I say exactly how much comes from each one? You can't, and that's because the way the province of Ontario collects its resources and then allocates its funds is one where all the money goes into one big pot and that big pot is called the consolidated revenue fund. Then the province, through the treasury, says to each ministry, "For the services, this is how much you will receive."

We know the Ministry of Health is receiving almost one third of all of the dollars collected by the provincial treasury. We know that, of the approximately $17 billion that's spent by the Ministry of Health on behalf of the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, the employer health tax generates less than 20% of the total cost of health services.

Why was it called the employer health tax and why have we kept that name? Well, when we look at how we fund health services and when we consider not only what's happening in Ontario but what's happening in other jurisdictions, we know, and we believed at the time we were in government, that it was extremely important for employers to have an interest in the health of their employees. We know it is extremely important for business to feel that they are participating in helping to keep the costs of health care services down and under control.

We also know, particularly from our neighbours to the south, that often business is looked to to share the cost of providing health services for their employees.

An example in the United States today, where the debate on how they're going to be providing health care to their population rages -- and, unfortunately, I believe it's become a very partisan debate rather than looking at the examples of what the options are for them. I don't wish to offer the Americans any advice during this debate but rather to explain to Ontarians who are watching what is happening. I think sometimes we tend to export our rhetoric to the United States, particularly our rhetoric about some of the concerns that we have within our system, and they feed it back to us and then we buy it.

In fact, the debates that are going on in the United States are because the Americans, an overwhelming percentage -- a recent Harris poll that I heard the results of suggests that almost 90% of the population in the United States are dissatisfied -- I'm sorry, I've got the number wrong. It was almost 70% -- 67% of the people in the United States were dissatisfied with their own plan for the delivery of health services and almost 90% of Canadians were quite satisfied with the method that we use for the delivery of services.

It's important that that be a part of this debate because one of the things we know is that the cost of health care services to employers in the United States is a very significant part of the Clinton plan. But even before the Clinton plan, payment by employers for their employees' health coverage was the way that the United States functioned.

The result of that is that in steel, for example, what we've heard from Lee Iacocca and others in the steel industry is that health care costs employers more than steel and almost $700 per employee in the United States,

whereas in Canada -- and this is one of our competitive advantages -- the cost to employers on the same basis would be approximately $50 or $60 per car for employees. So it's $700 a car, more than the cost of steel, in the United States; $50 to $60 per car in Canada.

That is an enormous competitive advantage, but what it signifies in the North American context and around the world is that business does have an obligation to help keep their workforce well and healthy. Also, because of their interest in sustaining and maintaining our competitive advantage in Canada, it is very important for us to be very aware of the implications of a payroll tax such as the employer health tax.

I can tell you that when the employer health tax was brought in, the amount of revenue that it was expected to generate was in fact considerably less than what it is generating today. The estimates that we had from the treasury on how much revenue would be generated from the employer health tax were less than what is actually being generated.

I can say with honesty that it was never our intention to see the employer health tax take as much in the way of revenue out of the employers, if you will, from their payrolls, as has been the reality. It is one place where rather than just extending the tax to generate even further revenue, if I were giving the government a place, and I am giving the government a place, where it could look to lower the tax, the employer health tax, in my view, would be a very good place to look. The reason is because payroll taxes, which the employer health tax is, can be seen by many to inhibit job creation.

Particularly at a time in the economy today when what you want to do is spur job creation in the private sector, relief on the payroll tax would be a very good place to start.

So I would say to the government that Bill 110 could be amended, and should be amended, to reduce the rate so that you would see this as a benefit to the payroll taxes of employers, who could then create more jobs in the private sector.

I'm sure that one of my colleagues is going to say, "Well, why didn't you do that when you brought the tax in?" That's a fair question, and I'm going to answer that question here and now today. When this tax was brought in, Ontario's economy was booming. It was so buoyant that many thought it would continue for ever, and I was one who hoped and prayed that it would have, because Ontario led the western world in economic activity at the time that we eliminated premiums for OHIP and brought in the employer health tax. In those times, as I said, our estimates of the revenue that would be generated from the employer health tax were less than the amount of revenue that it is actually bringing in.

So you have an opportunity as government, since the taxes that it is generating are higher than what was anticipated or desired at that time and the economy has changed -- rather than being the most buoyant economy in the Americas, in North America, and in fact in the western world, what we have is an economy that is struggling to come out of this terrible recession that has ensued since those buoyant and happy days of the late 1980s.

One of the ways that you could respond to that as you extend, through tax reform, the employer health tax to all of those, who would be more than willing to pay their fair share as long as they didn't feel they were paying more than their fair share -- then I think you would have much greater support for Bill 110 or a bill of its type.

There are a number of things that I'd like to say, but I don't want the debate to go on for too long. I do believe that the extension of the employer health tax in the way the government is doing it really will hamper the kind of entrepreneurial spirit of the individual self-employed that is needed at this particular time in order to ensure a stronger recovery in the province of Ontario.

I also believe that one of the things government must do is eliminate red tape, eliminate the kind of bureaucratic, "one more form to fill out" kind of attitude of government. What I see in the way that the EHT is being implemented is in fact more bureaucratic red tape, more forms, more paper and more of that burden on the small business person, the self-employed, who can least afford, in many cases, the kinds of expertise to fill out all of these forms on their behalf.

The proposed structure -- and I am looking for some clarity in the form of amendments from the parliamentary assistant, because I think the government is responding to one of the big arguments that I was going to make about the employer health tax with amendments. So I'll be watching for those amendments very carefully, because I think that as it is proposed in Bill 110, unamended, this will unfairly penalize people who invest large amounts of capital in their businesses in Ontario, and also those who have income from sources outside Ontario.

I think I heard the parliamentary assistant say that they would be making amendments that would address that concern. The only thing I would say to him is that the problem with placing the amendments today, on April 18, 1994, is that, again, you've been collecting this since last year and the people who are paying and must pay have waited too long. That was the sort of change that in my view should have come when the legislation was tabled in October. Certainly the government had sufficient time to see how this act was being implemented and how the tax was being collected from the time it announced it in the budget in April until it tabled the legislation in October.

Here we are offering amendments to this piece of legislation almost a full year after it's been in place. I would ask the parliamentary assistant, have you been collecting this tax? What are you going to do? Will your amendments be retroactive so that you can refund to those people if you have collected the tax inappropriately? Will the amendments be retroactive to the date when the tax started to be collected? Now, if I'm mistaken -- and it could be that they have not been collecting the tax -- then in fact I'd ask that they clarify that so that if there is any confusion out there, people will know.

The other reason I ask for it to be clarified is my assumption that some of this may be done through the income tax system. If it's being done through the income tax system, the final filing date for income tax is April 30 and therefore the timing of this could not be worse for individuals who will be affected by the EHT. So I'd ask for some clarification on what the implication here is.

Some clarification, I think, would be helpful to those individuals who are concerned about the impact, particularly for those who have made large capital investments, as well as those who have income from other sources outside Ontario but where the payroll and the earnings actually are within Ontario. I'd ask for those to be clarified by the parliamentary assistant before the end of the debate today. Perhaps he could when I wrap up my remarks, which will be in just a very few minutes.

One of the things that I'm always asked is, "What would you do differently?"

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I've never asked you. I've never asked the member for Oriole, "What would you do differently?" We don't want you to get in.

Mrs Caplan: I hear Mr Cousens asking the question yet again. He does it all the time in his two-minute responses, so I'm going to pre-empt him today. I see he is in tears, he is so upset. Sometimes around this place it's good to have a little laugh. We can't take ourselves too seriously. But I do take Mr Cousens very seriously when he says, "What would you do differently, Elinor?"

I'd like to place on the record the recommendations of the Liberal minority report for the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of the province. These are our recommendations for this coming budget, which is coming down within the next few weeks. I hope the Treasurer has listened. He's had these recommendations for some time now, but I would like to place them on the record.

There are seven recommendations and I will just take a few minutes to put them on the record. What you will notice is that many of these recommendations were very similar to the Liberal minority report on the budget last year. The Finance minister didn't listen to us last year, but I'm hoping he will listen to us this year.

The first is probably the most significant and important recommendation. It's the reason I will be opposing all of the budget bills from last year's budget, because I believe it was wrong fiscal policy last year to raise taxes in the province; I believe it was wrong economic policy to raise taxes. I think it hurt the economy. We are saying to the government, "The 1994-95 budget must contain no new or increased taxes," and that includes fees.

Second, "The 1993-94 budget" -- that's the one that's coming now -- "must present Ontarians with an action plan for getting the economy moving again." That may well include some tax decreases, and I hope we see it will, such as was evidenced today by the tax decrease on the produce-your-own beer and wine.

Third, and this is extremely important if the business community as well as consumers and citizens in Ontario are going to have confidence, "The government should adopt the accounting standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants for both the public accounts and the budget statements." If he did that, maybe the Provincial Auditor would then attest to those budgets and it would instil greater confidence in the budget-making capability and the books of the province. That is extremely important, if we are going to have investors confident enough to invest in Ontario.

Fourth, "In order to instil a sense of confidence among consumers and investors, the government must keep to its deficit reduction plan set out in the 1993 budget without resorting to questionable bookkeeping." According to Mr Laughren, they're already off by $2 billion; they're not going to make the $6.8 billion. It's my hope that we will see the deficit plan come in at $8 billion or less. I would have preferred to see the achievable $6.8 billion that was in the expenditure reduction plan, but I fear we will not.

Fifth, "The government must initiate a serious review of public expenditures. The government must examine how to 'reinvent' itself and redefine how it delivers its services."

I'm going to put this statement on the record, because it is something I believe in fundamentally as a Liberal. I believe very strongly that if the government would embrace this, we could get on with delivering of services that the people of this province need and want in a way which is certainly both more effective, more efficient and more affordable, and that is:

"Government should provide only those services that government should provide and that only government delivers best. The government should decide which tasks can be best performed by other levels of government or the private sector and which tasks should be eliminated entirely."

Sixth, "The government must initiate measures to get the" --

Mr Cousens: How many points do you have?

Mrs Caplan: