Hansard Transcript 1993-Jun-22 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Taxes on cigarettes have created a serious smuggling problem in border areas like Cornwall. In the last couple of weeks, emotions have been running high as a result of reports that smuggling of cigarettes is a billion-dollar industry in Canada. Federal and provincial governments are expecting the figure to double in 1993.

Residents in my riding are all too aware that guns, intimidation, bribery and violence are part of the dangers of smuggling cigarettes. St. Lawrence River smugglers have admitted to owning machine guns to protect their goods against law enforcement seizures. Boats without navigational lights and travelling up to 145 kilometres an hour have become a nightly occurrence. Area residents live in fear for themselves, their children and their property. Even Ontario's Solicitor General has admitted the "great potential for danger."

While the Solicitor General of Canada has added additional operational resources to strengthen law enforcement efforts, the RCMP's anti-smuggling unit in Cornwall has said that there are simply not enough police officers to combat the problem.

I implore this government to take swift action and respond to this escalating problem before injuries are sustained.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Last week the member for Kitchener called on the Minister of Transportation to take immediate action to ensure that median barriers are installed on the Conestoga Parkway in Kitchener-Waterloo. He made this request in response to a fatal accident which took three lives last Tuesday. This latest accident should make it obvious to the minister that urgent action is required to ensure the safety of motorists on this 26-year-old expressway.

Since May 1990 there have been five fatal accidents which have claimed the lives of seven people. These deaths could have been prevented if median barriers had been installed. In fact, a coroner's inquest into the death of Laurie Brain in April 1991 recommended that barriers be installed immediately. Two years after those recommendations were made, the ministry has still not taken action and indicates that they will not install barriers until 1996.

How many more people will have to die before the Minister of Transportation acts? One ministry official indicated last week that an average of 35 people a year were dying in crossover accidents on Highway 401 between Woodstock and London before barriers were installed there. What unbelievable rationalization. It is unacceptable that money was found to install sound barriers, while no money can be found for safety measures such as median barriers.

I urge the minister to stop the carnage by acting immediately to have median barriers installed on the Conestoga Parkway. Safety should be his first concern.

CÉSAR CHAVEZ

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Cesar Chavez, the United Farm Workers' labour leader, died in April of this year. César Chavez has been described by the president of the California State Senate as "probably the greatest Californian of the 20th century." I would like to remind members that a memorial for César Chavez will be taking place tomorrow evening at Trinity-St Paul's United Church on Bloor Street.

In furthering the empowerment of his people, we associate him with tactics such as strikes and the grape and lettuce boycotts that many of us participated in here. The marches, the fasts, the cries of "Viva la huelga" remain tied in people's perception to La Causa, a labour and civil rights movement with religious overtones linked particularly with the Catholic church.

"The spiritual boldness of César Chavez's leadership gripped the people of his nation like no farm worker ever had done," said Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles at his funeral. "For the first time in this century, most Americans became aware of the dreadful plight of the men and women who labour so tirelessly to put food on our table."

I am sure there are many in this House who will want to pay their respects tomorrow evening to this remarkable leader who devoted his life to giving dignity and hope not only to the farm workers but to every one of the Chicano people, who saw for themselves what one brave man, indifferent to his own health and welfare, could accomplish.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This summer's weather is as unpredictable as the Conservative position on the social contract legislation. For the past week I've been unable to get an answer from the Conservative caucus regarding its position on Bill 48. The Conservatives are trying to have it both ways. Mike Harris and the Tories have both supported and opposed the social contract process.

First they said that $2 billion in cuts wasn't enough. Then they accused the NDP of going too far to get the $2 billion. They have bashed the unions and then criticized the government for union-bashing. They've demanded legislation to enforce the social contract and then announced that legislation isn't necessary at all. They have proposed simplistic alternatives, then changed their very own numbers to show that their alternatives don't work.

1340

Now they sound like they don't like the social contract bill at all, but they can't tell us yet how they're going to vote. Some Tories say the legislation is just not good legislation but they still might support it; other Tories say that Bill 48 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation but still they might support it. The Conservatives say that a complex and confusing Bill 48 has been created in which the government offers public sector and the public sector workers the worst of all possible options, and yet they still say they might support it.

What's really confusing is the Conservative position on Bill 48. I say stop talking out of both sides of your mouths. You can't have it both ways. I ask you to join my colleagues and join the Liberal caucus and vote against Bill 48. Let's defeat this bad legislation.

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The government is systematically trying to bankrupt the province's 1,500 licensing issuers, who operate at a cost of only 3% of revenue. Whenever I have pressed the Minister of Transportation about the government's future intentions, he stressed that the system works well and that there was no intention to change. Three recent occurrences contradict the minister's statement.

First of all, in January 1993 the minister unveiled the self-service kiosk pilot project. These self-service machines have the potential to take away about 50% of the drivers' licensing business from the issuers. Second, the MTO's decision to move to a five-year renewal cycle for driver's licence renewal from a three-year cycle means a 40% reduction in income for the issuers and a loss of revenue for the next government. Third, a move towards multi-year vehicle licensing renewals is nothing more than a tax grab for this government and threatens the continuing existence of this organization by cutting out about 55% of their total transactions.

Does the minister understand these serious threats to the continued existence of the issuers?

POLITICAL MAILING

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Here we go again -- some more junk mail from the Leader of the Opposition.

A Guelph resident received this letter from the Leader of the Opposition. She promises to go to bat for the residents of Guelph, saying that the government wants to downsize and delay the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food move, and she says that Bob Rae and Derek Fletcher are not really showing regard for their local economies.

Well, I've got news for the leader. The OMAF project is going to Guelph and it's going to create jobs and it's going to have economic spinoff, and because we took the time to re-examine the Guelph relocation and made a few changes to it, we're saving the taxpayers about $9 million. We can do it because we can afford it this time, just because we're going to eliminate a conference hall and some fitness facilities that already exist within the community. That's how we save money in Ontario.

The Liberals save money by sending out campaign literature, setting up a 1-800 line. No ideas. The leader was so eager to jump at this that she couldn't wait to start licking the stamps. But she's wrong, and the letter doesn't get the facts straight.

Then she says she's going to cancel Jobs Ontario. Well, let me tell you, you tell the hundreds of people in my community who are off UIC and who are off social assistance because of Jobs Ontario and then you can come back and say something.

This constituent also phoned the 1-800 line, and he doesn't have an answer yet. In fact he's had several people say, "I'll get back to you."

Why doesn't the Leader of the Opposition lead by example? Why not stop sending out this junk mail and setting up 1-800 lines? Why not stop her four-year election campaign, and especially stop wasting taxpayers' money?

ALZHEIMER RESPITE COMPANION PROGRAM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On Friday of last week I met with the respite workers and family care givers who are involved with Alzheimer patients. The care givers are the people, of course, who serve with the people. They're right in the home looking after those with Alzheimer. The Alzheimer respite workers are on contract to the regional Alzheimer respite companion program, and they provide an excellent service to people in our part of the province.

They convened a meeting to update local members on the plight of clients with Alzheimer disease and other dementia. These clients have need for specialized care, as outlined in the Guidelines for Care published by the Alzheimer Society of Canada in September 1992.

What these people are looking for is adequate government funding for their program, and I call upon the government of Ontario, for the sake of the care givers who must spend almost half their time with Alzheimer patients, whose own health is impacted both physically and psychologically by their obligation to care for often difficult patients who are family members, to abandon the hundreds of thousands of dollars it is spending on polls to tell it what it thinks and on self-congratulatory government advertising and allocate the mere $25,000 needed to maintain this essential Alzheimer respite companion program.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It concerns the financial impact his government's social contract will have on many municipalities in Simcoe county.

Your government will slash a total of $275 million in transfer payments to Ontario's municipal sector, and that will result in a cut of $361,000 to Simcoe county; $671,000 to the city of Orillia; a $107,000 cut to the town of Penetang; $17,000 to the village of Coldwater; $10,000 to Elmvale; $26,000 to Flos township; $35,000 to Medonte township; $59,000 to Orillia; Oro township will be cut by $70,000; $87,000 to Tiny township; $63,000 to Mara and $12,000 to Rama township.

Minister, in your letter of June 14 to municipalities to announce the transfer payment cuts, you indicate, "Everyone, the government, employers and bargaining agents, is committed to ensuring that the impact of the fiscal reduction is distributed fairly." Many municipalities have already slashed their budgets and cut days of work.

Clearly, employers, workers, bargaining agents, municipalities and the Ontario PC caucus have taken up the cause of debt reduction and spending controls. The only group not committed is the NDP government of Ontario, which has created chaos long after municipalities have brought down their budgets and already made fiscal commitments.

Minister, why don't you freeze hiring, freeze wages and reduce your waste such as full-page ads, welfare reform and health card fraud? Why don't you clean up the mess? It'll save you $4 billion.

DEAF-BLIND AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): This week, June 21 to June 27, is Deaf-Blind Awareness Week in Canada and I'm happy once again to ask all the members of the House to join me in recognizing these very deserving people. I would especially like to acknowledge the efforts of many people and organizations that have worked so hard towards meeting the needs of the deaf-blind community on such issues as accessibility, education, employment, housing and transportation.

One of the bigger events planned for this week is a barbecue being sponsored by the Deaf-Blind Association of Toronto, along with other local groups. This is an excellent opportunity for members of the deaf-blind community to get together, to meet new friends and old friends and share some stories and experiences.

In the members' gallery today are a number of exceptional people who are here to participate in recognizing this week with us. I welcome Sean Brogan and Laurel Kelliher, who are residents of the Independent Living Residence for the Deaf-Blind in Ontario, and their intervenors, Amy Walker and Linda Stuckey, as well as Connie Southall, the executive director of the Independent Living Residence for the Deaf-Blind in Ontario. Also, the president of the Canadian Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association joins them. I welcome you all and wish you the best of luck for your promotion of deaf-blind issues.

CORRECTION

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I beg your indulgence. Yesterday in my member's statement I inadvertently referred to an editorial and I attributed my comments to the Port Perry Star. In fact, it was the Scugog Citizen. I'd like that to go on the record.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): That is not a point of order; it's a correction.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might have unanimous consent to make a statement about the passing of a member of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

1350

BUD GERMA

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Yesterday, the Deputy Premier and I were away from the House attending the funeral of Bud Germa, who was a member of this place from 1971 to 1981. I'd like to take this opportunity to say a few words about him.

Bud Germa was born in the Sudbury basin. He joined the armed forces, the RCAF, in the Second World War. He came back to Sudbury and worked as an electrician for Inco. He then went into municipal politics. He was elected to the federal Parliament in a by-election in 1967 and he was elected to the provincial Legislature in 1971. He was defeated in the election of 1981.

Bud passed away over the weekend after a long struggle with cancer. I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about him beyond the simple description of the chronology of his political career.

I did not in fact serve with him, though I was the leader of the party from 1982. Of course, I got to know him extremely well because he remained politically active until the very end of his life. Those who served with him -- and I know there are some members present who remember him vividly from his time in the House. He was what I think one could describe as a political original. He was someone of great passion, verve, good humour and blunt speech.

He was not someone who either minced his words or chose to phrase them in particularly flowery ways. His eloquence stemmed entirely from his experience and from his sense of the people he represented. He cared deeply about the people of Sudbury and the Sudbury basin. He cared deeply about the people he worked with and for. He cared passionately about their health and their safety and their position in our society. He cared very, very deeply about this province and about Canada.

I said that Bud Germa was a man of great and good humour. It is not, I think, possible for me to express in quite as pungent and direct a way Bud's humour, certainly in the current political climate, but I would say that Bud's commitment to being straightforward and his commitment to service was not a grim or onerous task for him; it was one that he took up with gusto and with a great deal of vigour and with a great deal of joy.

He was a tremendous partisan debater in this House at a time when night sittings were a regular fact of life rather than a two-week exception at the end of a session. He was known to everyone as a tremendous participant in debates, particularly in the periods of the minority governments between 1975 and 1981, when debates and votes were constant and were very closely argued.

I know that other members will want to say a few words. I had a chance yesterday, together with the Minister of Finance, to raise a glass at the Nickel City Hotel at about the time question period was due to start yesterday as we were reflecting at the end of the funeral on his commitment to ordinary people, on his sense of passion and compassion for them and on the enormous joy that he took in public service.

All of us will miss him. I shall certainly miss him. To his family, many of whom we were able to meet yesterday -- to all of them -- we wish our very best and our sense that this is, of course, a sad event, but it's also a moment in which we celebrate a remarkable life of service for the people of the province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus to express, as well, to the family and close friends of Bud Germa our remorse and our sadness at his passing last weekend.

It was just last week that I was chatting with some of the Sudbury members about Bud Germa, asking about his health, because I know that, particularly in recent weeks, he has had great difficulty in his battle with cancer.

It's interesting that, when I say "a battle with cancer," Bud Germa was never a person who would give up. I was reading an article from the Sudbury Star on February 23 of this year. One of the comments that Bud made himself with his usual candour was the following: "The prognosis is not terminal at this point. It's going to have to get me, because I'm not going to give up." That probably exemplifies Bud Germa and what he was all about.

Bud Germa, to me, was always what I expected in a New Democrat. He was perhaps a stereotypical New Democrat from northern Ontario, where I was born a number of years ago in the city of Sudbury, and the causes he fought for were causes that were dear to the people in that area, particularly to workers who worked in difficult circumstances relating to health and safety in the area. He was a very grass-roots individual. He had little time for theory and academia. In fact, he once referred to members of his own party who were more the people relying on theory -- and I can't remember the first part, but academic something heads, and I can't remember what it was. But that was terminology he used on that particular occasion.

Bud Germa, as I say, was a fighter. He was a person who represented his constituents well at the municipal level, in the federal Parliament where he served for almost two years after winning a by-election and of course in the Ontario Legislature, and even after he left the Ontario Legislature he was still a force to be reckoned with in his community.

Always the people who are closest to people like Bud Germa have probably the most relevant things to say about them. One I was reading was by Ron MacDonald, who is a staff representative with the United Steelworkers of America. He had a couple of things to say about him which I think really point out what Bud Germa was all about.

He said, "Germa stood out from most politicians because what you saw is what you got," and how true that was. He also said: "When he believed in something he fought for it. You didn't have to agree with his position, but you knew he didn't have a hidden agenda. He wasn't slick or polished and there was nothing devious about him."

That, I guess, says it best, perhaps better than anyone of us could, and I thought it was most appropriate that subsequent to the funeral, the report I had was that many of his friends proceeded to an establishment in Sudbury which was well known to many people in the area. I was too young, of course, to ever be involved with it, but I know that many people in the Sudbury area have heard of the Nickel City Hotel. Bud would have been delighted that, subsequent to celebrating his life and paying tribute to him as he passed, the congregation then moved to the Nickel City for the wake.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Bud Germa came to this Legislature in 1971. I came here in 1977 and had the experience of sitting on the opposite side of the House in government while Bud Germa sat in these benches in opposition. I can remember sort of the first blush of Bud Germa. We used to sit late at night and I used to time my exit out of here so I wasn't going home on the same street as Bud Germa was, because I thought if there's one guy I don't want to meet on a dark Toronto street it's Bud Germa.

But I must say that over the ensuing three or four years I got to know Bud Germa a little bit better, and as the previous speakers have said, Bud did appear like a very tough guy on the outside and was very direct. Conversations with him on political structure and theories would be less than a sentence long and he would be very pointed.

Because he was pointed he did appear rough on the exterior, but when you got sitting down with him, I don't think anybody on any side of the bench or any political party could doubt his integrity and his real softness on the inner. He was really a Softee Toffee and probably wouldn't like you saying that, but the truth of the matter is that he was very generous in terms of his time, given particularly I believe to people who really needed it in his area, and people who really needed his help and came to him. He was probably the least selective of anybody in terms of who he dealt with and how he dealt with the problem.

1400

I know his good friends like the member for Nickel Belt, Mr Laughren, and Mr Martel, who spent many hours with him, both in this place and in other establishments, enjoyed the number of stories that Bud Germa had. Bud Germa had more stories about various aspects of Ontario life than anybody I know of.

He probably epitomized sort of the two extremes of politics. On the one hand, if you got him into an argument in this place about an issue, you couldn't get somebody who was more dogged, more determined, more stubborn about that, but on the other hand, you probably couldn't find a person in the Legislature at the time who was more good natured and better humoured than Bud Germa.

I think that when people who watch us on television from time to time see us laugh at an inappropriate time, the odd time that happens to us, because politics is a tough thing to live with when people are talking about passionate issues on one hand and then an off comment comes and we laugh at the inappropriate times, I think in some ways he represented that kind of dichotomy that we find in politics here in the province of Ontario.

I think Bud Germa did, as he would say, a hell of a job for his constituents in Sudbury. He was a guy who worked with his hands, who came to this Legislature and continued to represent the people who did work with their hands.

I want to express our sympathies and our appreciation, as members of the Progressive Conservative Party, for the contribution he made to this Legislature, to Sudbury and to the people of Ontario when he served them so well in this place. Our sympathies go to his family and his friends. We will all miss Bud Germa for his contribution and his good humour and his good nature that he brought so well to this place.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'd ask for unanimous consent to say a few words about the passing away of Smirle Forsyth.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

SMIRLE FORSYTH

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): On Sunday, a number of us became aware of the passing away of a very good friend and certainly a servant of this Legislature. Smirle Forsyth served the people of Ontario as Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees for close to 15 years.

During that time, we saw some tremendously good changes and improvements that he participated in: the televising of our debates, the opening of the committee system, the improvement in translation services, the improvement in library research services to committees and so many things that Smirle felt were necessary for Parliament, which he loved so much and that he had such a knowledge of.

The courage and the stoic way in which he approached his battle with cancer over the last many months I think, to many of us who knew him, was quite typical of the way in which he lived his life. Smirle never wanted to be a bother or trouble to anyone. When I telephoned him on a few occasions, there was none of the bitterness that one might have at a situation that was painful and incapacitated him in many ways but, rather, simply an interest in finding out what was going on and in assuring us that he was fine in his apartment, even to the point of being quite humorous and joking about different things that were happening.

He lived his last days in the way in which he lived his life in this Legislature: as someone who was independent, as someone who was self-sufficient, as someone who wanted to be of service to everyone but of trouble to no one.

For many years, he served as the clerk of the justice committee that I chaired and we had some very eventful and interesting things that happened before that justice committee. I can remember the rather difficult and complicated hearings into Re-Mor and Astra Trust and the very interesting and very extensive hearings as we improved the law reform and family reform legislation.

Smirle always provided the very best possible advice in a quiet and professional but fairly firm manner. Nothing could ever flap him. I can recall when some 300 people showed up at a committee hearing wanting to speak and wanting to get access to the little committee room. Smirle was very firm but very courteous and informed them that he would arrange for a much larger room. We moved over to the Mowat Block and we were able to conduct our hearings in a way that was befitting of a Parliament, as Smirle would say, and that had the kind of dignity that he believed debate should take place in that way.

Smirle was always perfectly groomed. Even on the warmest day his tie was in place and his hair was in place, and his jacket was on and he was the epitome of the well-tailored man. Bud Wildman my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Energy, tells me of walking into a drinking establishment in Washington and seeing that it was a western music establishment and everyone was in jeans and cowboy hats and cowboy boots and open shirts, and there was Smirle, not a hair out of place, with his tie in place, a perfect suit, but enjoying himself tremendously in talking with the people who were in that bar. He could talk to everyone and yet make them feel comfortable, even though in some ways he was perhaps more reserved and perhaps a little bit quieter than most of us.

One of the qualities I most admired about Smirle was that he would always tell you what he knew you should hear, not what he thought you wanted to hear. This honesty and integrity, I think, was very helpful to committee Chairs who may have at times been tempted to want to get different advice.

Smirle was a person whose personality grew on you. First of all, you were impressed by his competence, then later by his integrity and his love for Parliament, and gradually as you got to know him and could have some quiet conversations with him, by the fact that he really did like people, he was interested in people, he cared about people and he was anxious in helping members of all parties in any way possible and in a completely non-partisan way.

The Premier this morning shared with me his sadness at the loss that we've all received in Smirle's passing away on Sunday, and I know that he'll be personally writing to the family. The Legislature and the people of Ontario have lost a hardworking, dedicated servant, and those of us who knew him so well have lost a friend.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I too would like to join in passing along our sympathies and condolences to Smirle Forsyth's family and friends on behalf of the Liberal caucus. I would like to pass that on to the family and friends of Smirle Forsyth.

I just want to say about Smirle that I think he represented the finest traditions of this House. He was a true scholar of this assembly. A lawyer by profession, he had a profound and great understanding of the workings of Parliament. He added great value to this assembly's work. At all times he was a consummate professional and he brought a great deal of dignity and honour to this assembly.

I got to know Smirle on a number of occasions when we travelled on committee, a luxury we can no longer afford, but during those days we got to know each other quite well. Smirle was very insightful and in my early years starting off as a member of Parliament, I really appreciated Smirle's forthrightness and his ability to pass along useful information about the workings of the assembly and the workings of committees, which is most important to a member who's just starting off.

1410

Smirle's real legacy as far as I'm concerned is that in getting to know members, and I think this could be said of almost all members who came to know Smirle, he was a real comrade, if you will, of all members of this assembly. You got to know him in that spirit, particularly, as I say, when we travelled. I think his great contribution to members like myself who were starting off was that he elevated the status of members by making them really feel that they were involved in a worthwhile process, particularly for backbenchers. I think that was so important.

Back then, when I was a backbencher -- well, I'm still a backbencher, but I would say that especially early on, when this place seemed rather a different place to do business in and I wasn't quite familiar with the workings of the assembly, he certainly passed along that sense of great respect for this assembly, its work and the great dignity of this place. At all times, he expressed that in his actions and in his advice to members. Obviously, we remember him for those wonderful attributes.

Smirle, as has been stated before, never imposed himself on anyone. He certainly was very independent to the end. He held out on his own with a great deal of respect for this assembly and its workings and at all times symbolized that sense of loyalty and the real faith he had in the workings of this assembly and its importance.

I would like to say that we will miss him sorely. All of us mourn his loss and we pass on our sympathies to his family.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Our party would like to join in as well in the very fine remarks from the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the member for Lawrence.

It's one of those times when several members from our caucus wanted to be able to participate in just saying some words of Smirle today. In fact, it was rather significant in my view when on October 6 last year, 10 members of this House took turns to comment on the very great dedication that this one person has given to the Legislative Assembly. In reading through those remarks now, one can really sense that he left us a legacy.

Often you think, "If these walls could talk." I'm glad they can't. For some of the things that go on around here, every one of us would have a conscience that would twinge. Smirle wouldn't, because there wasn't a moment when he was here and on duty or not on duty that he wasn't serving in the spirit of the great parliamentary tradition that we are a part of. His 14 years here were just part of the giving of one person's life to the work of democracy, to the work of the betterment of Ontario and the betterment of this system.

I had the pleasure of working with Smirle and the table clerks when I was Deputy Speaker. There's only one still left at the table. Alex McFedries is still there, but it's great to see him continuing in something of that tradition. Before that there were David Callfas and Rod Lewis, but then there very much was Smirle. The way in which people continue to carry forward that sense of responsibility -- people have no idea of the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes that makes this place tick, that keeps it going. That was certainly part of the experience that our own House leader, Ernie Eves, had when he was first on committee and he was working with our friend Smirle at the time and old Duke McTavish.

There are stories that go back a long way. It has to do with people who are as conscientious and as caring and as dedicated as these people have been in the tradition of this House.

One of the things that stands out is that not just here in this province and in this House have we appreciated Smirle's efforts, but as you travelled across the country or met with clerks in other jurisdictions, they would always say, "How is Smirle?" There's an ongoing sense of caring about him, for one who cared so much about others as well.

As we remember him today, I think there's something that we also remember, and that is that cancer is still very much a problem. May we in this day and age continue to look at those people like Terry Fox, like Smirle, like so many others who have fought that battle and lost. May we who are left continue to fight the battle for them that we can find some remedy to this heinous disease and that there won't be the casualties to that battle against cancer that we have seen with, again, Smirle's passing now.

We will today remember Smirle, and I suggest that those of us who have had the pleasure of working with him and knew him and loved him for what he was and who he was will also remember him in the future. As we take our sincere sympathies to his family, as we come along and make another contribution to fight cancer, as we come into the House, we will again remember that there was someone here working to serve in the way that Smirle did. Maybe we in our own capacity can rise to the level of excellence that he so wonderfully gave.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I know our party has had an opportunity to speak about Smirle, but I couldn't help but rise and indicate something to all of you, that Smirle, after you signed this card for him, sent me a note wanting me to thank all of you on behalf of doing that. It was a lot of fun for him trying to decipher a lot of the names and it brought back a lot of memories.

Smirle has been addressed today as a person who was very serious. I also saw some humour in some of the things and some of the events that perhaps -- maybe I saw it more because I had more dealings with him sitting in chairmen's jobs and perhaps on the road.

Finally, Smirle, we will miss you greatly. In fact Smirle was a fellow who not only helped us in our work as chairmen but also he made certain we got to our destination and that all our luggage got there as well. Without Smirle I'm sure that in going to Windsor, many of us would have wound up in Sudbury.

I want to thank you, Smirle, wherever you are. God bless you.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Having served this assembly as Deputy Speaker for three years between 1987 and 1990, I also want to join with what my friends and colleagues have said about Smirle. As Deputy Speaker, I was very fortunate to have, with all the other clerks and clerk assistants, Smirle at the table.

It's always interesting when this House rises to interesting moments and when you're all alone there with one of the clerk assistants. If that person happened to be Smirle, you could -- those of you who were there at the time would remember Smirle sitting there very stoic and very confident like the Rock of Gibraltar or, like consulting the Encyclopaedia Britannica, you know he had the answer but he would just sit there.

I would lean forward and say, "Smirle." Then he would turn very slowly, and once he would turn, you knew you would get the very sound advice. For that I want to thank him; very much integrity, very much knowledgeable, very friendly and with a very great sense of humour. We all know his dedication to his job. He would provide you with the answer that, as we heard before, you needed to know. But he would add, "But then there's also," and he would give you a range of answers that you could pick from.

His advice was always very good and very solid. As we all know, Smirle also had the dignity and the quiet way in which he could pop a sweet at any moment because he had very much of a sweet tooth. I want to offer his family our condolences and I would want Smirle to fax me confirmation, from where he is, there are lots of candies for him for a long time to come.

Smirle, we're going to miss you quite a bit.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Permit me just to say a few words about my personal friend Smirle. When I was first elected in 1985 and the House first convened, I received a note from Bob Nixon telling me that I was appointed Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole House. I didn't know what it meant. I sincerely didn't know what it meant. I approached him afterwards and he said, "Perhaps you should speak to the Clerk," the then clerk, Mr Lewis.

I quickly learned what was the role, and Smirle was assigned to me to work with me every week, every Wednesday, from 9 to 10 o'clock to learn the procedures, to learn the traditions, to learn the protocol. I remember so vividly when I sat where you are now, Mr Speaker, and I thought that all eyes were on me. Of course, everybody was ignoring me; I know that now.

It was just like being given the wheel of a ship. Smirle was there, you know: "Steady as it goes," "Make sure that you don't say this or you don't say that," or "If somebody's too noisy, get up, tell him to keep quiet," which I did. Smirle was always there to give me comfort, to give me support. Your job is lonely, I know that, and you need that support. You need that understanding. Smirle was always able to do that.

I spoke to him about a month ago too. He was then blind. I said to him, "Do you turn the radio on sometimes?" and he said, "I turn on the television. I don't see anything, but I can recognize the voice. I create my own little scenario," which I thought was great. He loved this House. He really loved it.

He was patient. He was very meticulous. As my colleague Mr Philip said, he was always impeccably dressed, and that reflected so well in his personality. It reflected so well also on all of us, all the members. I will miss him, and what I find so unfair is that he died so young. He was only 42.

1420

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I wonder if, in closing, I might just say that in addition to sending our condolences and expressing them very strongly to Smirle's family, to his parents and brother and sister and nephews and nieces, I think we should also perhaps remember that the table officers have lost a good friend and a colleague as well.

Since the rules of the House do not permit them normally to speak, I just simply want to say to them very personally that we know your loss and we share it with you. Smirle was a great and good friend of all of us who work in this place, and we shall miss him and we know you will as well. Perhaps we can find a way through some work we do together to remember him in a way that will allow his name to be remembered and his presence here to be remembered by all of us.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): First, the kind and thoughtful comments by the Premier, by the member for St Catharines and the member for Carleton will be conveyed to the family of Bud Germa.

Members will know, as the member for York South has indicated, that it is the practice in Parliament that those who are seated at the table do not speak to the House. I know that this is an occasion when each of them would like to break that rule. May I say on their behalf to Mr and Mrs Forsyth that your son served this House with great distinction and he was, in every way to measure, a true friend of Parliament.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you have apparently indicated that you are willing to back away from the August 1 deadline for imposing the wage rollback provisions of your Bill 48. It would seem that after three months of delay and confusion and paralysis you have understood that the time guidelines that you have imposed are just simply not going to work.

There is still no sign that real negotiations are about to be resumed, and quite clearly the negotiation process cannot take place successfully in the time that is left before that August 1 deadline, so I am quite frankly glad that you have acknowledged that.

I ask whether you will now take the next step and acknowledge that your transfer partners cannot achieve the full extent of the cuts you're demanding in the remaining six months of their budget year.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): As the Leader of the Opposition knows full well, because one of her assistants attends my morning scrums every day and I'm sure she gets briefed on them regularly, she knows full well what I said last night and what I said this morning, and that is that within the framework of the legislation it is, as I said in answer to a question, entirely possible that where sectoral discussions are taking place, those discussions may well reach the targets in ways other than a total freeze as of August 1. They may well find some other way to do that, and that is entirely within the confines and within the framework of the legislation which has been set out.

I would say to the honourable member, our sense from talking to our transfer partners is that there's a great recognition of the fact that negotiations need to happen. There are in fact negotiations that are now well under way taking place, have been for the last few days, will continue for the next few days. We continue to believe those negotiations are going to be very productive in some sectors -- could be in all sectors, if people were willing to go.

I guess the question, what I would think we would all want to have answered in the affirmative by all parties, is that we would want to encourage everyone to come to the table and to negotiate successfully the kinds of targets that we've set out.

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

Hon Mr Rae: The member last week said she shared our target with respect to deficit reduction. She said she shared that goal. Now she seems to be reversing herself entirely, 180 degrees. We've been quite consistent in this regard, quite clear in this regard. We still think the targets can be met and we still think negotiations need to happen, and that's exactly what this party has been saying.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, we continue to ask you for some realistic, workable approach to achieve the cuts that you have set out. The question today relates to the reality that it is now almost July. You have asked the transfer partners to implement a full year of cuts, a full 5% reduction in their compensation costs, in a six-month time frame.

What that means, if they were to achieve those cuts as required by your legislation, is that they would need double the wage rollbacks to get that 5% in the last six months of the year or they would need twice as many layoffs, if that is the approach which they have to take in order to get that 5% reduction. So instead of a 5% reduction over 12 months, what you're actually forcing is something more like a 10% reduction in half a year's time.

Premier, we are agreeing, we continue to agree, that you have to cut payroll costs in the broader public sector. Unlike our friends on the other side of the opposition, we have not said that a wage freeze alone is going to achieve the purposes. In fact we continue to believe, and I don't think it is naïveté, that people are actually still prepared to look for ways to achieve the cuts if you would just give them a process that can be allowed to work.

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

Mrs McLeod: But, Premier, they cannot any longer achieve the magnitude of cuts you're looking for, which you yourself would acknowledge is a full year's impact, in what is really six months of the year. I ask you, seriously, if you want your negotiations to succeed, if you want to achieve the cuts that you're looking for in a realistic way, will you not adjust your transfer payments to match the six months that remain in the year?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, in terms of the fiscal year, we're talking about a fiscal year for us which started in April.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): But not for school boards, not for municipalities.

Hon Mr Rae: The member shouts back, "Not for school boards and municipalities." We've already indicated, in the course of negotiation and in the course of discussion -- I met with AMO; we've had discussions with the school boards where we've indicated very clearly we're prepared to take --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): They're halfway through their fiscal year.

Hon Mr Rae: Exactly, and we're prepared to take that into account in terms of what happens in January and relationship between our fiscal year and theirs. That's all been taken into account.

I would say to the honourable member, if she agrees on deficit reduction and if she agrees that a freeze is not enough, will she now stand in her place and encourage all the partners to come to the table and negotiate effectively what could be done, which is precisely what needs to done?

Mrs McLeod: No, Premier, I will not, because that has not been our position from day one.

Let me remind you of the alternative that we have been arguing from day one. It is the alternative that your government put in place a realistic budget, that you set the financial targets, that you then sit down with your own employees and negotiate the way to achieve those cuts and you let other employers and employees do the same thing.

I thought that last week you understood that, until you brought in legislation that kept trying to pull too many people back to one central table and impose comprehensive, broad-brush solutions which will not work, and no, I will not advocate that people come to the table to do that.

1430

I will argue that you put in place a process which will work to allow realistic cuts to be achieved. I would strongly support your need to get your budget targets met and to get that deficit under $10 billion. I will not support your mismanagement and your failure to put a realistic, workable process in place to achieve that goal.

Let me say to you, Premier, that I believe you could ask your transfer partners to make cuts that have a 5% reduction impact over a full year. I believe you could get the rest of the $2 billion that you need for this budget year to meet your budget target by reviewing your ineffective and questionable programs, and we say that over and over again. Look at Jobs Ontario, look at your housing program, look at the implementation of your advocacy legislation, to name just a few.

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

Mrs McLeod: Yes, I will. The Premier says that he has listened to the municipalities, that he keeps taking into account their concerns. The municipalities have asked for exactly what I am proposing to the Premier today. They've asked that you phase in the cuts so that you will achieve your projected savings but over three municipal budget years, not the two and a half of your target which you are now imposing.

I ask if you will listen to what the municipalities and others are asking for: reduce your social contract targets; adjust your transfer payment cuts; find the balance by cutting more out of your own operations.

Hon Mr Rae: I would only say to the honourable member that the question of the impacts on municipal budgets and of the impact on school board budgets are issues that are being dealt with directly at the table by us. Of course they are.

But I would say in addition, just in response to the honourable member, that it's a classic phoney opposition tactic. They say they support the objective but not one of the means that are being put forward to deal with it in a realistic fashion. You want to have your cake, you want to be able to eat it at the same time, and you want to have even more cake to eat tomorrow and be able to eat that as well and say, "Look how much we're doing." That kind of approach just won't wash, given the very tough times we're in right now. It just won't wash.

Mrs McLeod: Two weeks ago, this Premier stood in this House and said the approach that we have argued for from day one was the one that he believed he was going to have to put in place. Unfortunately, he hasn't figured out how to do that yet.

TAX AND FEE INCREASES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The second question is also to the Premier, this time on another subject, another disaster that this government's mismanagement is bringing about. It relates to the $2-billion tax grab that we said, at the time you brought in your budget, was going to kill jobs and kill any economic recovery that we would all like to see, and it relates more directly to the $239 million in fee increases which you are looking for in addition to the $2-billion tax grab and the fact that your government has refused to acknowledge that those taxes and those fee increases were in fact going to put more people out of work, were going to cost this province jobs.

We are now seeing the impact of those tax increases and those fee increases, and most particularly, those of us from northern Ontario are seeing the impact of a 43% increase in the cost of stumpage. On a daily basis this week, logging and sawmilling operations are being forced to shut down, and today alone I heard of 45 layoffs in this industry.

I understand, and I know you understand, that these aren't the big operators. These are the small business people who employ seven or eight people and keep seven or eight families going, and these are the kinds of jobs that are being lost today.

Now that you see, and surely you're aware of this, the job losses, the closed businesses that are a direct result of this measure, will you withdraw this punitive 43% increase in stumpage fees?

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

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): It is true that the budget contained a balance of some tax increases and some of what we know as non-tax revenues, and there was an increase in the stumpage fees that the sawmill operators will pay. I'm sure that, coming from northern Ontario, the leader of the official opposition knows that the sawmill operators in the province have had a very decent year as compared to the pulp and paper operators.

I'm very much aware that the Liberal Party is opposed to any tax increases whatsoever; they're opposed to any non-tax revenues; they're opposed to the deficit being as big as it is, but they're opposed to any expenditure reductions. The Liberal Party of this province is opposed to everything.

Mrs McLeod: I say to the Minister of Finance, you can only get your taxes, you can only get your increased fees, if people are able to stay in business. That's a basic bottom line. You aren't going to get these fee increases, because people can't stay in business.

The Finance minister, in answering my question, seems to refer to this myth of windfall profits that's out there somewhere. Let me tell you about the kind of people who are going out of business today because of your fee increase. One example: Wally Ranta, who happens to have a small logging operation in northern Ontario, employs seven to eight people. He makes about $7 profit on a cord of wood, at least he used to.

In the last two months, his stumpage fees have increased twice, once for the quarterly adjustment brought in by the ministry and the second time for the fee increase that you put into your budget. He is now going to be asked to pay -- and remember, he makes $7 profit on a cord of wood -- the government something in the order of $16 to $20 a cord in stumpage fees, which is twice as much as what he was paying two months ago. That leaves him in a net loss position, and he cannot afford to pay your government for the privilege of staying in business. Mr Ranta will not be continuing to log. He has announced that he will be closing down on July 1 and he will be laying off his eight employees.

How do you expect small business people like Mr Ranta to survive and keep employing people when your tax measures and your fee increases make it absolutely impossible for him to make any profit at all; in fact, to experience a loss if he tries to keep going?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't expect anyone to like tax increases, but at the same time I think that fairminded people will appreciate the fact that we are governing in very difficult times and we had to have a combination of reductions on expenditures all across government, that we had to have some tax increases in order to help us control the deficit, and the third component of our package was to reduce expenditures on the public compensation side.

In every single case, the leader of the official opposition stands in her place here, day after day, and says, "We don't want any tax increases, we don't want you to control expenditures in the public sector and we don't want you to reduce expenditures overall across the province," and, of course, "We want a deficit that's below $10 billion." I really wish the leader of the official opposition would get out of her time warp, get into the real world and start proposing alternatives in this place.

Mrs McLeod: What do I have to do to get a basic bottom line across to the Treasurer of this province? If he doesn't want to talk jobs, okay; if he doesn't want to talk people, okay. But at least talk economics. You can't get your fee increases if they're going out of business, and they are all going out of business.

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, they are. I have a letter from a somewhat larger operator, a letter that was sent to the Minister of Natural Resources from John Wilson, who's president of Liskeard Lumber in New Liskeard, Ontario. Mr Wilson writes, "It's difficult to convey in writing the confusion, the disillusion and state of shock that is echoing across this struggling industry," and that is what we are hearing every day from every community across northern Ontario where there is a logging or sawmilling operation.

In sheer frustration with what you have done and in their frustration at not being able to get you to pay any attention to the impact that your fee increases are having on their ability to stay in business, I'm sure you know that they are considering taking drastic action, including blockading highways. I understand that the Minister of Natural Resources is going to meet with the lumber manufacturers next week. They want a commitment, they want an assurance that you understand their concerns and that you are prepared to remove this tax. I am calling on you today to make that same commitment. Will you deal with their concerns? Will you withdraw this fee increase?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the acknowledgement from the leader of the official opposition that the Minister of Natural Resources will be meeting with the operators, I believe it is next week, and that he will be, I'm sure, having a conversation with me as a result of that meeting. But I don't think it serves anybody well for the leader of the official opposition to cry from her position of some stature in this Legislature that everybody is going out of business. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I wish the official opposition would stop spreading that kind of misinformation.

1440

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier on the social contract. I noticed this morning that you seemed to be listening to my caucus and considering, as one of the options, using anniversary dates of contracts as a starting point for a three-year wage reduction program. I want to indicate that our caucus feels strongly that this should be one of the options, because we see that as leading to permanent long-term downsizing at the end of three years, as opposed to some of the short-term solutions that are there.

Premier, you will know as well that this was one of the six specifics we had indicated that we had hoped to see in your legislation. One of the other proposals of those six that I'd like to talk to you about today deals with the establishment of an expenditure review committee. This committee would look for waste and inefficiency in government. We will be moving an amendment to Bill 48, as that bill moves through the legislative process, to establish this committee. I would ask the Premier if he would support that amendment to establish a formal Ontario expenditure review committee to see what other savings we can find as well.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Let me just say to the honourable member that in terms of the preface to the question, what was indicated by me last night as far, as I'm aware, has always been available to the parties and has always been one of the options that has been discussed. That's absolutely clear. I just wanted to say that for the record. I would say in answer to the question that again that's something we have discussed and that has been on the table with respect to our discussions with our partners in the broader public service, both employers and employees. Of course I'd have to see the wording of any such amendment and exactly what its purview would be, but I have no objection to our having committees which have the responsibility of looking at expenditure review, none at all.

Mr Harris: Perhaps we do need further discussion. If we can make the review committee as non-partisan and as broadly representative as possible, I think we can achieve some very positive results over and above and beyond just social contract talks.

Yesterday, Premier, and you may disagree with a couple of these, I thought the member for St Catharines quite appropriately condemned the waste by your office in full-page ads in 21 daily newspapers. Today, the Toronto Sun reported that tax money was being used to fund humour-related creative writing courses for the Canadian Auto Workers. We checked with the community arts development office of the Ontario Arts Council, and it confirmed what I think is a misuse of tax dollars. We raised this very issue with you a year ago on grants for very similar purposes which we felt were a very one-sided abuse, if you like, of taxpayers' dollars. Premier, it may not seem like much to you, $30,000 on a $10-billion deficit, but I would ask you this: When we're looking at cutting out waste, how can you possibly continue to condone this particular $30,000 abuse of tax dollars?

Hon Mr Rae: If I'm not mistaken, the federal Tory party funded an entire museum dedicated to humour in the city of Montreal, so that party has certainly gone a little further than that. I know we have to be so solemn in this business, and I apologize. No, I don't. I just want to say directly in response that I don't believe the Premier of the province --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Fish ties? All that? Come on.

Hon Mr Rae: The member from London is almost out of control at this point.

Mrs Cunningham: That's not fair. If you want to see out of control, Bob, I'll show you out of control. Go to a ball game with me, Bob. I'll show you out of control.

Hon Mr Rae: Now she's heckling me mercilessly.

I would say to the leader of the third party that, apart from anything else, I just don't think it's right for the Premier of the province or for the government to tell the Ontario Arts Council what it should do. We have an arm's-length relationship with an agency. They have a funded allocation. Those decisions are not made by us, any more than the Canada Council decisions are made by the federal government. Once you establish arm's-length funding, it seems to me you'd better respect the integrity of that process.

Mr Harris: Premier, you have selectively interpreted when you should intervene and when you shouldn't. Certainly, there are many who believe that those types of grants to the CAW have occurred because of your government and your involvement and your appointments.

However, let me ask you this: For someone who has hiked your own government's spending this year while taking an additional $2 billion of taxpayers' dollars, saying you're going to, and stating the intention of taking $2 billion from the social contract partners, I would suggest to you that, given your inability to control your own government spending, you should be jumping at any plan to help identify savings from across all of the ministries and all of the programs.

Our plan would look at incentives for employees who can find savings. It would oversee whistle-blowing legislation. It would review the usefulness of programs such as the year-end spending. It would not allow and not tolerate something you condemned in this place when I raised it, that was the Ontario Housing Corp year-end spending binge and 5% increases. You and I agreed that was nonsense and should stop, but your minister defended it.

I would ask you this: You've given a general support that you'll look at it. Will you sit down with me and the leader of the Liberal Party, if it actually wishes to control spending as well, something it didn't do for the last eight years, to put in place, as part of this amendment, a truly non-partisan expenditure review committee to start to get the expenses of this government under control?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the rhetoric behind the question belies the first answer that I gave. Maybe he wasn't expecting the answer that I gave so he had to denounce me for giving a positive answer.

I indicated to him as clearly as I could that, in addition to treasury board, in addition to the processes, I'm quite prepared, I'd say directly to the leader of the third party, to sit down with the honourable member and with others and look at other ways in which we can establish mechanisms for expenditure review. I can assure you the workers in the public sector are very interested in this as well. So if there's a way we can find together to do that, that's great.

What I would take from this, however, is that the leader of the third party is saying that he's interested in getting Bill 48, after a long couple of days' debate, into committee of the whole so that in fact we can consider amendments. I would say on that score that I fully agree with him. Let's get on with the amendments.

Mr Harris: The Premier can conclude exactly that. That's my intention and the sooner the better.

GAMBLING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier as well. As you know, my caucus has set up a task force on justice, community safety and crime. Just last Thursday we held a public forum, for example, in St Catharines.

By a margin of two to one, Ontarians believe that they and their families face greater dangers in their own community than at any time in the past number of years. Also, the crime statistics justify that fear and concern. I think you would agree that we as legislators should be doing everything we can to prevent the increase of crime.

Therefore, can you explain to me why, during a time of increasing fear and concern among Ontarians, you would invite into the province of Ontario an increase in criminal activity by bringing big-time casino gambling to this province?

1450

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think I'll give that question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm sorry that I didn't quite get the question, but I believe the question was, why are we introducing casino gambling in Windsor at this time? Is that correct? Okay.

As I've said before in the House, when we first decided to introduce casino gambling, when we first decided to move slowly and cautiously and set up a casino in Windsor, one of the things that we heard from people and one of the things that we decided to review and had concerns about ourselves was crime and its possible relation to casinos. Obviously, when you have a large facility brought into a town of any sort, there is going to be somewhat increased crime. That's not just for casinos but for any large facility that brings a lot of people with it. From the very beginning, we brought in all of the police community, at their request, to work with us to make sure that the concerns of the community would be looked at from day one, so that we can be assured that the casino will be crime-free.

Mr Harris: I say to the minister and the Premier, or the minister of justice, if it gets bounced there -- I never know whom I'm addressing here -- that the facts are these: Our police forces are being asked to cut back at a time when 85% of Ontarians -- 88% of the women in this province -- believe that crime in the province has increased, that they are not as safe in their neighbourhoods as they once were, yet our scarce police resources are being directed towards these kinds of things in the past month. Intelligence officers with the OPP and Windsor police have been recruited to keep an eye on mobsters and others whom they are concerned about as a result of the Windsor casino project.

According to the Toronto Star last Friday, a special casino squad is being set up, funded out of the existing programs, taking resources away from police in our neighbourhoods, on our streets, to handle "the expected influx of underworld activity." I would ask the minister this: If you're the one who's now responding on behalf of justice issues and on behalf of the police and the deteriorating sense of wellbeing that women in particular have in their homes and in their neighbourhoods, do you think this is a good use of the very limited police resources, spending them on this kind of activity?

Hon Ms Churley: Specifically in terms of the casino in Windsor, which I think I should direct my comments to, not being the minister for justice, the project team, when it was set up, was allocated a certain amount of money to give and contribute to police resources. I remember, when we first started talking about the possibility of a pilot project in Ontario, one of the concerns and the questions which was frequently asked of me by the third party was its concern about crime and what we would be doing about that. I made darned certain that one of the first things that we looked at when we set up this project team and set up a process by which we can make sure that we're dealing up front with possible crime that may be related to a casino is taken care of. That's what the people of Ontario said to us and that is exactly what we're doing.

Mr Harris: To the newly appointed minister in charge of the allocation of police resources, let me ask you this: The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police will be holding a panel on casino gambling at the annual general meeting in July, not a panel on how it deals with increasing crime, with increasing violence, with the increase in armed robberies, with the increase in murders, with the increases daily that we hear about and violence towards women. That's not what the panel is on; the police chiefs of Ontario panel is preparing itself for the increased crime due to your casino plans. Every officer and every policing dollar that goes towards casino crime or that kind of criminal activity is a dollar that's taken away from fighting the crime that currently exists on our streets. In the past two years, murders in Metro Toronto increased by nearly 10%; sexual assaults up 18%; violent crimes up 12%.

Let me ask you this: How can you justify at this time, at a time of restraint when crime is on the increase, the police chiefs and the police resources going to fighting organized crime that we all know is going to come with your casinos?

Hon Ms Churley: Again I shall answer specifically to the casino project, but I think, to be fair to our police force, I would say to the leader of the third party that he's being a bit unfair in terms of the police force in Ontario and how it conducts its business. I'm sure that the police chiefs and the police community have conferences and seminars about many, many issues which they're trained to deal with.

There's a very small amount of the police force that has been allocated to deal with this particular project, just as there are some members of the police force directed to serve at the domed stadium. Just as any new facility or any new project that is set up in our community, it takes a certain amount of the police force, which is what it's paid to do, to protect the citizens of Ontario. This is just one facet of much of the work they are doing.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier, and it has to do with the social contract negotiations.

The Premier will know that a cornerstone of the social contract negotiations is the plan to cut the government's contributions to the pension by about a third. I think your plan is to reduce your spending in the pension plans by about $500 million in each of the next three years. I think the Premier can appreciate that those on this side of the Legislature are worried about the basis on which that was arrived at and want to assure themselves that it is a responsible decision you're making.

I understand you have an actuarial report on it, but I wonder if you would give the House this assurance: that you will ask the pension boards that have responsibility for administering these plans to comment on your plans and to assure the House that we are not putting at risk future governments and future pensions by your plan to reduce your contribution by $500 million a year for each of the next three years.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will refer that to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I believe the member from Scarborough-Agincourt understands the difference between the regular pension plan contributions and the special plan which was set up to look after the unfunded liability over a number of years. That was an agreement worked out between the Liberal Party when it was in office, and I think the member from Scarborough-Agincourt understands that.

What we are saying now is that the reduction of the $500 million per year, if that's what transpires, will be reductions to that plan, not to the regular plan to which the employees and the government contribute based on the incomes of the teachers and the amount they will draw when they draw their pensions. So not one nickel of pension benefits will be touched by the decision, if that's what transpires, to reduce the government's payments by $500 million a year for the next three years.

1500

Mr Phillips: The minister may not have heard my question. My question was, would you undertake to have the pension board give the Legislature an independent view on it? The minister just indicated that things are fine, but I have the annual report of the teachers' pension plan, and there's a chart here that shows the growth in the unfunded liability more than doubling over the next 15 years. It's not my report; it's the board's report. You can see that red line more than doubling, so you can appreciate why we on this side of the House are concerned that you're planning to spend $500 million elsewhere that you had planned to spend on pensions.

I would just like the assurance of the government that we, on this side of the House, before you proceed with your plans, have an independent view on whether that is fiscally responsible, because if you look at the plan, I will assure you that the plan managers have a chart in their plan that shows the unfunded liability growing dramatically over the next few years.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, we would not withdraw or reduce our payments to that fund unless it was actuarially appropriate to do so. The member should understand that with a lower rate of inflation, with virtually no increases in wages or compensation for that sector for the next three years, the payout is going to be less and that, in our view, it makes actuarial sense, and we would not do it without actuarial justification for doing so.

Also, I have no problem at all with the pension board commenting on this, but I am sure it would do as we would do, make sure that there's actuarial justification for reduced payments into it as a result of what will eventually be reduced payments out of the fund.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Premier. It has to do with interprovincial trade barriers. As the Premier will know, the Conservative Party is strongly opposed to the fact that interprovincial trade barriers exist in this country. We're especially concerned about the restrictions placed on employees by the province of Quebec. Some of those, Mr Premier, have been in place for as much as 15 years, as you will appreciate.

They are so offensive that -- I can give you one example of a few years ago. The city of Hull was forced to tear up sidewalks because the cement for the sidewalks was supplied from a supplier in the province of Ontario. That's the sort of situation that currently exists.

The Premier of New Brunswick, Mr Frank McKenna, has taken a long-overdue stand, brought on by years of frustration. The province of New Brunswick has finally done something, while your government continues to want to talk, talk, talk, while the Quebec negotiators laugh up their sleeves. Can you tell us why your government signed an agreement to continue this talking and negotiating process instead of taking firm action like the province of New Brunswick?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would say to the honourable member very directly that, first of all, this is a problem. It is a problem which the province has been facing for some time. When he was a member of the previous government, as the Minister of Government Services, I know he'll be aware of it from that time, when he was in the administration of the Conservative government. It was there then, and I don't recall him tearing anything up or walking away or blowing up any discussions.

I would just say to him directly that it is a problem. I would also say to him that a multilateral all-province or, in turn, bilateral agreement is better than unilateral action. Let me tell the member why.

Siemens, for example -- Mr Speaker, this is going to take a little while -- is a company that technically has headquarters in Quebec. It has extensive factories and locations in the province of Ontario. The president of Siemens Canada has come to me and said, "Under the New Brunswick rules, we are not now allowed to bid on projects in New Brunswick." This is a multinational company, and a company with extensive holdings in Ontario. I say to the honourable member, before the leader --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. You don't understand.

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think the leader for the third party --

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

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the leader of the third party that if he wants to heckle from his seat as he has done, he's got it wrong with respect to the potential impacts in Ontario; he doesn't understand the impacts.

I would say to him that there is a need for action. I have indicated that very clearly to the government of Quebec, and we are open and we are entering into discussions with the government of Quebec in the context of the multilateral negotiations that are taking place. These rules need to come down, these rules need to be changed, but I would be wary of our escalating the war at this point.

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

Hon Mr Rae: That does not mean that we're not determined to get this problem settled and get it dealt with. I would say to the leader of the third party that he really is a little out of line in some of the comments that he's made, because I don't think he appreciates the impacts which unilateral action can have, which is why we prefer bilateral understanding. We are determined to act, however, because it is a problem.

Mr Runciman: That's essentially empty rhetoric. It means absolutely nothing to Ontario businesses losing jobs or to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in this province.

I want to give the Premier the other side of the coin. I have a letter here from a firm in my riding -- I'd like the page to take it over to the Premier, if possible -- Rehau plastics, which produces plastic pipes. They also have two operating businesses in the province of Quebec and they have an operation in Prescott, Ontario, but they're not able to supply pipe into Quebec because of the government-subsidized projects and because of the restrictions on the Quebec water purification corporation. As a result, they're losing jobs. They've been considering expansion at their plant in Prescott, but it is difficult to justify when Canada's second-largest provincial market is closed to our products.

That's a company operating in this province. They can't expand and they can't create new jobs because of this restrictive legislation placed upon them by the province of Quebec.

Mr Premier, when are you going to stop treating Quebec with kid gloves and stand up for Ontario workers and employers against Quebec's anti-Canada trade restrictions?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that we are entering into bilateral negotiations with the province of Quebec. That's very clear. I would say to the honourable member that we have made it very clear to the government of Quebec that we consider its practices to be unacceptable in the context of a Canadian common market. We've made that position very clear to the government of Quebec. There's no doubt at all with respect to our position.

I would also say to him that when you represent the largest province, as we do, our authority and our power has to be exercised with a degree of discretion. But I want to assure him that this matter is directly in front of the government, we are dealing with it very directly and we do not regard the discrimination against producers that are based in Ontario as acceptable at all. It is not acceptable. It is an historic practice that must stop, and we are determined, through a process of negotiation, to get the practices stopped. That's precisely the position of the government of Ontario.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question's to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Many Hamilton-Wentworth-area residents depend greatly on two major Canadian steel manufacturers: Stelco and Dofasco. The dependency is not limited to just jobs, but is also on the many other spinoffs deriving from steel manufacturing.

The United States' imposition of dump duties against Ontario's integrated steel producers is of significance and is a great cause for concern to thousands of people in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. In fact, I'm sure there are others concerned all across Ontario. What is the outcome of the United States Department of Commerce's final steel dumping ruling, and how will it affect the Ontario steel industry?

1510

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The US Department of Commerce arrived at its final decision yesterday. It was released today. It's not good news for the steel industry in this country, so it's bad news for our province, given how important that sector is to us.

The final dumping rulings actually increased the margins in the majority of areas. Plate steel remained about the same, but hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel, in particular, were increased beyond what was even expected might be the result. This is very upsetting news with respect to the ruling.

I have to say that our view of this is that these duties against Canada are unwarranted and unsupportable. There's no question that they are implementing duties against what we see as an integrated North American steel market where our companies are selling at a North American price. The findings of the US Department of Commerce are just not supportable in any way.

This dispute has been going on for a long time. I want to point out that this is the third in a four-point decision process. We expect that we will have shortly the final ruling with respect to injury and at that point in time we'll know whether the margins will be maintained or not.

Interjections.

Hon Ms Lankin: I have to say that we view this as a continuation of trade harassment. This is not something that has been ended by the FTA or NAFTA, as I hear members across the floor heckling at this point in time.

Mr Abel: If Canadian steel firms and US steel firms are both selling in the same market at North American prices, it appears that the whole steel dispute is about trade harassment and protectionism. Why is it that Canadian firms are still being harassed by protectionist US interests when we have a Canadian and US free trade agreement and we have recently signed the North American free trade agreement?

Hon Ms Lankin: It was hard to hear the whole question. I tried to listen. With respect to the trade harassment, as we see it and as the steel industry clearly sees it, there is no relief currently under the free trade agreement, as we had hoped and had been promised by previous governments, with respect to bringing an end to these kinds of actions.

At this point in time, we do have to await the finding on injury. If there's a negative finding on that, then the dumping margins will not be implemented. But I have to say that there was recently a case which the Canadian industry brought against a number of US firms, in retaliation for the case that was here, which went through the system. In the first of those cases the Canadian trade tribunal found that there was no injury.

This is another problem we have in that the trade rules are different in both countries. They're much more stringent in Canada than the US. It leaves us open for dumping of cheap products from European markets and others. This is clearly a fault that should have been corrected in the free trade agreement, should have been corrected in NAFTA, and wasn't.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: What I can assure the member is that we will be sitting down with the steel industry this week to assess these cases and to take further actions with it.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Finance. In your budget, you proposed a new tax which is going to affect the brewing-on-premises industry in the province. The tax is going to grow over two years to 38 cents on every litre of beer or wine made by a customer on the premises. This industry is an all-too-rare growth industry in our recession, as you probably recognize. In just four short years, it has grown to 235 outlets owned by small business entrepreneurs who have sunk $50 million into their businesses and who now employ over 2,000 Ontarians. The industry is obviously very concerned about the harm your new tax will cause and about your ability to withstand the pressure of the large, multibillion-dollar brewing industry to proceed with this tax.

My question is this: What studies have you done to measure the impact of your new tax on the brewing-on-premises industry?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): My son asked me a very similar question after the budget.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You had no answer for him, either, did you?

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member for Oriole ever would make a speech or ask a question, I could understand that she sees the need to heckle, but she does nothing except heckle in this House. Why is that?

Mrs Caplan: Touchy, touchy.

Hon Mr Laughren: I wonder if I could attempt to shout over the heckling of the member for Oriole to the member who asked a serious question, I thought. I will try and take the question more seriously than his own colleagues do.

Mrs Caplan: It's a serious question, Floyd. See if you have an answer for this one.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

Mrs Caplan: See if you have an answer for this one.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sorry, the member from Oriole's asking a supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Perhaps the minister has an answer brewing.

Hon Mr Laughren: It seems that questions to deal with the brewing industry bring out the best in people in this assembly.

I did think seriously about the you-brew industry when we imposed the tax, but in the end my feeling was that it is a commercial establishment and that there was no reason why it should be exempt.

I think there has been some confusion out there, which is one reason I appreciate the question. There is some sense among some people out there in the province that we were taxing people who brewed their own beer at home, and that of course is not the case. It's simply a tax on the you-brew establishments, which are in fact commercial establishments, and in my view should be paying the tax.

Mr McGuinty: I take it from that response that the minister has not in fact conducted any kind of formal study which would lead him to gain an understanding and a recognition of the implications of this tax policy.

You're probably aware, Mr Minister, that this industry obviously pays the usual array of taxes: these sales taxes, employment taxes, business taxes and property taxes. What you are now doing, essentially, is imposing an additional tax on these small business entrepreneurs and you are, recognize it or not, trying to stifle the very kind of economic growth this province desperately needs.

The brew-on-premises people tell me that you have told them you can't meet with them this year. These are reasonable people, and they ask two things of you. First of all, they want a meeting with you before August 1, and secondly, they want a one-year moratorium on your new tax in order to prepare, in consultation with you or your officials, a responsible taxation program, one that won't kill their industry. Will you agree to these two reasonable requests, the meeting and the moratorium?

Hon Mr Laughren: I certainly will not agree to a one-year moratorium on the tax. I think, to put it in perspective, that the tax that has been put on the you-brew establishments, is still very significantly less than the tax that's on the regular beer establishments. As a matter of fact, it's more than half, but I don't think it's even two thirds of the tax that's on the regular beer that you buy from the major breweries. So I don't believe it's an onerous tax burden.

As a matter of fact, the information I received from several sources was that the you-brew industry was indeed expecting this tax, and in some cases there was a sigh of relief that it was not even heavier than it was. I think, to put it in perspective, that it's not an onerous burden on the industry.

1520

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question was for the Minister of Natural Resources, but in his absence I would like to direct it to the Minister of Finance.

Last week the member for Grey had the satisfaction of presenting a resolution in the Legislature which received the approval of this House by a vote of, I think, about 32 to 28. All members present were very pleased with the content of the resolution and the fact that it passed. I assume you're aware that the resolution covered the rebate to the conservation authorities; so my question is, will you consider restoring that tax rebate through the ministry to the conservation authorities?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yes, I was indeed aware of that event in the Legislature last week. The member may recall that was the result of an exercise this government engaged in, in which we were looking at ways to reduce our expenditures all across government. There were no easy decisions in that regard. I certainly have heard from backbenchers in the government of their concern about this particular cancellation of a rebate. But I can say to the member that it is not our intention to cancel that program, although I am very much aware of the concern that's been raised by members on all sides of the House.

Mr Jordan: Thank you, Mr Minister. Since you have chosen really to ignore the resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly, I would assume that you have in mind another more effective plan to save the conservation authorities from selling off their land. It was indicated by the Minister of Natural Resources that this could be the case, and I ask you now, would you tell the House what that plan is?

Hon Mr Laughren: It's my understanding that the Minister of Natural Resources is, as a matter of fact, sitting down with the conservation authorities to discuss this whole question of alternatives to the disposition of land by the conservation authorities as a result of the cancellation of the rebate. It certainly isn't our intention to encourage conservation authorities to do that, and that's why the Minister of Natural Resources has agreed to sit down with the conservation authorities in the province to see what the alternatives might be.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Madam Minister, I've formed a small business working group in my riding of Fort York, where we have 16,000 small companies. These businesses have enthusiastically welcomed the opportunity to work together with me to address their concerns about the role of the provincial government in economic renewal.

As you know, Madam Minister, small businesses have created an impressive 85% of all new jobs in Canada over the last decade, but they face obstacles: a lack of access to working capital; excessive red tape and taxation; and a sense that provincial governments, past and present, do not see local businesses as part of a vibrant community economy.

We have discussed many issues to date and there has been considerable interest in hearing what the government is doing to improve the prospects for small businesses. Since the budget announcement regarding Jobs Ontario Community Action, I have been asked many times what role small businesses will have in this new program. Madam Minister, will this program have anything to offer small businesses?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I thank the member for his question. I'm sure I'll have similar questions to that when I have the opportunity to join with him at the next meeting of the Fort York small business working group, which is coming up this week.

As a government, we see community economic development as a way of supporting local economic development priorities that are planned by local communities in a way that encourages community-wide participation, and the initiative under the Jobs Ontario Community Action that the member asked about has three specific components to it: There's community development, community capital and community financing.

I think the community financing component is probably the part of the program that will be of most significant interest to small businesses. That part of the component is currently being addressed and debated in this House right now under Bill 40, which is under the stewardship of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The legislation addresses the problem of inadequate access to capital, which is a serious problem for small businesses at this point in time, and it looks at how local entrepreneurs and small businesses can qualify for loans that are sponsored by local pools of capital put together from local communities. Under the legislation, communities will be given the tools they require in terms of community loan funds and setting up community investment share corporations for both loans and equity investment.

I'd be pleased to give the member more information on that and to have some details available for the members of his community. I urge all the members in the Legislature to take a look at this important vehicle to help finance local businesses.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our assembly this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, as he has been for the entire question period, the former member for Lambton, Mr David Smith.

PETITIONS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have another petition that has come from people from the Belleville-Trenton-Quinte area concerning the school for the deaf, Sir James Whitney School, and if I may, I'll read it:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education proposes to substantially modify the provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled by either downsizing, closing parts of or restructuring the schools, resulting in significant hardship for students, families, employees and the local community for the purpose of saving money; and

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents Association believes that quality education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning disabled provides the lowest total-cost option available while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible;

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

"(1) Maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model from all interested parties has been developed; and

"(2) Empower local boards of trustees as set out in model 5 to manage their own budgets within ministry guidelines and funding."

Mr Speaker, I support this and have affixed my signature to these.

GAMBLING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Speaker, it says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

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

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

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

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

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

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

That has 28 signatures from Orillia, Washago, Severn Bridge, Kilworthy, Toronto, and I have affixed my name to it.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have here a petition signed by hundreds of students from my riding, students like Tyler Astles, Tim Clancy, Dave Massey, Todd Bainbridge and Mike King, who are concerned about their future, and their petition says:

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

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

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal with whatever means possible; and

"We petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal now."

Mr Speaker, I think it's only my right to present these petitions and not be harassed by the opposition while doing so.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): "To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

Mr Speaker, it is signed by 32 of my constituents and I have affixed my signature.

1530

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"To object to the recent cuts to GO Transit bus service for Woodbridge, Kleinburg, Nobleton, Bolton, Palgrave and Highway 9.

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers; and

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy; and

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and encourage public transportation systems; and

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto during peak hours; and

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers in one of the worst economic times in Ontario history to incur extra expense, finding another form of transportation;

"It is resolved that the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and restore GO Transit service to Bolton and Palgrave."

I've identified my signature on this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition today from a number of people in the Bala and Port Carling area of my riding, members of the United Church there. They are opposed to the gambling casinos being established and ask that the government cease to establish all gambling casinos in the province of Ontario.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have another of a continuing series of petitions, another 500 names here from the constituents of Timiskaming:

"Premier Rae, Treasurer Laughren, Minister Buchanan:

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'd like to read into the record again many, many petitions against this awful policy of casino gambling:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries" -- that you would expect from the government -- "and

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

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976" -- and again the other day -- "voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

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

This is eminent good sense and I'm going to put my signature to this. I hope the government listens for a change.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have another petition here pertaining to the Sir James Whitney School at Belleville with 341 signatures, over and above 500 and some signatures which were put together by Tom and Linda Sirvage, who have two of their children attending the Sir James Whitney School at Belleville, and they're very concerned. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents' Association believes that quality education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled provides the lowest total cost option available while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario:

"(1) Maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model for all interested parties has been developed; and

"(2) Empower local boards of trustees as set out in model 5 to manage their own budgets within ministry guidelines and funding."

I fully support this petition and I have signed it.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Waste Management Corp is proposing to build and operate a huge centralized toxic waste incinerator and landfill site in the heart of Ontario's farm land of Niagara;

"Whereas toxic waste must be treated at the source because transportation of such huge volumes of toxic waste on our highways is suicidal;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change the mandate and directions being promoted by this crown corporation, the Ontario Waste Management Corp."

Over 51 families have signed from the Niagara area: St Catharines, Fonthill and Niagara Falls. I affix my signature to this petition.

CONTRAT SOCIAL

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai en ma possession trois pétitions identiques signées par 60 personnes de la circonscription de Prescott et Russell. Elles sont adressées à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario.

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

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Monsieur Bob Rae, nous sommes très inquiets de la situation présente en Ontario. Il ne semble pas que vous soyez à l'écoute des solutions que vous proposent les gens de la coalition, ni même à l'écoute de la population. Nous désirons savoir exactement ce que vous avez l'intention de faire pour sortir la province de son déficit, sans pour cela rendre la vie des gens impossible, en leur faisant subir des coupures draconiennes venant de vous et des employeurs. Cela ne créerait certes pas un climat de travail et risquerait certainement d'affecter la qualité des services offerts.»

J'ai apposé ma signature et je l'appuie à 100 %.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition from Dianne Gow in Waterloo.

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

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

It has been signed by about 70 people in Kitchener and Waterloo.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the need for a safe, secure source of potable water has been established in the township of Bosanquet; and

"Whereas the necessary engineering and planning has been completed for a regional water pipeline; and

"Whereas the completion of this project would be expedited by the support of the government of Ontario with funding through Jobs Ontario Capital;

"Therefore, the undersigned respectfully submit this enclosed petition for the consideration of the Legislature of Ontario."

I endorse this petition and will sign the same.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition.

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

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

That is signed by about 1,500 of my constituents, and I have affixed my signature as well.

GAMBLING

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I have a petition from the Blyth United Church to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed my name. This is from 33 people from Blyth United Church.

1540

REGISTRAR GENERAL

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

"Whereas the office of the registrar general under the authority of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is unable to maintain a reasonable level of service for the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been unable to reduce delays for amendments, changes of name, delayed registrations, marriage and birth registrations,

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

"That the government undertake a broad review of the operations of the office of the registrar general with a view to reducing the delays for processing requests in the aforenoted departments."

That's signed by 24 residents of my riding and I've also signed the petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Deferred vote on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Pursuant to an arrangement made yesterday, we are now moving into a vote which had been delayed to today. We will have a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1542 to 1547.

The Acting Speaker: Will all members please take their seats. We are now proceeding to vote on Mr Johnson's, representing the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

All those in favour of adopting the report as presented will please rise one at a time to be identified by the Clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to accepting the report as represented, please rise one at a time to be identified by the table.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Daigeler, Drainville, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey), Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 59; the nays 43. I therefore declare the report accepted as presented. Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 8, 1993, this bill is ordered now for third reading.

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 48, An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program / Loi visant à favoriser la négociation d'accords dans le secteur public de façon à protéger les emplois et les services tout en réduisant les dépenses et traitant de certaines questions relatives au programme de réduction des dépenses du gouvernement.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Willowdale had the floor when we last debated this bill.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): As I began last night I made mention of the fact that the member for Renfrew North had just completed debating this issue and had indicated, contrary to what the member for Oriole keeps saying, support in principle for this bill --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Having many private conversations makes it very difficult for the member for Willowdale, who has the floor, and very difficult for the Speaker to hear what he's saying. Would you please, if you have conversations that you want to maintain, do it in a quiet fashion.

Mr Harnick: At any rate, I keep listening to the member from Oriole telling me about what my party's position is. Quite frankly, I think everybody in this place wants to know what her party's position is. Her leader has said they're opposed to this legislation. The deputy leader of the party, the member from Renfrew North, stood in his place last night and eloquently debated and said that, in principle, he's all in favour of the concept of restraint.

I don't know where my friends in the Liberal Party are going with this, but I don't think there's any question that we in this party have been preaching the concept of restraint since the day we were elected in 1990. We continue to preach the concept of restraint and, lo and behold, three years later the Treasurer is finally listening to us.

I think it's very important that the public understands some of the numbers that got us into the trouble that we're in now. From 1985 to 1987 we had an accord between the socialist NDP and the socialist Liberal parties. They got together and the one thing that they decided to do was to spend big time. They had more programs that they were going to spend money on and they had more improvements that they were going to make to this province than had ever been made before. They began an orgy of spending in 1985, the two parties together, one holding the gun to the other's head. They began this orgy of spending to the point that the province is now bankrupt.

That went on from 1985 to 1987, when they were in bed together, and it continued in 1987 to 1990, after they'd had the divorce. So the spending up to that time had been unprecedented.

It's interesting to know that as of 1990, the then Premier, Mr Peterson, had to know that something was going to happen, that something around the corner was not good, because he was telling us in September 1990 that the budget was a balanced budget. In fact, it was a $3.5-billion deficit. That's what the socialist NDP government inherited. They inherited a $3.5-billion deficit and they inherited a province that was on the brink of economic collapse. That's what happened in September 1990.

From that point on, they embarked upon a plan to right the economic problems of this province and they did that by continuing the orgy of Liberal spending and by continuing heavy deficit financing. There had been deficit financing in prior years, but there had never been deficit financing of $3.5 billion like there was under the Liberal government. There had never been deficit financing to the extent of $10.9 billion --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under the rules of procedure, members of the House are not supposed to mislead this House. Information they give is supposed to be factual, and I would ask you to call the member to order because his information is simply not correct.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member will have the opportunity of replying.

Mrs Caplan: Why don't you tell the truth? I'm not allowed to say he's misleading. Don't say I can't say he's misleading --

The Acting Speaker: Please, we're all honourable members here.

Mrs Caplan: An honourable member tells the truth.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Willowdale has the floor.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Oriole turned around to the member for Willowdale and said, "That's crap." Is that proper parliamentary language?

Mrs Caplan: That's not true.

Mr Sterling: That is true.

Mrs Caplan: That isn't.

Mr Sterling: That's exactly what you said.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Of course it's not parliamentary. The Speaker did not hear it. Does the member for Oriole want to reply?

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, on my point of order: The member from Willowdale has provoked me by the fact that he is giving false information to this House. If he were giving factual information to this House, I would not be provoked.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Willowdale has the floor. Please resume.

Mr Harnick: I only can say that she protesteth too much.

The Liberals told us in September 1990 that the budget was balanced. They told the electorate that the budget was balanced. Well, lo and behold, the NDP took over and there was a $3.5-billion deficit. Those are the facts: $3.5 billion after 33 tax increases, after unprecedented revenues, and there was $3.5 billion of deficit.

Then the NDP socialist Treasurer took over and he said, "You know, that $3.5 billion is not enough," and the Treasurer then decided that he was going to purchase prosperity. He was going to go out and purchase prosperity and he said there was going to be a $9.7-billion deficit. Lo and behold, he was wrong; there was a $10.9-billion deficit. But that deficit was deliberately created. There was no attempt to cut spending. There was no attempt to cut taxation. There was no attempt to stimulate the economy. There was a deliberate plan to spend money to stimulate and to run a deficit to stimulate.

The Treasurer, sitting in his place today, will be the first person to admit, because he's an honourable gentleman, that his plan failed. His plan failed, but he didn't realize after the first budget that his plan failed so he went ahead and he brought us another budget, and the next budget came in at $11.9 billion in the hole.

People on this side of the House were hyperventilating. The Treasurer offered us paper bags to help us get enough oxygen in our lungs. In two years of NDP government, we were now over $20 billion of deficits.

1600

The Treasurer finally started to get nervous, and he finally started to say, "I haven't bought prosperity." Furthermore, because of the labour relations bill, Bill 40, we've had an even greater dip in the economy, the private sector has not been stimulated, and lo and behold, we now reach the third year and the most recent budget, where we have a projection, and it won't be right, of $9.2 billion of deficit.

Lo and behold, in that atmosphere, the NDP decided, the government decided that they were wrong in terms of their big spending, so now they've decided to embark on a plan of even bigger taxation and restraint. Well, I haven't seen the restraint they keep talking about. There's supposed to be $2 billion in spending cuts. Page 92 of the budget says that there might be $147 million in spending cuts. So the spending cuts are not there. They cut money that they might have wanted to spend and realized they couldn't; $147 million, that's all the savings that there were.

But we know for sure that the Treasurer is telling the truth when he tells us about the $2-billion tax increase. That is the truth. That is the very sad truth. There's a $2-billion tax grab. That's one of the legs of the stool.

The final aspect to all this was the fact that we are now going to try and achieve $2 billion in cuts from the employees of this province, directly and indirectly. I, quite frankly, and the members of my party are supportive of that leg of the stool because it's part of a general restraint package that has to be there. There's no question of it.

The problem, and what makes it very hard to swallow for those in unions and for those who work for the government is that the government itself has not done its part in terms of sharing in the pain and the misery. The government has not cut its spending to the degree that taxpayers have been asked to ante up and to the degree that government employees have been asked to ante up, and that makes this very hard to swallow.

In all of this, where are my friends in the Liberal Party? Well, one minute they're going to fight this restraint package, they're going to vote against it, and the next minute, at 11:30 at night, the deputy leader of that party says, "In principle, we're all for it."

Mrs Caplan: Not this legislation.

Mr Harnick: I didn't say the legis -- the member from Oriole has a habit of interrupting but not listening. What I said, and I'll say it for her again, is that the Liberal deputy leader indicated that in principle he is in favour of restraint. I did not say that he was in favour of this piece of legislation. But the member for Oriole doesn't like to listen. She has a very selective memory, as do all of the other members of her party and caucus.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the member from Willowdale is making some fine comments on Bill 48, and there should be some Liberals here to hear them, so I'm calling quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Willowdale may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Harnick: Just so people don't think I'm becoming overly partisan about my comments, I have certain comments about where the Liberals stand and what alternatives they offer to a very difficult problem. I've heard none, in spite of the new style of politics that they're going to engage in, the constructive style of politics.

But I can quote from the Ottawa Citizen, June 4, 1993. Here's what a reporter who sits in the press gallery on a regular basis, a very objective individual, says:

"During recent question period exchanges, Rae" -- I assume he's referring to Robert K. Rae QC -- "has had much to work with. He claims, with credibility, that he is dealing with what the Liberals didn't during the gravy days of the 1980s.

"'On controlling health costs,' he bellows at McLeod, 'you avoided it the entire time you were in office, five years of evasion."'

I might just add, those were increases in spending, year over year, in excess of 10% every year.

Interjection: Less than you guys spent, lower than you rate of growth.

Mr Harnick: Yes, but the inflation rate when we were in government was different from when you were in government.

I might tell the member from Oriole, who's again laughing, that when the Conservative Party ran this province we had a triple A credit rating. We don't have that today and we didn't have that after the Liberals finished with their double-digit spending and taxing. Oh, here we go.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Willowdale, as an honourable member, has an obligation to tell the truth. He has an obligation as a member of this House to make sure he gets his facts straight.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole will have an opportunity of setting all her facts straight when her turn comes. The member for Willowdale has the floor and can resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Harnick: I'll give the member from Oriole some other numbers. Her party went from 96 seats to 36 seats, and if those numbers don't speak volumes, no numbers do.

But any rate, let's see what else Jim Coyle had to say. He said:

"'On controlling health costs,' he bellows at McLeod, 'you avoided it the entire time you were in office, five years of evasion.'

"The Premier correctly notes that he has been provided with virtually nothing by way of serious alternatives proposed by the Grits."

Another quote is:

"I know the game that she's playing. To every aggrieved group out there she's going to say, 'Well, I'll advocate for you and I'll advocate for this and I'll advocate for that."'

That's exactly what the Liberal Party is doing. They have not provided one single alternative on how this problem can be solved.

It's very interesting. The Premier came along and proposed this package of legislation. I'll tell you, it's very difficult, it's going to be fraught with problems, there's no question of that, but my party immediately --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we should have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West has requested that the table check to see if we have a quorum. A quorum is present. The member for Willowdale may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Harnick: At any rate, as I was saying, when this piece of legislation was delivered, my party -- and I'm quite proud to say this -- immediately proposed ways that this piece of legislation could be make more workable. The very first thing was to propose a three-year hiring freeze which has the potential to reduce the annual cost of public sector compensation by over $2 billion in the third year, a public sector wage freeze that would commence on the anniversary date of all contracts and continue for three years from that date.

It's very interesting, because as of yesterday, last evening, the Premier even agreed that was the proper way to do it and he now is talking about implementing this at the conclusion of existing contracts, because now the Premier understands that it's important not to gut collective agreements. It was our party, I might tell my friends across the way, that suggested this alternative.

We've also proposed whistle-blower provisions to protect public servants who report fraud, waste or other abuses from workplace retribution while netting substantial additional savings.

We've proposed provisions to discourage government departments from spending their entire budgets within the fiscal year, eliminating year-end burnoff or face rollbacks.

1610

Now, we know that the Ministry of Housing, at the end of this fiscal year, because it had more money, was giving away 5% raises for the next year: quite improper at a time when we should be showing restraint. The Premier acknowledged that, although the Minister of Housing has never acknowledged that. I'd like to hear what the conversations between the Premier and his minister have been like over the last several months.

We've proposed performance bonuses for public servants based on efficiencies and productivity gains similar to private sector agreements such as those involving the Canadian Auto Workers union. We've proposed a very significant proposal: establishment of an expenditure review committee to identify non-productive government programs and to prioritize existing programs, all of these suggestions aimed at providing constructive means by which this piece of legislation will work.

We in this party recognize that governments have been spending too much money, governments have been taxing too much money, and governments are trying to be all things to all people and they can't do it. We have taken the position that restraint is necessary and that we wish to be constructive in determining the kind of restraint that we believe should take place.

That's why we're offering constructive proposals. We don't just criticize. That's the old way of doing things, to be shrill and to shout and to criticize and not to offer any constructive alternatives. We don't do that. We are trying to be constructive in terms of the way we look at this particular piece of legislation.

I remember, and late last night when I began speaking I alluded to this, when I first came to this place in September 1990 and we used to talk about smaller government and restraint, the Liberal Party and the government laughed at us. They thought it was funny. They treated those suggestions with complete and utter disdain. Well, the one thing that gives me great satisfaction is to be able to stand here today and say, "I told you so."

Quite frankly, I would bet that there's not a person on the government side who would argue with that. They were all wrong when they came here and thought they could tax big and spend big and carry on indefinitely. The reality is that the Liberals did not leave you an economy that could sustain the size of government that they created. They created a civil service that went from 80,142 in March 1985 to 88,267 in March 1990.

If those numbers aren't accurate, I'd like somebody to jump up and tell me. But I tell you, that's a fact, Mr Speaker. That is a fact. It was very quiet from the opposition party when I mentioned those statistics: 80,142 in March 1985, jumping to 88,267 in March 1990. That's 8,000 people.

Then, to boot, with this government which assumed power in September 1990, one of the very first things they did was they froze the salaries of all the MPPs in this place. I think that was quite proper. They quite properly recognized that the NDP had inherited a $3.5-billion deficit, that the economy was slowing down, and they went ahead and they froze our salaries.

But what I can't understand is why they then went ahead and started giving out wage increases to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union of 14.5%. I tell you today that if you ask those same Ontario Public Service Employees Union individuals whether they would have accepted 2% then for a guarantee of a job today, they would have said: "Keep the 14%; I'll take the 2%, because that's what inflation's running at, because I want a guaranteed job. That's what's important to me and my family."

I can't understand for the life of me how the government knew enough to freeze my salary, quite properly, and at the same time it was giving out wage settlements of 14.5%. How did that happen? I don't know. I don't know how that happened and quite frankly, it was at that particular point in time that the government then continued and made a decision to go on the spending binge that, between the NDP and the Liberals, has brought us to the point where we are today.

I am proud to say that our party, through that whole period of time, remained consistent. We remained consistent in saying what you're doing is wrong, what the Liberals did was wrong and to a very large degree what our party had done before that was wrong. You can't deficit-finance indefinitely, and that's what people around here tried to do.

But when we stood in 1990 and put those remarks on the record, and it's quite clear they are on the record, we only felt derision and disdain and mockery from our colleagues in the other parties, because no one was prepared to recognize the very grave situation that we were in, and I think we've reached this stage.

Just in the very brief few moments I have, I do have some significant concerns about the bill. I am very concerned that this particular bill gives enormous power to the Treasurer. The power the Treasurer receives under this bill is probably second to no power ever granted to an elected official in any other piece of legislation that has ever come before this Legislature.

Mrs Caplan: But you're going to support it.

Mr Harnick: The member from Oriole says but I'm going to support it. You know, the fact is if we don't come up with a restraint package now, the government cannot sustain itself. I understand that the Liberals have a stake in maintaining a civil service that is far too large, because they hired all those people. They created that huge civil service. They were the ones who have a stake in taxing people at very high rates, because they raised our taxes 33 times in but five years, and now they don't want to acknowledge that they were wrong.

At least I can say that the government sitting opposite me today, by the tack that it has taken, is at least acknowledging that what it has done for the last three years is wrong. By continuing Liberal policies for three years and creating high deficits they were wrong, but at least now they're turning in the right direction. The Liberals refused to acknowledge that.

The other very significant aspect of this bill that concerns me is the fact that there are certain aspects to our health care system that can be very much affected by the provisions of this bill. What I'm talking about is the way the government can now ration health care pursuant to this bill in a way that I think can be very detrimental to the people in this province.

Now the government assures us that: "Oh, we would never do those things. We would never go ahead and take advantage, even though it's in the bill and by way of regulation that the health care rationing can take place." What I say is if you're never going to do those things, as the Minister of Health protested the other day, why do you need those things in the bill? Why do you need those extraordinary powers and why is there no check on what the Treasurer is able to do under this bill?

When we had the wage and price control bill of the Liberals in Ottawa in I believe 1979, we had the Anti-Inflation Review Board, an independent board that reviewed the implementation of that bill. Here we don't have that. All of the power rests with the Treasurer, and I think this is a very dangerous precedent.

But as I close, I say that I hope the government will accept the amendments that we will be proposing very shortly. The amendments will deal with the six points that I outlined earlier, and I believe they will make this bill workable and make this province economically more healthy in the future.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The member for Oriole.

1620

Mrs Caplan: I was very much provoked by the member for Willowdale, because much of the information that he put forward in his remarks in this House was simply inaccurate and false. I'd like to correct the record for him.

I want him to know that in fact in 1990 the NDP government inherited a triple A credit rating. They also inherited a fully balanced operating budget, and that budget had been fully balanced since 1987. The Provincial Auditor attested to the fact that after 15 consecutive years of Tory deficits -- and the Liberals inherited an operating deficit from the Tories in 1985 -- the first fully balanced budget, including capital, occurred in this province, and it was the first fully balanced budget in 20 years, in the full fiscal year of 1989-90, which happened to be the last full year of the Liberal government.

We know as well that through the years from 1985 until 1990 Ontario led the western world in economic activity and created some 700,000 jobs. We know as well that the budget plan that Treasurer Nixon tabled in the spring of 1990 called for a 6.8% spending plan which, by the end of that year, the NDP had run up to 14.7%. The deficit in that budget at the end of that year, at the end of the six months that the NDP held the reins of power in this province, was then $3 billion. That was still, I would point out, a budget that a fully balanced operating budget, because the capital budget in that year was $3.2 billion.

We all know the difference between capital and operating, we know that the books of this province are kept in an antiquated way, but the member for Willowdale must give factual information if he's not to mislead the people watching these debates.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind members that you're coming awfully close to being unparliamentary. Please.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): While I've been provoked to rise for two minutes, I'll be very brief. But I want to commend the member on the speech that he gave because a lot of those figures that he gave were factual.

I've sat in this Legislature for over 12 years and I remember when the budget went from $29 billion to almost $40 billion under a Liberal administration from 1985 to 1990. I was here when the civil service was increased from 80,000 to 88,000 in that same administration. I was here when the corporate minimum tax was put on. I was here when the wealth tax was put on. I was here when the sales tax was increased from 7% to 8%. I was here when the commercial concentration tax was put on.

When I hear about 33 tax increases in five years and I hear the member for Oriole making the comment that what the member for Willowdale was saying is totally untrue, I find that very uncomplimentary due to the fact that it is bordering on what the Speaker has just said.

On the remarks that were made with regard to the social contract, I think the six proposals that our leader has put forward, and which have had great debate, are worth very serious consideration, because I'm for less government, less spending, and more concern with the job civil servants are doing. With regard to the conversations that have taken place back and forth in this House, it appears that they're not being complimented at all for the job that they're doing in this province. I think we have a very good civil service, but the fact is there's got to be a bottom line. There's got to be a freeze on hiring and a freeze on salaries.

Those people who have jobs out there should be quite happy and satisfied, because there are an awful of people in my community who are looking for work, very qualified people who need work to support their families. These people we have need it too.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The member for Willowdale has two minutes in response.

Mr Harnick: I very briefly put to the member for Oriole, if your record was so good, why were you not re-elected? That speaks for itself.

The very key aspects of this social contract legislation are the importance of getting it done and the importance of minimizing and ending the uncertainty which our civil service is working under now. The fact that people who are long-time civil servants and dedicated employees of this province are living a day-to-day existence of uncertainty -- it cannot be easy for them to be going through this, wondering if they will have a job and will be able to provide for their families tomorrow. I urge the government to get on with it, to get on with its sectoral negotiating and not to continue extending the deadline over and over and over again. You're only hurting the people who work for this province.

The other very great concern that I have is that when these sectoral bargaining contracts are made, and I hope they are made before the August 1 deadline, I only hope that people understand that the income that they will be making, the concessions that they will be making, at the end of the three-year period can't be recaptured. What they've given up can't be recaptured overnight or we will be back in the same position that we are now. It's very, very important that when this plan is finally in place, either by way of legislation or by way of sectoral bargaining, we have some certainty and we know that when the three years end we will be on a stable foundation and we will not be back where we are.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm glad to rise in the House on this very important occasion to address Bill 48, Bill 48 being, I think, probably one of the most draconian bills that has ever come before this Legislature; in fact a bill that I would say is going to have a disastrous effect on the relationship between trade unionists and the government for years and years to come.

If I could begin by looking at the present fiscal situation, because there's no question that the move to introduce such a piece of legislation is due directly to the very serious economic situation that we find ourselves in, I acknowledge the terrible effect of the recession and I acknowledge also that these are challenging times indeed for the government to have to face the many, many problems on every level, in every sector of the economy, and try to respond appropriately and well.

In my own riding of Victoria-Haliburton, I'd like to speak a little bit about the problems we are facing. We have nearly 30% unemployment in the county of Haliburton. We have nearly 20% unemployment in the county of Victoria. We have had significant problems. I look, for instance, in the agriculture area. We have had significant problems in our farms and in the rural areas and we have not seen any response on the part of this government.

We look in terms of the Minister of Agriculture and Food and we know that there has not been one bill that has passed this House from that ministry; not one bill. So we have a significant problem. Not only do we have a problem in terms of the economy, but we have a problem in terms of the fact that the government isn't responding adequately and well to that.

I look also in terms of the manufacturing concerns. I don't blame the government for that. I have to say obviously the free trade deal has been a disaster for our riding and we've lost many of our manufacturing concerns.

In terms of tourism, for instance, we have a very significant need for tourism, particularly in Haliburton county, which depends on tourism as its major sectorial provider of jobs. What do we find? We find that the government in a sense begins to gut the tourism ministry. We're not having the same kind of support for tourism that we used to have in this province. That's a great concern I have, particularly in the fact that in my own county we need more support by the government instead of less support.

I speak from these anecdotal situations to show you that in my own riding we have these significant problems. There's no question that the government facing these had to begin to direct itself along a course that was going to deal with these problems and deal also with the debt. There's no question that the leadership that the government has given in the last little while has been very much more concerned with debt reduction.

I'm not here to rail against the establishment of a social contract, whatever that concept may be. The presupposition that there is at this moment a need for the public service to reflect the restructuring of the economy is something I think every member in this House is willing to accept. As our economy has shrunk considerably over the last three years, we have continued to see a steady growth in the size and the cost of the public service. I don't believe that any sensible person would argue that such a growth is compatible with our present financial problems. No one would argue that these are the realities we're facing. However, where we get into significant debate is how we approach these vexing problems.

1630

One would have expected that in such an economic climate a social democratic government would have put a priority on the creation of jobs and a need to reaffirm its commitment to labour. This is of course not the route that was chosen by this government. Rather, the government has chosen dictatorial uses of power and a total rejection of social democratic principles. So much so is this the case that if we look philosophically or politically at the words that are used to justify the government's actions, if we look at the general direction that the government is taking, that government that we are speaking of, the New Democratic Party government, is really not a social democratic government. It's a government that has moved decidedly and decisively to the right.

Let me give you a "for instance," as we look at the article that was written by Mr Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star dated Saturday, February 27, 1993. He focuses in this article on two elements, the kind of philosophy we have and how the words that we use, the phrases that we use, in a sense, dictate the kinds of policies that we will come with. He says, for instance:

"In the end, Brian Mulroney's greatest achievement was one of language. Language defines, sets parameters. To describe a problem is to define its solution."

He talks about the Mulroney years and how successful the neo-conservative drive has been to establish the acceptable political rhetoric that is used today.

He goes on to say:

"Look at Ontario, home of a New Democratic Party government ostensibly opposed to virtually everything the federal Tories have done. Here too, the language of conservatism has won out.

"Like Mulroney, Premier Bob Rae talks of restraint, the importance of reducing debt, the inability of the government, with its quill-penned bureaucrats, to deliver.

"He, too, talks of the private sector as the engine of growth, the only mechanism for job creation. He, too, talks of forming partnerships with the business community, of making government live within its means, of radically reforming welfare programs to serve the needs of global competition.

"The importance of language is that it defines the limits for action. A government that is consumed with becoming more efficient, with reducing expenditures above all, has little time to think of ways in which it can act to reduce unemployment."

Then he goes on and makes comparisons between Mulroney and Mr Rae. In the end, he says Mr Mulroney "has spawned better salesmen now -- New Brunswick Liberal Premier Frank McKenna, British Columbia's NDP Premier Mike Harcourt, Ontario's Rae. These NDP and Liberal conservatives try to sell a more genial form of Tory economics and do so in a more politically acceptable way.

"But at a fundamental level, they are Mulroney's heirs, his successors; their governments have implicitly accepted his view of the world.

"Bob Rae may say he disagrees with the Prime Minister's view of Canada. But he carries on the Mulroney legacy."

I heartily subscribe to the views put forth by Mr Tom Walkom in that article. In fact, if you look at the speeches that have been put forward in this place over the last period of time, they speak of neo-conservative doctrines. They are precisely the language that is used by the Tories. We have seen a significant change, if you will, on the part of the government. If I call into question today the fact that this is no social democratic government, it is because it has proven itself, in terms of its rhetoric at first and then later in terms of concrete action, that it is indeed a very conservative government.

Let's speak, if we can for a moment, about the idea of a social contract. I believe that the philosophy of the establishment of some kind of agreement between the public service unions, the transfer partners in the province -- that is, the universities, hospitals, school boards, municipalities -- and this provincial government in itself is a good idea. It's a good idea, of course, to bring people together to discuss things, to try to put in new agreements that could help the provincial government to achieve its goals.

Unfortunately, what we have is something that is very different. What we have in fact is a situation in which the government has not been willing to take seriously the needs and aspirations of its partners. We don't have partners here; we have the provincial government, by dictate, establishing what the result will be, what the goals will be, and forcing those goals and those end decisions. There are no negotiations here.

Difficult times demand difficult measures, according to this government, and so it is forced to turn on its former allies and to do that which is supposedly unthinkable, that is, to remove for three years the fundamental right of collective bargaining.

Yet is this surprising? In recent times, as indicated before, the Premier has begun to preach the gospel of debt reduction à la Mulroney. Despite the much-vaunted wage protection plan and the new Labour Relations Act, this government has moved decidedly to the right. It is seen particularly in the policies that have changed the New Democratic Party from being the heir of the CCF to one of the more opportunistic parties of the centre. How do we know that's the case? Well, we know it by listening to the rhetoric of debt reduction that we hear from the government.

Even more to the point, let's talk about the concrete policies that such a government proposes. We look at the auto insurance decision, Bill 164. We look at the introduction of casinos, Bill 8. We look at the agricultural policy through the eyes of Bill 75, which was the annexation bill for London. We look at the Sunday shopping bill. We look at the changes to the standing orders which were implemented by the government. We see in all of these things a total change in the direction and the beliefs and the structure of what this government says it has believed.

There are those who will say to you, "Well, again, these economic times are tough; therefore, what do you expect from this party?" I'll tell you what I expect. I expect people to do what they say they'll do. I expect people to put forth legislation which is going to reflect the philosophy that they have said they have agreed upon for years -- philosophy, I might say, that I subscribe to.

I remember in the last election -- I said this the other day in the House -- I said there was a document called the Agenda for People. I remember when the opposition used to throw this in the face of the government and say: "See all these promises that you didn't believe in? You've gone off and you've done your own thing." I've got to say that when it comes to the Agenda for People, I believed that document. I ran on that document. I put forward those things because I believed in them, and when I was elected, I didn't stop believing in those things. Well, they did, and you can see it when piece after piece of legislation is brought into this House which is nothing more than the total selling-out of the left-of-centre framework they have espoused for all these years.

So what's next? I'm looking at the Minister of Community and Social Services, because we hear next that there's going to be what they call "social assistance reform." Well, I've got news for you: When this government starts speaking about reform, I get nervous, because when it talks about reform, it doesn't talk about going forward; it talks about going backwards.

I spent 10 years working in areas around social policy and community groups, and I've got news: There's a lot of fear out there right now. There is group after group of people out there who are looking at this government and knowing, when it starts talking about social assistance reform, that this fits into a social charter, that this fits into the budget that's just been passed, that this fits into all of these full retreats it has made on these very important bills that it has put into this House.

So we have poverty groups and we have social groups and we have church groups and we have individuals who work with those who are at risk in our society and they're saying: "Not only do we not trust the government any more, but we fear more now than we have ever feared in our lives for the work that we're doing, because we used to support that party over there. We used to support those members and we thought they would protect us from the depredations of parties and individuals who did not have our interests at heart." So it is that with the introduction of Bill 48, the government has moved directly away from being a social democratic government and has not only adopted the rhetoric of the right, but has graduated into being a bona fide member of the club of the right.

1640

What can we say about Bill 48? Certainly, many things have been said by many people. I would say that it is a dangerous bill. I would say that it is precedent-setting. I would say that it is arbitrary.

It's interesting. I hear laughter in the House from certain members. It is laughable, but what's laughable is not the fact that this bill is this way, but that members don't even realize the import of what's happening in this place. They don't realize that what has been introduced is the most dangerous bill that has been introduced to this place since the War Measures Act, and they don't see it. They don't see it because when they're in their caucus, it's: "Rah, rah. We're doing things together. This is for the betterment of Ontario. We don't have to think. We'll let the Premier do that. We don't have to work together to try to figure out the way ahead. We're just going to allow that we're going to go with this bill, no matter the cost."

That's fine. They can do that. In fact, they have done it. They've presented that bill in this House, but let me tell you, Mr Speaker, the cost will be great because you can't bring a dangerous bill like that into this place or a precedent-setting bill like this or an arbitrary bill like this without having a disastrous effect upon the relationships, both institutional and societal, in this province.

Let me say that the government arrogates to itself through Bill 48 the power through the Minister of Finance to nullify 8,000 collective agreements, to force one million workers to have their wages rolled back and then deny them due process. If they are laid off or unfairly treated by this process, they can't go to court to rectify the situation. This is nothing less than deceitful legislation.

But let me read you right from the act itself. Let me read this. This is right from the act.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think this is a very good speech and there should be a quorum to hear it.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Drainville: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm glad to have that rest and the time to drink some water to prepare for the rest of the onslaught.

Let me say again that we're going to look at this legislation that's here in Bill 48. We talked about it being draconian. We talked about it being arbitrary. We talked about it being a very dangerous bill indeed. We read, for instance, in the non-bargaining unit section, non-bargaining unit plans, if you will -- it says here under subsection 22(2):

"Actions of an employer taken in accordance with a non-bargaining unit plan shall not be the subject of any proceeding brought by a person against the employer in relation to the terms and conditions of the person's employment as a non-bargaining unit employee of the employer or in relation to the person's release from employment as a non-bargaining unit employee of the employer."

What that means, in very simple terms, is no legal rights. This is what this supposedly social democratic government has put forward in the province of Ontario, that workers should have no legal recourse, no due process to be able to defend them in this situation.

I go on and read the next subsection, (3), on grievance rights:

"A non-bargaining unit employee has no right to grieve under the Public Service Act or any other act in respect of actions taken by his or her employer in accordance with a non-bargaining unit plan." Again, no rights, no due process.

I turn now to section 33 of Bill 48, and this is part of part VII. Where no agreement is established, we read in subsection 33(4):

"Actions of an employer taken in accordance with this part shall not be the subject of any proceeding brought by a person against the employer in relation to the terms and conditions of the person's employment or in relation to the person's release from employment."

What do we have here? We have no due process. We have no justice. We have no opportunity for people to grieve. We have no opportunity for people to go to court over this. What we have is a total repudiation of the system that we have fought for 50 years to establish in terms of the relationship between the trade unions and the government.

Now, we hear from the government that this is necessary, that it's difficult times. Is it difficult times, so difficult in fact that we're willing to take away legal rights from people? Again, we look at the War Measures Act. Even in those days there were questions among some, and I might say the questions were raised with the members of the CCF in those days as to whether some of the draconian measures of the War Measures Act were acceptable to society at that time. But we have this bill which takes away the legal rights of people, and what do we hear from the government? What do we hear from this supposedly social democratic party? We hear nothing. "We must do this," they say.

Well, I differ with them. I do not accept it. I think this is a totally unacceptable piece of legislation. Not only should they go back to the drawing board; they should begin to look again at what the relationships truly are in this province regarding the transfer partners, regarding the unions and regarding the future of trying to build a prosperous province, because they haven't got it right at this point.

I'd like to draw some attention, if I might, in these remaining minutes to some of the other aspects of the legislation. First of all, I'd like to look at the purposes of the legislation. I must say that the longer I'm here in this place, the more I am totally incapable of accepting bafflegab.

Now, you look at the purposes of this legislation -- I mean Bill 48 -- and we read the purposes. The first purpose of this act is "To encourage employers, bargaining agents and employees to achieve savings through agreements at the sectoral and local levels primarily through adjustments in compensation arrangements."

How are they going to do that? They're going to do it very simply. We're going to take away their rights, we're going to stop them from collective bargaining and we're going to force them, without the kind of negotiation and process that one would expect from a government which was socially democratic, into an agreement that they obviously do not want to go into at this point.

The second purpose of this act: "To maximize the preservation of public sector jobs and services through improvements in productivity, including the elimination of waste and inefficiency."

The elimination of waste and inefficiency in this case must be the elimination of jobs and the hopes of workers, the hopes that workers have had for many, many years, because in fact what they're doing is they're going to be forcing more and more workers to be in a situation where they're either going to be laid off or they're going to lose their earnings or they're going to be put into a situation that they have no control over.

1650

All I can say about that is, where did the 50 years go where the New Democratic Party supported the trade unions? Where is the tradition of this party standing up for workers? I don't hear it any more. I don't hear it because they've sold out the workers of this province and they've sold out many of the principles that they used to have as a party.

The third one: "To provide for expenditure reduction for a three-year period and to provide criteria and mechanisms for achieving the reductions." If we've heard anything in the debate in this House, we have surely heard from many people in this House that the chances of achieving the reduction they're speaking about in this bill are almost nil.

The last one is, "To provide for job security." I have to laugh. This is probably one of the funniest clauses in the act. Job security. They're talking about insurance; they're talking about the UIC; they're talking about topping that up. What they're not talking about is job security; they're talking about something quite different.

They use some phrases that I must say I object to. They talk about wage protection. How do they attempt wage protection? They attempt it by freezing workers' wages without negotiations. Wage protection -- this is fraudulent. You are not protecting workers by freezing wages. You are not protecting workers by opening up contracts that you have negotiated and concluded in good faith. That's not what I call wage protection.

They also talk about facilitating negotiations. Well, as I've looked at the last eight weeks, there hasn't been a whole lot of facilitation with a gun held to the heads of those who come to the meetings. All I can say is, that kind of facilitating of negotiations is not only unacceptable, it's untrue, it's not happening.

This legislation tramples on the rights of workers. It turns back the clock on all the legitimate gains that have been made by the trade union movement over the last 50 years. This bill is an affront to justice and equity and it flies in the face of basic rights and due process. If the government has any power, if the government has the power to arbitrarily freeze public service wages today, then it will have the power to freeze your wages tomorrow. For who will stop them? They're the government.

Another objection that I have to Bill 48, again refocusing, is this issue about collective bargaining. One of the major reasons why I cannot support the bill is because it effectively destroys the fundamental right of collective bargaining for the next three years. I certainly hope somebody takes this government to court about this particular right because I do not believe that what it is proposing is acceptable to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'd like to see some people take them to court. It sets up a situation whereby in the period after 1996, when this government will probably be out of government at that time, there will be a total chaos of labour and government relationships.

When we look at the legislation, what we see is that not only does it lock up wages for the next three years, but also stops all merit increases, cost-of-living increases and pay increases due to a move up the seniority grid. This is what I call the kill-them-dead-in-their-tracks approach to bargaining or negotiating.

There is no possible way that individuals will be able to do any better in the situation. Everyone is going to be suffering and there are certain people who are going to be suffering more, and we're going to talk about that in a moment. The pain of such a policy will be felt by those who are entering the Ontario public service and those about to retire. Those are the two target areas where workers are going to be significantly disadvantaged by this legislation.

The government has requested that workers take 12 days of unpaid leave, one day a month. This is nothing more than a short-term layoff, 12 days, approximately a 5% pay cut for workers making $30,000 and over. I remember many times when a particular local or a particular union was faced with a short-term layoff. I've got to tell you that in those days when there were short-term layoffs, this government, which supposedly supported the workers, went crazy in this House. I was sitting in the gallery back in the late 1970s when there were short-term layoffs proposed in this House by the Conservative government. I can't tell you what went on in this House in its repudiation of the Tory government policy. It was a total repudiation.

I was talking to a member the other day, and in years past, if one of those other governments, a Liberal or Tory government, had introduced this, then the NDP would have stopped Parliament. They would have done everything in their power to stop this place from functioning because it was at one time one of the central focuses of their beliefs, of their philosophical allegiance. So it is that they continue to say they are a social democratic government, and they're not.

The other issue that I'd like to bring up before I sit down is the issue of special leave. Essential workers like police, firefighters and jail guards will be forced under the legislation to take their time off during regular vacation time and count it as unpaid leave. But as they are essential employees, they will be expected to take their paid days off at a later, mutually agreed-upon time, likely three years after the social contract is invoked, when it comes to an end. These costs will thereby be pushed on to future taxpayers: 36 paid days to be used after March 31, 1996, and that will mean a significant payout. There are thousands and thousands of those citizens in the province of Ontario.

In the last minute, what does this government say to the criticism it has heard from the opposition parties and from other people out there? They say: "We can introduce this legislation because we're the workers' party. We have their interests at heart." Please. I used to believe that. I don't believe it any more. "But we're the duly elected government," they say. "We can and must exercise power for the full number of citizens in this province. We're not just the supporters of certain special-interest groups." They should know by now that they have certain allegiances that should be important to them. If they're willing to sell out those allegiances, they're willing to sell out any allegiance.

My last point is the victimization that will happen in terms of the approach towards the public service unions that everyone wants to see sat upon these days. It's unacceptable by this government, and I would say that this piece of legislation should stop here, it should be killed, I would be glad to see that and I'll be voting against it.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm pleased to stand after the member's outstanding critique of Bill 48. He, as a member of the New Democratic Party and as a person who remains committed to the things he spoke about in his election campaign, to the things he as a member of that party joined so many others in working for, has, I tell you, a most credible voice in this Legislature.

I know there are a whole lot of people here who are advocates of this legislation. I understand that. That's why I think this debate is incredibly important and I think this debate should be a long-standing, far-reaching debate, so that all of those views are expressed here in this assembly.

There are people who don't have high regard for free collective bargaining. I know that too. I tell you that in the election of 1990 I don't think very many of those people voted for me. The people who did vote for me knew where I stood when it came to the rights of working women and men, be they public sector or private sector. People who did vote for me knew where I stood when it came to the sanctity of a freely negotiated contract and the fact that New Democrats and CCFers before them are committed to protecting that collective bargaining process. I know that not everybody in my community agrees with my position on Bill 48. I understand that, and that's as it should be.

But I ran for election to this Parliament expressing, adopting and trying to articulate sets of principles. I think it's important and I think I owe it to the people in Welland-Thorold, who voted for me and who agreed with those principles, to make sure that those principles are reflected in how I vote on this and other legislation here in this Legislative Assembly. I applaud the member for his courage, for his straightforwardness and for his most valuable contribution to this very important debate for the future of this province and the working women and men of this province.

1700

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's a pleasure to rise and congratulate the member for Victoria-Haliburton too. He at least has principles. I notice that some of the more high- profile people like the member for Perth is not here, nor is the member for Wentworth East. The member for Welland-Thorold just spoke to us, but I don't really know what he said. He really didn't speak out, as did the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

It appears as though the member for Victoria-Haliburton, unlike many of the members in the House, has read the act and has seen that this is a diabolical act that was probably drafted by Stalin's agents. It has absolutely no opportunities for people to say anything. It gives dictatorial powers to the Minister of Finance. That, to me, is dangerous in any democratic society. If the people over there who consider themselves to be social democrats would read the bill, perhaps they would see just how arbitrary and dictatorial this is. In fact, it not only gives dictatorial powers to him; it gives the right for him to subdelegate to somebody else dictatorial powers. Surely to heaven the people who vote in parliaments and free countries vote for the right to at least be heard.

This act, in fact, eliminates the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act. For the people who are viewing this telecast, that is a specific statute that ensures that people have the right to be heard. In fact, that has been excluded from this act. I'm sure the member for Welland-Thorold understands that as a lawyer. Yet these people are prepared to sit over there on their hands and allow the Minister of Finance to bring in a draconian piece of legislation like this piece of junk and usurp the rights of the people of this province. I think it's absolutely outrageous.

I would like to know where the member for Perth is. She was the one in the press report who espoused that she was against this. Why isn't she speaking out against it? I applaud the member for Victoria-Haliburton. You've at least got the guts and your principles. The rest of them have abandoned their principles since they got elected.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We all, looking at the empty benches across the way, could list numbers of people who are absent, and it's completely out of order for a member to get up and talk about --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Please take your chair. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Quickly, as a point, the member for Perth was here and she did actually oppose the legislation. I'll wait until the clock starts because I don't want any more than two minutes.

You know what, Mr Speaker? I'd like to ask the question or at least put this thought forward. I, myself, believe in collective agreements. I have negotiated collective agreements for unions and I know the member from Durham dump is probably a little surprised about that, but the fact is that I do believe in collective agreements. When there were Metropolitan Toronto council meetings that voted to put the TTC back to work --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: If you'd listen up for a minute. When there were council meetings to vote to ask the Legislature to legislate TTC workers back to work, I opposed it. I opposed them because I believe in collective bargaining and I believe in collective agreements. I believe when you sign a contract you have to live up to that contract. I fundamentally, wholeheartedly believe in that. That may be where the political spectrum meets someplace around the corner, I'm not sure. But I think as a government you have certain responsibilities to your employees.

I don't say you shouldn't be reducing government. Quite honestly, I'm completely opposite. I believe in reducing government. I remember my first few months here. I stood up and I said, "We have way too many employees in this province," and there was snickering on that side. Even from the Liberal side they would yell out, "Well, where?" But we did have too many. What's surprising to me and I think what's refreshing is that there is some candour on that side of the House -- enough -- that there are a handful of members who will stand up and at least defend what they used to believe in. Because I will tell you, Mr Speaker, it does get discouraging in the first couple of years, watching the backflips and waffling and flip-flops that this government has taken. There wasn't a single member who had the guts to stand up and say, "We were wrong."

I think Mr Drainville deserves a round of applause, not just from the citizens of Ontario or his constituents, but from the memories and the conscience of this party that he once belonged to. I think he deserves it.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, you have two minutes. Oh, one more? Nobody stood up. I'm sorry. I apologize, the member for Oriole. I thought you wanted to address the floor. I apologize.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'd like to comment on the member for Victoria-Haliburton's very articulate response to Bill 48. He used words like "arbitrary," "precedent-setting," "draconian," "unworkable," and I agree with the comments he made in that context of the legislation. He also expressed not only his own principles but his disappointment.

We know that he left the NDP caucus, crossed the floor and is sitting as an independent member of this House. I must admit this is one of the first times that I've had the opportunity to listen to him speak on an issue other than the one which provoked his leaving that caucus. I would say to him, as I listen to him today, that I know the people of this province will find it a significant and refreshing debate to hear from someone who stands in the House and is very, very clear about his own principles and his own values, especially someone who had, under the disciplines of the NDP caucus, been stifled for so long.

I know that his concerns about this legislation are not partisan. As I say, as I look at this legislation, I share the concerns that have been raised and I say to the people of this province that we are looking at legislation which is unworkable. We've learned nothing from past history. It destroys and interferes with collective bargaining in a way which is unprecedented in this province and it sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

The question I would ask the member for Victoria-Haliburton, given his experience, is why he thinks that a social democratic government, Bob Rae's government, would have chosen this route when there were so many better ways it could have dealt with the need to restrain. There is a need to take back that which they gave which they couldn't afford to give.

Mr Drainville: I'll just very quickly say to the member for Oriole, the reason why the government has done that is because it's not a social democratic government. That would be my response.

I want to say though, in the few minutes' time that are remaining, as regards the whole issue of the victimization of the public service, I believe the government is playing a very, very cynically political move. I believe they realize there are an awful lot of people in our society today who are saying that the public service of Ontario is too big, that there are too many workers, that they receive too much money. They have become a very easy target. In fact, I believe they are the target very much of this legislation. The government believes that by using them as a bogeyman, it's going to be able to push ahead its particular brand of economics at this point in time and that the unions are going to increasingly look bad because they're trying to defend themselves from this kind of legislation, which is totally unacceptable.

I want to underline this for the government members: What we have in fact is a government, which ostensibly has claimed that it is the government that supports workers, actually in this legislation taking a swipe and a strike against workers the likes of which we have not seen for years in this province. I believe the cynical politics of using the public service unions and the public service employees are ultimately going to backfire, and it will not be to the benefit of this government here.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Caplan: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to participate today in the debate on Bill 48, which is called, and I'd like to read the name of the act to the Legislative Assembly, An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program.

That's the long title. It's also a tradition in this province for there to be a short title, and so we've been calling this the social contract legislation. I know that there are many who are calling it the soc-con, the acronym often used to shorten titles even further. Unfortunately, soc-con is being used to portray the sock it to them and con them about what this really is.

1710

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think there should be a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present.

Mrs Caplan: As I was saying, this is a piece of legislation which I think the people of the province of Ontario are just beginning to understand the implications of. I'm not even sure that Bob Rae and his government really fully understand the implications of this legislation.

I'd like to spend my time, if I can, trying to give my perspective on this, because I'm very concerned that what this legislation is going to do is increase public scepticism, increase public cynicism and create a climate where people are going to have their anxiety, their alienation and their fear increased just at a time when what is really needed in this province is stability, calm and confidence. This legislation will not achieve that.

These are difficult economic times in the province of Ontario. The residents in the constituency of Oriole, the people whom I have the honour to serve, are very concerned. They are worried about their own jobs. They're worried about the opportunities for their children, many of whom are unemployed, many of whom do not have opportunities to work this summer, many of whom are worried about whether they will be able to continue to have their education this coming fall. They're waiting to see whether they will be admitted into community colleges and universities.

The situation is one which is serious in the province of Ontario. People are worried about the size of the NDP deficit and the growing debt in this province. They should be worried, because these are serious and difficult economic times.

Having said that, people want to work, they want a climate of confidence that will create jobs. When we look at this legislation, we know that while everybody in this province understands the need for belt tightening, understands the need for restraint, they are also beginning to understand that part of the reason we are in this mess is because of the terrible decisions, particularly the decision to increase wages at the beginning of the recession, when this government took office in the fall of 1990.

They raised the spending plan at that point in time from a projected 6.8% in September 1990 -- that's what the spending plan was -- to 14.7% by the end of March of that year. March 31 saw the spending increase in the province of Ontario by 14.7%. The second year of the NDP, the next full year, we saw an increase in spending of 12%.

If you look at where that money went, that money went primarily in increased wages to the public sector and the broader public sector.

Over the course of that time, I stood in this House -- the record is in Hansard -- and I said, "Don't do it. You're making a mistake. You're raising wages of the people who have jobs as opposed to creating a climate where more people will be able to work."

We understand that there were also increases in social assistance payments because at that time people were losing their jobs, but the structural deficit problem that took us from a fully balanced budget in 1989-90 and a balanced operating budget, even at the end of 1991 --

Hon Mr Wildman: That's creative bookkeeping.

Mrs Caplan: The minister is sitting opposite, and I will say to him that the Provincial Auditor has attested to the fact that there was a fully balanced budget in this province for the fiscal year 1989-90. He can laugh, he can jeer, but those are the facts.

The facts are also that at the end of 1991, at the end of the six months following the assumption of power by the NDP government, we had a $3-billion deficit but we still had a fully balanced operating budget. Try as they would to increase the spending in those six months, they still could not get us into a deficit position, which included the capital budget, until the following fiscal year, when we saw a structural deficit projected of $9.7 billion, which turned out to be $10.7 billion in that year.

Hon Mr Wildman: Come on Elinor, the truth shall set you free.

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: They're hooting, they're hollering, but this is the truth. I am giving you the facts.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs Caplan: They were in your budget documents of this year and of last year.

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): Come on. Get back to your job.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cambridge.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, I'm wasting my time. They don't want to understand. I know I've had this debate in this House before --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Farnan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Oriole on several occasions has referred to a previous speaker to tell the truth. In fact, she called their comments a load of crap. I would say to the honourable member, please do as you say.

Mrs Caplan: I'm giving you the facts.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sarnia. Order. The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The concern I have when the member rises on his point of order is that he obviously hasn't read his own budget document. The NDP budget document says exactly what I just said. Those are the facts. It is absolutely truthful and honest.

Hon Mr Farnan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To impute that an honourable member of the House, a member of the government has not read a government document is certainly --

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. The member for Oriole has the floor.

Hon Mr Wildman: Get your act together. You're just being provocative.

Mrs Caplan: I am being provocative, Mr Speaker. Obviously, they're provoked by the truth, because what they're trying to do in this debate is to try to tell people that the facts are different than what they are. I will say to the member for Cambridge --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Cambridge, I'd like to warn you that I find your language insulting, and I ask you to refrain from using that type of language.

Hon Mr Farnan: Mr Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: I ask you to refrain from using that type of language. It's conducive to a bad debate; it's unbecoming of a member. I'm just telling you this.

1720

Mrs Caplan: The reason I put these facts on the table is not to be provocative but in fact to engage in this debate in a framework so that people who are watching this debate will understand. They will understand that what the NDP government inherited was a triple A credit rating and they will understand that the decisions that were made by Bob Rae and Treasurer Laughren and the government of Ontario in the fall of 1990 have contributed greatly.

In fact the total spending plan of $43 billion is exactly $10 billion less than what the spending plan is for this year. That is also the projected deficit of this province. What this NDP government is trying to do, and rightly so, is take back from the workers in the broader public sector what it allowed to be given in the way of wage increases that were clearly unaffordable.

I would point out that in the summer of 1990 we were talking about restraint; I have been talking about restraint in this House ever since. I know it is very important that the province of Ontario be on a sound financial footing. I know it is extremely important that we be fiscally responsible. I believe it is extremely important that we deal with deficit and that we deal with debt.

Having said that, I want you to know that in the years that I've had the opportunity to stand in this House and speak on numerous pieces of legislation and on numerous initiatives, both of the government that I served and during this time in opposition, on numerous occasions I am on the record as having said I support free collective bargaining, and I do.

This legislation, Bill 48, interferes with the collective bargaining process in a way which is unheard of and unprecedented in this province. I stood in this House and I resisted attempts, when I was Minister of Health, when the Premier, Bob Rae, and his now members of his cabinet called for the opening of contracts, and I said --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Guelph, if you have any comments, wait after she is through with her speech. The member for Oriole, make sure you address the Chair.

Mrs Caplan: I said then and I repeat now that broad-brush solutions, simplistic solutions to complex problems simply do not work. From the point at which Bob Rae announced his social contract negotiations, I have been concerned. I have been concerned because the government of Ontario is not the employer of 950,000 people; the government of Ontario is the employer of 90,000 people. The government of Ontario has a partnership relationship with the colleges, municipalities, hospitals and school boards who employ the over 800,000 people who are in the broader public sector.

There are over 9,000 collective agreements that have been negotiated between employers and employees in this province, and this legislation and the social contract negotiations that began put the province in the position of employer of over one million people and potentially -- and I believe that's one of the serious flaws of this legislation -- handcuffs those employers in their ability to manage and to govern this province, changes for ever the employer and employee relationships and interferes with the ability of employers and employees to find solutions to local problems.

From my own personal experience, I know that hospitals, municipalities, and I believe as well colleges and universities, can find the solutions, can find the ways to restrain wages -- yes, use the word -- roll back those wages, restrain the labour costs, but they will do it differently in each location. Central planning, centralized everything, does not work. Those, Mr Speaker, were the attempted solutions of decades gone by and I would say to you that the Premier, Bob Rae, and his government would do well to learn from history.

I believe we should have legislation, because time has been running out, but what the legislation should do is legislate the opening of those contracts, give the transfer partners their targeted responses and then allow them, along with their own employees, to freely and collectively negotiate how that's going to happen. Do you know what that would be called? That would be called concession bargaining, and that's what this is really about. Concession bargaining is what should be occurring in this province.

To have the provincial government do anything other than say to its own employees, the 90,000 -- what I think they should do is say to the management class, to those who are excluded: "This is how we are going to deal with you, our employees. This is how we are going to implement the wage rollback." If the government wanted to say to those employees: "We are going to roll back or have the equivalent in time off. We are going to freeze wages for three years. We are going to, through attrition, find additional savings. Further, we want you to work with us to find ways of delivering programs and services in more cost-effective and cost-efficient ways, and we will have a merit approach, a pay-for-productivity approach," I think those employees would respond.

I also believe that employees across this province, both in the Ontario public service who directly work for the provincial government and those who work in the broader public sector, don't want to see their neighbours laid off. They want to keep jobs and save jobs wherever possible. They don't want to see their neighbours out of work, and they could find those solutions.

If Bob Rae and his Chairman of Management Board and his Treasurer and his chairman of the treasury board had put their heads together and said, "Let's listen to Lyn McLeod. Let's listen to the alternative that says, 'Develop a framework agreement for our own employees,"' and then said to OPSEU and to the other small unions that we negotiate with within the Ontario public service, the 90,000 employees in total, "Let's deal with those unions and say, 'This is what we're doing with our employees who are in the excluded class and this is what we would like to negotiate with you,"' I believe it would have been possible to come up with a sensible, workable plan. Then that plan could have been a model for other employers in the broader public sector.

But the approach this government has taken says, "We don't trust you," to the employers and municipalities. "We don't trust you," they say to the employers, the universities and the colleges and the school boards and the hospitals. I say that is a shame, because what is needed in this province if we are going to solve the problems that are facing us is for people to work together.

As I said, I believe that public sector workers and broader public sector employees and employers all understand the need today to address the financial difficulties the province finds itself in, but I believe and I think they know that there are ways to find these savings without massive cuts in services and without massive layoffs. I believe that is achievable, even if it means, and it may well mean, that everybody will take a little bit less. I think they're willing to negotiate it.

1730

But what they're really angry about is that this legislation, Bill 48, sets up a bureaucratic, intrusionary process. First you have to have a sector agreement. Then you have to have individually collectively negotiated agreements, have it all done by August 1 or maybe until the 10th. They have to be submitted to the ministers for approval.

That isn't going to work, and, further, it rips up the collective agreements that are out there and it puts the province in the position of commander and controller. In this day of trying to do things in a better and a more progressive way, command and control doesn't work. We learned that over the years, and I sincerely wish that this government had realized that before it tabled Bill 48.

Parliamentary tradition is all about precedent, so I'd like to speak for a minute about the precedents that are established in this legislation which I believe are very dangerous.

The precedents in this legislation take away the rights of workers to grieve and to appeal. That's in this legislation. It takes those rights away. It takes away the rights of employers to negotiate with their own employees. This legislation says, "From now on you have to have the approval of the Finance minister for your collective agreements." That is unbelievable, and it will change for ever the way this province is governed.

One of the major concerns I have about this legislation and the reason that I will not be supporting it -- and I've stated very clearly that I agree that we must restrain the spending of this provincial government. They must achieve their $2-billion target for wage reduction in the broader public sector. I agree with that. But what they're doing is not that at all.

What they are doing is pushing those costs into the future. My estimate is that some $3 billion will be pushed three years down the road. That is fiscally irresponsible, it is deceptive and it is saying to the workers of this province that this is not only short-term pain; this is going to be long-term pain, because we're going to have to go through this anguish and anxiety all over again if the expectation is that at the end of the three years they're going to get it all back like that.

This legislation does not achieve the savings that the provincial government has said it wants, and, further, I believe that it sets a precedent on how you go about negotiating and working with your partners in the broader public sector that, in the hands of right-wing Conservative governments, could -- and I say "could" because I'm looking into the future now -- be used in a way which nobody today is even contemplating. So I'm concerned not only about the precedent, but also about what this will mean in the future.

Certainly when I hear the minister say, "Oh, well, we're just giving ourselves this power but we're never going to use it," I will say to them, you're not going to be the government for ever. We don't know who the next government is going to be. I certainly don't take for granted that I'm going to be a member of the next government. I don't think anybody on this side of the House can predict the future, and I certainly would not be one to predict. I can't look 10 years down the road.

But I know that if you have legislation on the books, if the precedents in this House strip away the rights of individuals to grieve, strip away the rights of employers to manage and to govern -- those who are duly elected in this province, I will remind you, in school boards and municipalities -- strip away the rights of workers and employers to collectively bargain, then you'll look back on this debate and you'll say, "She told us so."

I say to you, I will take no pleasure in that. I will take no pleasure in being proven right. I hope that this legislation is defeated, because it will set a precedent in this province that we will look back on and say, "This should never have happened." It is impossible to turn the clock back. That's what a precedent is. It is impossible to turn the clock back and go back to yesterday.

There is no way that we can go back to that summer campaign of 1990. There is no way that we can go back to the fall and to decisions that were made by Bob Rae in 1990 and 1991 and 1992. Those days are gone. We must deal with the reality today. This draconian piece of social contract legislation, even if it is repealed in the future, will have made its mark on the province of Ontario in such a negative way that the future will be for ever altered because of it.

So my message to the members of the government and to the members of their caucus is, read this legislation very carefully. Consider what the implications are and then imagine what these powers will do potentially in the future as well as today.

There's another piece of legislation that this government has tabled: the health expenditure control plan. I don't know if I'll have the opportunity to speak to it at length, but I have the same concerns: the draconian powers that it gives the Minister of Health to interfere in the relationship between the patient and the doctor. For the Minister of Health to interfere in clinical decision-making runs totally contrary to everything that I believe in.

Day after day, as I stood in this House and answered questions from members of the opposition about the state of our health system through the years 1987 to 1990, on many, many occasions, I said to them, "Those are clinical decisions; ministers of Health, provincial governments, bureaucrats do not interfere with clinical decisions." If you are dissatisfied, there are ways of making recourse or gathering information, but for a minister to have those powers is wrong.

For a Minister of Finance to have the powers that Bill 48 gives to the Minister of Finance is wrong. I would not have wanted those powers as Minister of Health. I would not want these powers. As Finance minister, as Premier, as Minister of Economic Development, as Minister of Industry and Trade, as Minister of Municipal Affairs or Colleges and Universities or Minister of Education, I would not want those powers, and I don't want these ministers or any future ministers to have those powers.

But if you give them these powers, they will never be taken away, because that's what precedent and tradition are all about. If the New Democratic Party, a labour-socialist government, gives itself these kinds of centralized, intrusionary powers, they will for ever be on the books, because no government will make that a priority to change that, because there are days when you say, "Gee, I wish I had that power." I can tell, you don't want government to have those powers.

1740

I believe it is possible to reduce the broader public sector payroll by $2 billion. I believe it must be done and I believe there are ways of achieving that and I've just told you how. I hope they will act quickly to withdraw this legislation and allow for local employers and employees to find those solutions.

Once you give them the transfer payment number, once you open their collective agreements, they will find those solutions. Have confidence and trust in them, because only with that kind of relationship in the province of Ontario will true partnership ever be possible. You're using the language, you're saying the words, but you're contaminating the language and the words have a very different meaning.

As I conclude my part in today's debate, I want to remind the government that what Ontario needs is stability and security; confidence so that jobs can be created and people will work. Bill 48 should be withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'm very pleased to be able to respond to the member for Oriole. I realize what the member is saying is that, for once, a New Democratic government has responded and changed gears halfway through its mandate and they can't understand that a government can adapt with the times, can change with the times.

But it's nothing new with what this government is doing, creating partnerships and also saying to the public sector unions and to every other union: "We're willing to negotiate, and for our part in the $2-billion cuts, our negotiations are important in that in return for the negotiations and for helping us, we're saying: 'You have a greater part in running this government. You have a greater part in the decision-making of the departments and the agencies that you are working in."'

Yes, there's bitter criticism from our old union friends, but that's not surprising. In fact, if the unions did not fight for their membership I'd be ashamed of them, and I'm not ashamed of them because they've done their job well and they've done it very well. For my part, as a previous member of a union, I'm saying thank God for the union movement because they didn't let their membership down.

What they have done, and where the member cannot understand this, is that not only have they come to us and said, "We don't agree with it," but we've worked it out together at our provincial council meetings and we've said to each other, "Yes, we can work together and we're willing to go to the table because what we see as an alternative is something a lot worse than what you're offering us."

If everyone remembers what happened in Britain after the so-called social contract failed in Britain, what did they get? Thatcherism. What happened in the United States after the union movement stopped giving money to the Democrats? They got Reaganism. Ask the air traffic controllers how they were negotiated out of a job. It was swift. It was fast.

That's what we are doing: We are creating more partnerships with the labour movement rather than destroying them.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I'd like to first of all commend the member for Oriole on her very knowledgeable and well-given speech. As usual, she always speaks very clearly and explains things very, very well.

I think she hit it on the nose when she said that people are very worried. People are extremely distressed. They really feel the lack of stability and feel that, really, there's no one in this government who is in control. There's nothing they really can hang on to. There is an agitation and nervousness when you meet people. In the riding, people come up to me and they really don't want to talk about the state of the government, but it's almost like they can't help themselves.

The general public and our party, though, all realize that restraint is necessary. We have been spending too much and we need to rein in and control, especially in these economically depressed times. But people are afraid that this government's social contract is not the answer, that it is not going to solve the problems, that at the end of the day, the deficit reductions are not going to be achieved.

Municipal leaders -- I was just speaking to some of them this morning -- really do not know how they are going to meet these targets and yet provide the essential services. I had one municipal leader say: "We're just going to have to pull the road budget. We cannot really do what we had intended to do, and so we'll just make shift, do a few repairs here and there and then have to pay 10 times as much down the road to really fix it up."

I commend the member again for trying to explain how things really are.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): The member opposite speaks of uncertainty and instability. To some degree, there is a great deal of truth in what she says. There is instability, there is uncertainty caused by the negotiations, the slowness of the process, but I would contrast that with the slash-and-burn techniques that have been used in other provinces.

I would suggest the province of Newfoundland, which as I recall has a Liberal government. I would compare it to the province of New Brunswick, which as I recall has a Liberal government, where the workers went on a general strike. I would compare it to Prince Edward Island, which recently did the same thing with its public sector, and Quebec, which has done the same thing. We're talking about slash and burn.

While the slash-and-burn techniques may be effective, while they may create certainty -- you know you're unemployed -- we would like to attempt something which deals sensitively with some very, very difficult issues, like low-income cutoff, like job security, like retraining for public sector workers, like the ability of workers to be assured of the next available job in their area, even if not with their own immediate employer.

These are difficult issues. All of these issues, such as the collective agreement, are difficult things for us as social democrats. There are things we have taken some time to wrestle with. But the alternative, the slash-and-burn alternative, the job losses for the most vulnerable in our community, the job losses and the income reductions that we have seen through the federal Liberal government, with the Anti-Inflation Board, with the pay cuts -- we had wage and price controls that controlled only wages.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Brampton South, you have two minutes. Do you want to comment?

Mr Callahan: I find it interesting when the members opposite and the government talk about this legislation. I wonder if they've read it, because, quite clearly, to say, "All right, a Liberal government in some other province enacted it, so we'll enact it" -- I would challenge you to look at the legislation that was enacted in another province. You'll find that it's not as draconian as this.

I suggest you read this bill. I suggest all members of the New Democratic Party read the bill, because this bill is the equivalent of a dictatorial statement, power being placed in the hands of one person. Why on earth do we have 130 members in this Legislature if the power that's going to have an impact on the lives of a significant number of people in this province is being handled by one person? I suggest to you, I challenge you, read the bill. You will see that's exactly the situation. It is not a bill with any right of appeal. The former Attorney General would know that if he's read the bill, and I hope he has, because that's what's happening.

All I say to you is that I don't know how people in a democratically elected Legislature can possibly support this bill in its present form. It has absolutely no protection for the rights of anyone. By the government countenancing it, it is just divesting itself of all the principles it believes in.

I always thought "democrat" meant you cared about the people. What you're doing is allowing the government to push through this bill, and you're all going to stand there probably and vote, joined at the hip, without even knowing what's in the bill.

I urge you, in the final analysis, to read the bill. If you can't read it, have somebody read it for you, have it interpreted for you, have a précis done of it. But for God's sakes, before you vote on this bill, understand what it's about. It is the most diabolical bill that's ever been presented to any democratic Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole, you have two minutes.

Mrs Caplan: On May 5 I presented the Chair of Management Board and the government of Ontario with a very real alternative. I said to him, and I quote, "We believe a better approach would have been to negotiate in good faith with your own employees, the 90,000 OPS workers, and use that agreement as a model to be followed for the broader public sector employers in the hospitals," municipalities, school boards, colleges and universities.

I must admit at the beginning of these social contract negotiations, I believed the government had a framework deal with the labour leaders in this province. I couldn't imagine a government embarking on negoti- ations to override 9,000 collective agreements with almost a million employees, more than 800,000 of whom did not work for it directly, without having had an indication that it would have had a deal. For a while I thought this was all part of the ritual dance of collective bargaining as known by the NDP and the NDP government.

I want to stand in this House and say that I was wrong. They obviously did not know what they were doing when they entered this, and Bill 48 is a product of frustration. It is time to end the chaos. Command and control does not work. It has never worked, it never will work. There is a better alternative but only if you act quickly. We are halfway through the fiscal year. The municipalities, the school boards, the hospitals, the universities and the colleges must know what their transfer payments are going to be and they must be allowed to work with their own employees to solve those problems.

Do not tie their hands. Direct them and tell them that we don't want job losses and layoffs as a result. They know that, the workers know that, but do not impose your will on them and for heaven's sake, do not take those kinds of powers unto yourself. You will live to regret this day.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Report continues in volume B

June 22, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOBACCO TAXES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CÉSAR CHAVEZ

SOCIAL CONTRACT

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES

POLITICAL MAILING

ALZHEIMER RESPITE COMPANION PROGRAM

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

DEAF-BLIND AWARENESS WEEK

CORRECTION

BUD GERMA

SMIRLE FORSYTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

TAX AND FEE INCREASES

SOCIAL CONTRACT

GAMBLING

SOCIAL CONTRACT

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

RETAIL SALES TAX

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

SMALL BUSINESS

VISITOR

PETITIONS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

GAMBLING

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GO BUS SERVICE

GAMBLING

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

GAMBLING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

WASTE DISPOSAL

CONTRAT SOCIAL

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

WATER QUALITY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

REGISTRAR GENERAL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

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