Hansard Transcript 1993-Jun-30 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Premier a serious matter arising in the region of Peel as a result of your social contract.

Last week I was informed that, as a result of the reduction by the province of its grant payments to the region, regional council on June 24 resolved that the family day care program be cut in its entirety effective September 3 of this year. That means that 932 day care spaces will be eliminated. The region is requesting that the provincial cutback be reduced.

The action as a result of the social contract has a devastating effect not only on the providers of family day care spaces but also on the individuals who need these spaces. I have been told that many of these spaces are needed by single moms who have made a go of it and have found jobs. The dilemma they face is that there are no day care spaces available in Peel to meet the 932 space needs. They will in fact have to leave their jobs this September.

Minister, Premier, I ask you to approve the option provided by the region of Peel. Meet with them. Let us save this program which provides quality day care for children and allows people who have found jobs to keep them.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would like to once again bring to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services the very urgent need for maintaining the special services at home program. Members of this House know that I have raised this issue several times now in the House.

Special services at home provides at-home assistance to parents with developmentally handicapped children. Many parents in Wellington county have seen their allocation of hours in this program severely reduced or eliminated altogether as demand for the service has grown.

Let me be very clear: This is a call for a reallocation of existing government spending, not a call for increased spending. Instead of properly helping families with disabled children, we see the government spending approximately $800 million to build non-profit housing units in this province, units which are not necessary given the high vacancy rates at reasonable rents across this province.

I'd like to read some comments from parents who have written to me expressing their concern and desperation regarding the cuts in service. Typical is this one from Mary Ellen Brown of Fergus:

"My feeling is that your government needs to rethink their priorities in funding. You and your government have spent millions of dollars on snowmobile trails, but cannot find it in your budget or your heart to fund a program such as special services at home adequately."

I say again I hope that the minister will make more resources available for the special services at home program through a reallocation of existing resources within the government.

This is the fifth time I have raised this issue in the Legislature. I say to the Minister of Community and Social Services: Disabled kids in Wellington county need your help. When will you hear their cry?

INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM FESTIVAL

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): It's that time of the year when I'm able to announce another Windsor festival. The 1993 International Freedom Festival is already in progress and promises to be spectacular and of course fascinating.

The 35th annual International Freedom Festival is a celebration which brings two nations together in harmony. The province of Ontario, the city of Windsor and of course the state of Michigan come hand in hand and celebrate the freedoms we both enjoy.

Hands Across the Border has become a tradition we savour and look forward to. This aspect of the festival occurs on the Ambassador Bridge, where hundreds of people join their hands in a gesture of goodwill.

The festival is highlighted by the Canada Day parade, held Thursday, July 1, at noon on Ouellette Avenue. This year we celebrate Canada's 126th birthday.

On the roster this year: the Canada Day family picnic, the great bed race, Brights Wines waiter-waitress relay, singer Michelle Wright, the Motown Sound and the Johnny Trudell Orchestra entertain at the Cleary International Centre on Riverside Drive. Pancake breakfasts, tugboat races, battle of the bands, windsurfing demonstrations and a US-Canada coast guard search-and-rescue demonstration are just part of the fun.

Again this year the highlight will be the massive fireworks display on the Detroit River. This annual and historic display will last about 40 minutes and be witnessed by an estimated 500,000 spectators lining both sides of the border.

The 35th Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival is on and continues to July 4. My Windsor colleagues and myself congratulate Terry O'Rourke and her dynamic staff of volunteers for another super presentation.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): For some time now the Liberal Party has expressed concerns about the functioning of the special investigations unit under this government. As it stands now, the SIU does not have the confidence of the police or of the public it was created to serve.

Remarks attributed to the director of the SIU can only serve to further undermine confidence in the special investigations unit's ability to conduct investigations.

According to press reports, the director of the SIU will hire civilians to participate in investigations even if the civilians never reach the level of trained police officers. How this will enable the SIU to conduct better investigations is really a mystery.

One of the most important recommendations of the Race Relations and Policing Task Force was the creation of a body that would conduct investigations within a 30-day time frame. Both Stephen Lewis and Clare Lewis recognized that this would require the use of experienced investigators, likely former police officers.

What the SIU now needs and has not been provided by this government is the resources to conduct independent and thorough investigations that will enjoy the confidence of both the police and the public.

1340

GO RAIL EXPANSION

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I rose in the Legislative Assembly on May 5, 1993, to address the subject of the GO rail expansion program in the Richmond Hill corridor, which passes through my riding of Willowdale.

The expansion will increase the service from the current eight trains per day to a total of 34. These trains will literally be travelling through my constituents' backyards.

Those affected are concerned about the impact the expansion will have on their homes and about the Ministry of Environment and Energy's lack of consultation with the area residents.

On March 28 I wrote the Minister of Environment to request that an individual environmental assessment be conducted. Scores of individuals have written similar requests, yet to date the minster has ignored them.

This issue is of major concern to my constituents. On Monday, June 21, I attended an action meeting with several hundred area residents. There was general agreement among those in attendance that the need for public transportation must be recognized. However, the residents do not feel that their concerns about proper safety precautions, noise barriers and vibration damage were taken into consideration by GO Transit in their environmental assessment.

On behalf of my constituents, I repeat my request to the Minister of Environment that he agree to undertake an individual environmental assessment that addresses and resolves my constituents' concerns. Minister, once again, I implore you to answer your mail.

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Tomorrow the Red and White People Parade will wind its way through downtown Kingston to Confederation Park across from city hall. As well as celebrate Canada's 126th birthday, this parade will honour Don Cherry, Doug Gilmour and Kirk Muller, all natives of the Kingston area, for their contributions to our national game.

This is only one of a number of varied activities celebrating Canada Day in my riding, but I single it out because it serves to highlight the importance of hockey to our national life. And I'm proud to say the Kingston area has played a prominent role in hockey history. For example, the first competitive game was played in Kingston in 1886 between Queen's and Royal Military College.

Just as July 1 is a day when we remind ourselves what it means to be Canadian, hockey has its own institutions to focus on its heritage. One of these is the International Hockey Hall of Fame Museum in Kingston, which is open every day to show visitors many aspects of hockey's fabled past.

Things like national holidays and the hockey museums demonstrate how important heritage is to our community.

Last August our government's Minister's Advisory Committee on Heritage Legislation made its recommendations. As chair of that committee, I know that the heritage community and other stakeholders as well were anxious to see new legislation introduced. I know too that members of the committee put in a lot of volunteer hours over the course of the year and their efforts developed a consensus on the recommendations, quite a feat considering the diverse interests around the table: archaeologists, ethnocultural communities and heritage activists.

So I was pleased to learn recently from the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation that her ministry has nearly completed draft heritage legislation based on the advisory committee's report. I'm pleased to hear too that she plans soon to circulate this draft for comment by the committee members and other stakeholders.

On the eve of Canada Day, I ask my legislative colleagues to reflect on the importance of committing ourselves to gain the all-party support that will ensure the passage of new heritage legislation this fall.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The saga continues. Yesterday I actually thought Mike Harris was going to listen to my advice when I said that bang, bang, bang was wrong and bad, bad, bad was the social contract legislation. Now -- can you believe it, Mr Speaker? -- it seems that the Tories are still floundering when it comes to their position. The Conservative caucus is still trying to have it both ways.

I ask my Tory friends to stop the confusion, to be clear with the public and come clean. What is your position on the social contract?

First Mike Harris tells Bob Rae that he will support any legislation. That was bang, bang, bang. Then he says that legislation isn't needed at all. Then his caucus votes in favour of the legislation even though during second reading debate many members acknowledged the serious flaws and problems with this legislation. Now Mike Harris says he wants the social contract negotiations to continue for three years.

Mike Harris is adding to the chaos on the debate of the social contract. Mike, when will you realize that this legislation is fundamentally flawed? Lyn McLeod has explained the problem and shown you the flaws with the legislation, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto has told you this is bad legislation, members of your own caucus have said it is seriously flawed, yet you seem to still support it.

I ask you to join the Liberal caucus and help us to defeat this bad legislation.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On June 2, I introduced a private member's bill aimed at increasing public awareness of the need for boater safety and education courses. As an avid boater myself, I know there is a need to educate the public that there is a real problem with careless and uninformed operation of motorboats on the province's waterways.

I recently met with Mr Sandy Currie, executive director of the Canadian Marine Manufacturers' Association, who indicated that he supports initiatives to educate people not acquainted with the rules of safe boating.

Mr Currie suggests those who want to achieve greater boating competence and confidence can call Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons at 1-800-268-3579 for information about the boating course. The manual is available for $10.

Mr Currie notes that the Canadian Coast Guard's toll-free boating safety information hotline number, 1-800-267-6687, is available to provide a host of information to help maximize boater safety and peace of mind.

According to the statistics obtained from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, there were 43 boating accidents on Ontario waterways that resulted in deaths in 1992. There were 45 boating mishaps in 1991.

I applaud the Canadian Marine Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons and the Canadian Coast Guard for promoting boater safety and education. Like me, these organizations know that recreational boating need not be dangerous, provided the operators acquire basic knowledge and take reasonable precautions, and this book is available for water safety.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): On this last day of Senior Citizens' Month, I'd like to tell the House of the opportunity I had to celebrate with residents the official opening of Bethany Place, a non-profit housing project for seniors.

As you know, Mr Speaker, these projects don't happen without the dedication and support of sponsoring groups like Bethany Christian Residences of London, groups who know the needs in their communities. Without them, the non-profit program of the Ontario Ministry of Housing wouldn't be such a success, and many people, including seniors, wouldn't have secure, affordable housing.

Non-profit housing works, and it makes a difference in people's lives. It creates jobs -- more than 40,000 in 1992 -- for workers in construction and other related industries. It's a lasting investment in our communities, and, most important, it creates affordable homes.

The importance of adequate, affordable housing cannot be overstated. Without it, everything else is more difficult. Caring for yourself, your family, getting an education, holding down a job, or finding one, or even safe, secure retirement -- it's all harder if you don't have a home base to count on.

I'd like to congratulate board members for their hard work and their vision of housing for people in Middlesex and London and the community. I'd like to thank the Ministry of Housing for the support for those in need.

My very best wishes to the residents of Bethany Place for the many years of safe, secure and happy retirement ahead.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, the Honourable Joan Kirner, former Premier and current leader of the opposition party, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. She's joined by her husband, Ron Kirner. Welcome.

We are also joined this afternoon -- seated in the Speaker's gallery is a delegation of former parliamentarians from Russia headed by Mr A. Nikolaev and Mr V. Novikov. Welcome to our chamber.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to draw to your attention constituents of mine, Mr Sultan Jessa, his wife and daughter, seated in the Speaker's gallery. Sultan is one of the twelve 1993 recipients of the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship, which will take place later this afternoon.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm very pleased to inform the members today about steps this government is taking to resolve a matter that has been discussed in this chamber many, many times. It is an issue that's very familiar to the members from the eastern part of Metro Toronto and it's of particular interest to the member for Scarborough North. I'm referring to the radioactive soil in Scarborough's Malvern community.

For far too long there has been a lot of talk but very little action on this situation. In fact, if just talking about it could have fixed this problem, then it would have happened long ago. But today I am pleased to announce that some dozen years after it was first discovered, soil contaminated with radioactive particles will be removed from the backyards of all 48 homes in the McClure Crescent area of Scarborough.

This government has pursued an active and thorough consultation with the local community spearheaded by a public liaison committee made up of area residents. The committee identified three possible sites where the treatment and temporary storage of excavated soil could take place, and the community endorsed those potential sites.

Today cabinet has approved the purchase of a site in the Tapscott industrial district, east of Tapscott Road and south of Passmore Avenue, the clear preference of the community.

I am happy to report that about 200 construction-related jobs will be created over the life of the project when excavation of the McClure soil begins this fall.

The soil will be transported to the Tapscott site and sorted to remove radium-coated plastic tubing and particles. This contaminated material will be sent to the federal government's facility in Chalk River and the resulting cleaner soil will be temporarily stored on the Tapscott site.

We have the technology to separate the soil like this. It was first demonstrated in the successful cleanup of similar soil at nearby McLevin Avenue. The soil remaining at McLevin will also be moved to the Tapscott site for storage.

This project demonstrates our government's commitment to ensure that people and communities have a right to a cleaner and safer environment.

At the end of the day, we'll have no more contaminated soil in Malvern. The McClure backyards will be restored and we'll have a temporary storage facility that's well away from where families live and children play.

I know this will be welcome news to the member for Scarborough North and I commend him for his ongoing interest in this matter.

This government decided to solve a local problem locally, and with the community's help we're well on our way to doing just that.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too want to say it's a very important step in moving towards the final solution of this matter. The fact is that it is not yet over. I don't want the minister to feel complacent, to feel that we have done it all and here it is, that we have done a lot of work and there's no more to do.

The site that you have identified, as you know, is a temporary site and you await the federal government now to find its site to move it to. I hope this government does not sit on its laurels and not do anything.

I know the residents of the community, the public liaison committee that has worked so hard on this and the residents of the community who are concerned are pretty happy about this small move. I don't want to demean it in any way, but you must understand that when the Tories were in power they were wrestling with this large issue and couldn't get anywhere with it.

When the Liberals came in, as you know, those 48 homes were purchased by the government and transportation was paid for to resettle these people. It was a huge move to do that. Now this government did not slacken off in any way. They moved on, they continued with the liaison committee, they set up the office in the Malvern Centre and they continued to have this move. We know that the next move from the federal government is forthcoming, maybe in the next 10 years. I think it's a welcome announcement in that respect.

I remember George Heighinton, who was a strong advocate in that group to get this thing moving, received one of Canada's 125th anniversary commemorative medals for his efforts towards this. I'm not sure that he is very happy yet. He as an individual, like the constituency and the residents there, is waiting until all the soil is moved.

I think the event of the day that interrupted our party as government would have moved this thing much quicker. I want to say that it takes a lot of cooperation around the cabinet table. The former Minister of the Environment worked very, very hard at this, Jim Bradley from St Catharines, to make sure the things we were doing were environmentally sensitive, and of course many of his colleagues worked tremendously hard for this to happen.

I want to commend the minister for carrying on the cause, but I'm saying that it's not a lot of action you have done here. I know you can take the praise, and that's how the game is worked. We know you're in government now. You can take all the praise. It doesn't really matter. The people need, very much so, to feel at home and settled within the environment, that there's no more radioactive soil around them.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's a good thing we have Alvin Curling to fight this.

Mr Curling: Yes. And I want to commend the people of Scarborough North for being so patient with me as I wrestled with the government and even my colleagues at the time to convince my present colleagues in the cabinet and the minister here to do that.

I want to say the battle's not over. The temporary site at Passmore is not sufficient. The federal Tories, who sat on their laurels all along and could not give you the permanent place for this, have impeded you enough, so you have taken this immediate position. I want to say we will be here and you will be here to let them talk to their cousins federally for the summer jobs. They have to do something and we hope that something will happen.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Dealing with the statement, I would have hoped that the Minister of Environment and Energy would have also made a statement, when we are talking about the transportation of the soil, to make certain that it is being done in an environmentally safe way, so that all of the residents who have fought so long and hard for this will be assured that the goal they have striven for will be reached in the safest possible manner.

Certainly, I think we have to take a moment to congratulate the member for Scarborough North for the many years he has fought to make this happen. We know the residents around the area certainly are approving of this, but they are also very conscious that it must be done in the safest way possible to the environment.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to respond to the Chair of Management Board's comments with respect to this site. I would like to congratulate him initially on the consultation process. I thank him for having his staff go through with members of our caucus on the process that has been followed. There's no question that you have taken considerable time in working with the people of the area, trying to deal with a very difficult problem. Clearly, it appears that the government has worked with the local citizens and that there has been a certain amount of success. They have gained success with respect to that. There also has been some sort of confidence in the government in dealing with a very difficult problem.

I will say though, when I look at the statement, the wording of the statement is rather strange. I concur with my friends in the Liberal Party. It is strange that the Chair of Management Board -- I understand why he's doing it, but this is strictly an environmental issue. Why in the world the Minister of Environment isn't making a statement on this whole process is beyond me, particularly when the statement by the Chair of Management Board completely contradicts what the Minister of Environment and his predecessor have been saying since they came into office.

For example, "This government decided to solve a local problem locally." That's a lot of bunk. You're sending all this contaminated material up to Chalk River, and it gets back with the whole process. I'm not pointing to you, Mr Chair of Management Board, I point to the Minister of Environment on the whole issue of waste. Why won't you look at the long rail haul, sending garbage up to Kirkland Lake? You won't even look at that whole process.

1400

The other issue is that it's kind of amazing that you simply say, "We're now going to ensure that the people in communities have a right to a cleaner and safer environment." I'll be looking forward to hearing about how you solved all the pollution at the beaches this summer on Lake Ontario and how you're solving all the pollution that's been floating around this city, which was raised in this House yesterday. This statement is full of complete contradictions.

Although I congratulate the government with respect to the consultation process, it's not like the process in the IWA, in which there's been no consultation. It's a complete sham. The IWA, of course, has not worked in the same process. There is no confidence in this government. In fact, there's nothing but cynicism. I've never seen so many people, thousands of people from 57 sites, who have got upset with this government on its whole process from Bill 143 onwards in choosing, ultimately, three sites, three superdumps, that probably 50 years down the line are going to cause very serious problems.

This problem, I gather, started in the 1940s, albeit it certainly didn't come from a landfill site, but I don't think this government is looking at all the overall solutions: the overall solutions of the long rail haul and of incineration.

What this government is doing is creating three superdumps in the GTA. Does that mean that 50 years from now a Chair of Management Board is going to stand in his place and try to solve the same problems that were caused back in the 1940s? I doubt that very much. In fact, I doubt if the problem can be solved. It's a very serious problem that this government is doing.

Its boasting about how it's solving this problem is a bit of a sham, with the problem it's creating with the IWA and the sole issue of the three superdumps in the greater Toronto area. There's no plan with respect to the creation of the superdumps. They have no idea what it's going to cost and their planning in this whole process is absolutely a joke.

I must say that it makes me annoyed when I see this Malvern remedial project come forward and talk about the wonderful work it's doing, and yet they're creating an even worse problem in the greater Toronto area with dumps that simply won't be solved. It's a prime example of incompetence. I would say that it's absolutely shameful that the government won't take the same type of consultation process, that it's boasted about in the Malvern remedial project, with the IWA. They've done absolutely nothing as far as gaining the confidence of the people of this province is concerned.

I would hope that the Malvern example, the problem that has occurred with the Malvern example, would be a prime reason why this government should stand back and take a long look at what it's doing in the greater Toronto area with the creation of the three superdumps.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Finance. As you are well aware, the Premier over the last few weeks has tried to portray anybody who is opposed to Bill 48 as being opposed to restraint. You will also be aware that yesterday the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto told us that it opposes Bill 48 because it will not succeed in reaching your goals of restraint. In fact, as the Metro board of trade has recognized, your Bill 48 is only going to defer some very significant costs to some time in the future and to some future government.

This is an issue which we have consistently raised, this issue of deferred costs, including the special leave provisions of Bill 48, under which unpaid leave for an essential service category must be repaid after 1996. We believe that provision alone could mean a deferral of up to $3 billion in costs.

The Premier has refused to acknowledge that this is even an issue, and I ask you today, as Minister of Finance for the province of Ontario, will you not acknowledge that Bill 48 is only going to defer significant costs to some time in the future, and that in fact you have not even added up what those total deferred costs are going to be?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Perhaps I would agree with the leader of the official opposition in one sense and disagree with the Premier at the same time, that it is an issue but it's not a problem.

To use the number $3 billion in deferred costs would imply that 50% of the entire savings in the public sector is tied up with the deferment of essential service jobs that would not be honoured during the next three years. I think that really is an exaggerated proposal. To imply that I think is simply not fair.

Secondly, the --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): You know, you know.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: In response to the member for Bruce who thinks I know everything when really I don't --

Mr Elston: You're spot on.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Floyd, you're so modest.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I really don't and --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Time's awastin'.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm trying to answer the leader of the official opposition, but her own colleagues are interjecting in a way that makes it very difficult for me to focus on the very important question she asked.

I should remind the leader of the official opposition that after the three years of the social contract have expired, the days that still must be taken by those in the crucial service areas, or critical areas of service, cannot be taken in compensation. So there's no doubt in my mind but that arrangements will be made following that period of time to make sure there isn't a bubble of compensation that will cost the public sector at that point.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): That's nonsense.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, my colleagues are saying that's nonsense. I have to tell you that quite frankly, I find that completely irresponsible. If you are acknowledging today that this is an issue, how can you say that it is not a problem if you are agreeing that there is a commitment to deferred costs and that you have not even added up what those costs are likely to be?

We keep raising the issue. We keep saying, what is the deferred cost? At least today we have you acknowledging that there is a commitment by law to a cost that some future government is going to pay, and in the name of responsibility, you should be prepared to give us the answer to how much that cost is going to be.

Minister, I would raise another issue of what we believe to be less than responsible financial management in Bill 48. The Metro board of trade again warned that Bill 48 will allow the government to pursue its ideological agenda of eliminating the private sector from providing services on a contract basis to this government.

We have already seen what has happened in health care, where your government is intent on squeezing out the private sector home health care providers at a cost of over 10,000 jobs, not to mention the taxes those businesses now pay. Quite clearly, your government is proceeding with replacing private sector health care services with publicly run services, even though it will cost government more.

Last week, we raised the concern over the contracted garbage services which are now included under Bill 48, and that is another example of this government trying to squeeze out the private sector. The Metro board of trade has said that such provisions have no place in legislation which is intended to reduce the public sector wage bill.

Minister, I ask: Surely you don't believe that squeezing the private sector out of all public services is somehow going to make government more efficient. Do you not understand that this legislation will not achieve your goals of restraint, but is only going to drive up the cost of public service?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am going to respond to the first part of the leader of the official opposition's supplementary, because she chose to continue with her first question in the beginning of her supplementary, and that had to do with the creation of extra costs at the end of the three-year social contract time frame.

What the legislation says is that for those areas of critical service, if the 12 days per year cannot be achieved during this three-year period, they can be negotiated at a subsequent time period and cannot be taken in the form of compensation. Now, if that doesn't tell you that it's not creating a bubble of costs after the social contract has expired, then I don't know what does. If the leader of the official opposition wants to ask her second question again, I'll deal with that as well.

1410

Mrs McLeod: We have raised that question over and over. The wording of the legislation seems very clear to us and I wish, before this passes, because this government is going to force it through, that we could get a clear answer from this government on this issue. I would say again to this Treasurer that this is not a bill that stands in the name of financial restraint. This is a continuation of chaotic financial mismanagement by this government.

I would say again that I believe and have believed from the beginning that you can have restraint without chaos. We have been telling you for two and a half months now that you have two responsibilities: One is to set your financial targets, and the other is to negotiate with your own employees to achieve your targets and to give other public sector employers and employees the tools they need to do the same thing.

I say to you today that this legislation is so badly flawed that it cannot be amended. I ask you, in the name of financial restraint, will you not withdraw this legislation and now provide some leadership that works?

Hon Mr Laughren: It should be a surprise to no one in the province of Ontario that the leader of the official opposition does not recognize restraint when she sees it. When her government was in office between 1985 and 1990, when there were record revenues in the province through natural growth in the economy, when there were record tax increases, it still allowed the debt of this province to increase by 33%. I can understand why she doesn't understand this is a fiscal restraint package.

Finally, she also doesn't seem to understand that what we're doing is attempting to negotiate with our employees to arrive at a solution they agree with, that we as employer agree with, all in the interest of reducing public sector compensation in this province by $2 billion.

If the leader of the official opposition says that her answer to fiscal restraint in this province is to withdraw this bill, that her answer to fiscal restraint is no more tax increases, that her answer to fiscal restraint is no expenditure reductions and that her answer to fiscal restraint is also to get the deficit down, then she's going to have to tell me what language she's speaking or what she's smoking.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: I understand why in this place the government is not prepared to respond to the opposition questions. Maybe outside the House he'll explain to the Metro board of trade why its concerns should not be taken seriously by this government.

RACE RELATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Attorney General. We have all been disturbed and dismayed by the rash of hate crimes we have seen recently. I felt the distress of people who are victims of these kinds of crimes when I visited the shop of a Jewish merchant in Kitchener recently, a shop which had just recently been vandalized. I think probably almost every member of this House can point to a situation or a case in his or her riding which underlies a truly startling increase in racially motivated crime.

As legislators, we all believe that we have a special responsibility to do what we can to prevent these kinds of acts. That is why, quite frankly, I find it disturbing to read that officials of the Attorney General's ministry have expressed some hesitation in proceeding with prosecuting in these situations even when charges have been laid.

It is perhaps even more disturbing to read that you seem to believe that it can be hard to prove whether or not hatred has been wilfully promoted. I ask, do you not understand that any hesitation on your part will undermine the confidence of the police and prosecutors as they pursue these types of crimes? I ask what actions you're prepared to take to ensure that your officials will act in these kinds of situations.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I certainly agree with the opposition leader that all of us in this Legislature are very concerned about the kinds of issues she raises. But she's put two things together, and I think we need to be very clear about that.

The kinds of crimes, the beatings, the vandalism, the kinds of robberies that appear to have some connection with racially motivated crime, are being vigorously pursued by the police. In fact, we daily see the accounts of the arrests that have been made and the efforts to prosecute for those crimes.

Part of the problem is that we do not yet have a capacity within the Criminal Code to have racial motivation as an aggravating factor in those crimes. That is something all the attorneys general are working together with the federal government to try to accomplish. I have said in this Legislature before that I really support that effort, because I think when there is a racial motivation to any kind of crime, it ought to be open to the court to name that as part of the issue and to take account of that in the sentencing.

The one area that is of concern is a section of the Criminal Code that does indeed talk about the wilful spreading of hatred. It is a difficult area to prosecute, as I'm sure the opposition understands. The law has been there for 22 years and there have been very few charges that have been laid.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have said in this House very clearly that if charges are laid by the police -- and police should be investigating and doing their work exactly as they would in any other suspected crime -- if they have reasonable and probable grounds and lay the charge, we will certainly consider that very seriously. But we also need to be very clear that in these cases they are difficult to prove, given the wording of the law, and we need to be sure --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- that we have a very good reason to prosecute, or else we might be liable for malicious prosecution.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I do believe that there are steps that you can personally take to ensure that charges are laid in cases of racially motivated and hate crimes and that they are brought to prosecution. I am pleased to hear you say, as you have said in the past, that you believe this to be your responsibility. I would like to call on you today to carry out this responsibility and to make your views very clearly known both to police and to prosecutors.

You and the Solicitor General have the power to issue a directive to the police and to prosecutors that cases of racially motivated crimes should be investigated, that charges should be laid and that the charges should be prosecuted where warranted. I ask, will you commit to issuing such a directive in conjunction with the Solicitor General as soon as possible and in as clear a manner as possible?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Indeed, at the cabinet round table on anti-racism that we have also talked about in this Legislature before, both the Solicitor General and I indicated to the round table that this was certainly our intention. We have arranged some very strong consultations so that the message is clear and is doubly heard from both our ministries. It is one way in which we can reassure those who have unfortunately taken the wrong message from some of the public statements of some of the advocacy groups. We are not reluctant to move in these cases. We must move, however, according to the law as it stands.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, indeed there has been talk about the cabinet round table on anti-racism. There's also recognition that that round table has only met once.

In raising the issue of a directive, I would bring to the minister's attention that there is a precedent for such a directive, as the previous Attorney General also acted -- not in conjunction with the Solicitor General but because he was also Solicitor General at the time -- to issue such a directive in cases dealing with domestic assault.

Minister, I know you understand that this situation is reaching what I would consider to be critical proportions, that people in this province are becoming more and more alarmed and that there is need for very immediate action.

I ask, will you not deal with this as a crisis situation? Will you not look immediately at what other steps you and your government can be taking to deal with this problem? Perhaps you personally, might begin not just with the directive but with making very clear what the changes are in the Criminal Code which you believe are necessary in order to take that kind of effective and decisive action.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I can assure the member opposite that that is certainly what I have been doing and what I intend to do. I do not think it is wise for us to act precipitately without being very clear about how the directive can best be worded, and that's why it's taking a little time. We want to be sure that we are giving the kind of reassurance to police officers and to crowns that they need about how to proceed, and we will move as quickly as we can on that. There are in fact some directives that are already available to them and we need to work to strengthen those.

In terms of the Criminal Code, we are working, through the federal-provincial-territorial means, with our colleagues from other provinces to make some of the suggestions to the federal government about changes that need to be made. We have made suggestions in the past and will continue to do so. In particular, our colleagues in Quebec and in British Columbia and in Manitoba have expressed similar kinds of concerns. There is a working group that will be meeting through the summer, and we expect at our fall meeting of the ministers of justice to be able to take decisive action.

1420

TAX INCREASES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Tomorrow won't be just another Canada Day for the working people of Ontario. In fact, when people get up tomorrow morning, they will feel robbed and broke and demoralized because of the tax grab that begins on July 1 that you announced just over a month ago.

Tomorrow is Black Thursday. Instead of being celebrated as Canada Day, it's Black Thursday for what you've done to the people of the province of Ontario. Tomorrow's the day when you dip into the pockets of working Ontarians and take more money than any other government has taken from them ever in the history of this province. There isn't a person working in Ontario who, tomorrow, won't start to feel the impact of your punitive, draconian, mean-minded budget of last May. Everyone in this province who is trying to make a living and do something is going to be impacted by your budget.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member place a question.

Mr Cousens: What do you have to say to the thousands of families who have no choice but to do with less money?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): In response to the question from the member for Markham, I would simply say that I understand that no one likes to pay more taxes -- that's obvious -- and I appreciate the fact that people will feel it in their paycheques starting on July 1. At the same time, I hope people, when they think about it and when they feel that impact, will understand that this was not simply a year in which we decided to have a big tax increase.

We decided we would reduce expenditures very substantially across the province, and we looked at the commitments made for 1993-94 and reduced our expenditures by about $4 billion. We then looked at compensation of the public sector and reducing that by $2 billion. The third component in order to get our financial house in order was the very aggressive tax increases which start tomorrow.

I acknowledge that it's quite a substantial tax increase. I would simply ask him, as a member of the Conservative caucus, to hearken back to 1981-82 when his government increased provincial income tax by four points in that year. It's not as though we're setting any particular precedent here, although I do acknowledge the fact that this is an aggressive tax package.

Mr Cousens: You still don't face up to the hardship that you're creating for the people who are trying to make Ontario come alive: the entrepreneurs, the families, the working people who are trying to make a success of themselves; the fact that your budget, more than any other single factor, will take jobs away and cause deep, deep hurt to the people of Ontario.

If a family has less to spend, then they won't be going out to eat at the local restaurant, they won't be buying that new car or appliance this year, they won't be calling on the local contractor for renovation work. What makes you think that your tax-and-spend plan will help Ontario when you're clearly strangling our economy?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I wish he'd put it in perspective that if we're going to have a healthy economy in this province and if we're going to be able to continue to have the same kind of living standard we've enjoyed in the past, we have to first of all get our financial house in order. I'm not pointing fingers in that regard, but we've simply got to do that. The result of the recession has truly been devastating on our revenues and we've got to do something about that.

I will point fingers a little bit in this regard, in that when the member for Markham talks about costing jobs, I would ask him to cast his eyes to Ottawa and ask himself whether or not anything we've done could even compare to what the federal government has done with its free trade agreement and its GST.

Mr Cousens: Cast your own eyes to Ottawa. Your Premier is invited to a meeting, and you don't even care about the rest of the country or anything else; he won't even go.

Come on, we're in Ontario, we're part of Canada. We want to see Canada strong, we want to see Ontario strong, and what you're doing is burying us.

Here we have another 4,000 more petitions from the people of Ontario saying to you that they're upset. It's the tip of the iceberg. Once people wake up tomorrow morning, they're going to realize just how rotten a government they've got, that the thieves at Queen's Park have robbed them blind.

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

Mr Cousens: Where's my question? How can you justify this job-killing investment that you're calling a tax? How can you justify this to the people of Ontario who are trying to make a living? Tell me.

Hon Mr Laughren: I really do believe that if the government had simply brought in a very large tax increase without doing what we're doing on the expenditure side, we would be open for criticism and I would be standing up and agreeing with the member for Markham. But for him to imply that this is simply a tax increase without us doing a lot of other things, very difficult things, on the expenditure side -- it is simply not fair not to approach this in a fairminded way.

For the member for Markham to imply that we could address some of the economic problems of this country by taking part in a photo opportunity with the new Prime Minister in Vancouver really is stretching the cloth a bit.

The Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Scarborough North.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, on a point of being politically correct, I just wonder if the member for Markham could define for me what "Black Thursday" is.

The Speaker: The member raises a point of order. I would allow the member for Markham an opportunity to respond to his colleague.

There is no response.

FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Are you, as Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance, not at all concerned that Ontario will be the only province not represented at the first ministers' meeting this weekend?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): No. I think the Premier had served notice some time before the invitation was even extended that he was not going to be taking part in a conference on the eve of a federal election. Surely, the member for Parry Sound, who has been in political life for some time now, understands that on the eve of a federal election, without a mandate to effect any substantial reform of any of the agreements between the federal government and the provinces, absolutely nothing useful will flow from that meeting in Vancouver, absolutely nothing. I would say to the member for Parry Sound that I believe the Premier has made a wise and judicious decision.

Mr Eves: The Premier has been quoted as saying, and the Treasurer just said it again, that this is nothing more than a photo op. I would like to ask the Deputy Premier how it can be a photo op when no self-respecting first ministers would want their pictures taken with Bob Rae?

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps you could ask Prime Minister Campbell that, who's pleading with him to go. Don't ask me that question. She's the one. It's the Prime Minister who wants the Premier to go.

Mr Eves: The Premier's refusal to attend this first ministers' meeting, the only first minister in Canada to do so -- I guess the others are all idiots or wrong, then; I guess that's what Bob Rae is saying.

It's quite obvious. Talk about playing politics. His refusal to go is simply playing politics a few months before the next federal election. Is partisan politics more important to Bob Rae, I ask the Deputy Premier, than putting forward his government's economic plan within this country of Canada and giving some information to the Prime Minister of Canada for our relationship among the G-7 countries? Is that more important, to play politics? That's exactly what you're doing with the issue. You know that. Every other first minister in the country's going to be there and yours isn't. Are they all nuts or are you nuts?

1430

Hon Mr Laughren: In response to the potential federal member from Parry Sound, I would simply say that I believe that all the premiers will make their own judgement in this regard. I don't think that anybody's nuts or crazy if they decide to go or not go. They have to exercise their own best judgement. But I can tell you that the federal government has known for a long time what our political and economic agenda is for the province of Ontario. They have chosen to ignore it, and for the member for Parry Sound to imply that suddenly now, on the eve of a federal election, the federal Tory party is going to start listening to Ontario's demands at the table, I think is truly fanciful. If anybody's playing politics with this issue, it's not the Premier of Ontario; it's the member for Parry Sound and the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Treasurer, and I come at it from a different angle because I'm not there to protect the Conservative Party federally or anything. But I know that a couple of weeks ago the Treasurer felt it was important enough for himself to attend, along with the other ministers, a federal-provincial conference of ministers of finance of Canada and that he was there to represent the views of the government of the province of Ontario and the people of this province.

Mr Treasurer, your friend the Premier was critical of those who saw fit to leave the negotiating table during the social contract talks, yet the Premier himself will not even go to the table when the federal ministers and the provincial ministers are there.

Would the minister not agree with me that the Premier of this province should comply with the overwhelming wishes of the people of this country to put aside the partisan bickering between federal and provincial governments and join all of the other premiers and the federal Prime Minister to discuss the important economic questions confronting this question and that, in doing so, the Premier would not appear to be petty? We all know the Premier isn't petty, but he would dispel this feeling that he was just being a petty politician.

Hon Mr Laughren: There really is a big difference between this meeting that's been called by the federal Prime Minister and the meetings that have been held on an ongoing basis among the finance ministers of Canada. There were all sorts of agenda items that had to be completed and matters to be discussed on which we'd already started work. I don't believe for a moment that the time that's been set aside in Vancouver for the federal Prime Minister and the premiers to meet was going to be adequate time at all to deal with any matters of substance. Really, the petty politics are not emanating from this province or from this Premier. If anything, they're emanating from the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr Bradley: I think the Treasurer would agree with me about this concern about a photo opportunity that our friend the Premier has never been known to be a person to shy away from a photo opportunity. In fact, I have seen him during Hockey Night in Canada beside Steve Stavro giving the thumbs-up sign and wearing the Maple Leafs badge. I'm sure he was there just to cheer for the Maple Leafs and not for a photo opportunity, but our Premier is noted for having some of the sharpest elbows in the country when it comes to a television camera within 20 feet. So I don't think that's a concern.

What I want to ask the Treasurer, however, is the following: Does the Treasurer not believe that this action on the part of the Premier sets a rather unfortunate precedent in that in the final year of the Premier's mandate we could see circumstances where a federal government might say, "We're not going to invite Ontario to the federal-provincial conference of premiers because the Premier of Ontario is about to go into a provincial election"? Does he not think that that would be rather dangerous as a precedent and that it would in the long term not be in the interests of the people of Ontario, and would he not now persuade the Premier to change his mind, to join this team effort of all the premiers, including two New Democrats, to try to confront the financial problems in this country?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sure an NDP federal government would not do that, to start with.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): We will never know, will we?

Hon Mr Laughren: Never mind, never mind.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the interjections, Mr Speaker.

I don't believe the analogy is an appropriate one. The Premier said a long time ago that, with the election perhaps weeks away, nothing substantial was going to happen at a first ministers' conference at this time. I can't imagine what they're going to do in the limited number of hours available to them that could have any impact on either federal-provincial negotiations or on the economy of this province.

The federal government has had lots of opportunity to respond to our demand that we be treated differently when it comes to the transfer payments that are owing to this province and it has chosen not to respond in a positive way.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Deputy Premier as well. Approximately three weeks ago, before our new Prime Minister was elected to that position by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, there was a meeting in Vancouver of all the trade ministers from across this country. That was in Vancouver as well. Can you tell me why there were only two provinces that were not represented by their ministers at that particular meeting, one being Saskatchewan, an NDP government, and the other being Ontario?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): No, I cannot answer that question. I just assume there were other commitments that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade had. So I cannot answer the question.

Mr Sterling: That particular meeting dealt with dropping trade barriers across this country so that people would have the opportunity of crossing borders to work and have the opportunity of trading across the borders.

The question comes to mind to the Deputy Premier: Is your government more interested in being involved in the federal election than it is in maintaining the interests of the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: Hardly. I believe the member for Carleton knows full well that the Premier has spoken many, many times on the way in which this province has been treated by the present federal government. He knows full well that no one has been more outspoken in the interests of this province than this Premier has been, and it's been particularly difficult with the federal Tories in office in Ottawa.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Everyone will know that we have announced the expansion of the Rouge and the park that will be created in that area, and it's been announced on more than one occasion by Pauline Browes, the Tory member in Scarborough, that we would be getting $10 million. Now that she is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, can we expect that the Tories will stop turning their backs on their promises and start delivering on this $10 million?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I know this is an important question for all of those people who live in the eastern part of Metro Toronto and in the Durham region generally.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): The place you are going to put a dump in, Howie. It's very important because you are going to put a dump there.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Hampton: The federal government has announced on a couple of occasions, and has indicated otherwise on a couple of occasions, that it is interested in making a contribution to the Rouge Valley Park, and in fact, spokespersons for the federal government have indicated that they would be prepared to make a $10-million contribution to the park.

1440

I have had a meeting with the federal MP for Scarborough Centre, who is now the Minister of Indian Affairs in the federal government, and we are hopeful that the federal government will soon come forward with the $10-million commitment. It would indeed be a meaningful contribution to the park, and we're very hopeful that they will live up to the statements that they have made over the past six or seven months.

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary concerns the federal government's ownership of the land in north Pickering that was expropriated 20 years or so ago from the residents to create the Pickering airport. The question deals with the land that is in the northwestern section of the provincial preserve, which is abutting the southwestern section of the federal preserve, which is at a crucial link between two river systems that is necessary to create an ecosystem or a corridor between those two so that there could be a natural wildlife corridor.

My question to the Minister of Natural Resources: Have we got any commitment from the federal government that they will do as they did in British Columbia and create a large wildlife reserve corridor between these two sections so that we can preserve the natural habitat in the north end of Pickering and in the section of Markham?

Hon Mr Hampton: The member is quite correct: The federal government owns a great deal of land which is immediately adjacent to the land which the provincial government has set aside for the Rouge River park. We have indicated to the federal government that if they were to add some of this land to what has already been set aside by the province for the park, this would indeed create a park which would be a leading example of an urban park for all of North America. We have impressed this upon the federal government. We are hopeful that they will act soon, again, to live up to some of the statements that they've made in the past.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, your ministry plans to spend some $339 million on your Jobs Ontario Training program this year, and I believe that the people of this province have a right to expect that the huge sums of money that you are pouring into the Jobs Ontario Training program are in fact spent properly.

I'm sure you are very much aware that serious problems have come to light with the spending of Jobs Ontario Training funds through the broker in Brantford, and indeed I have a copy of the letter that was dated June 1 that was signed by the assistant deputy minister of Jobs Ontario Training, Joan Andrew. The letter confirms that Jobs Ontario Training officials are now admitting an operating loss of some $640,000 by the Brantford broker. The letter also outlines a deep concern about the lack of management and financial control over the expenditure of public funds through the Brantford brokerage.

Minister, I understand that this particular situation is under investigation. My question today is not about the Brantford situation. Our concern is that this may in fact be the tip of an iceberg. I ask you today: What steps had you put in place prior to the Brantford problem coming to light to ensure that the Jobs Ontario Training funds were being properly spent by brokers on the Jobs Ontario Training program?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it's important to understand that the way the concerns at the Brantford broker's office came to light was through our regular auditing of the broker. That's the way this whole issue came to light. It didn't come any other way; it was through our regular monitoring of the broker. When that occurred, then we went through the next steps. As you know, we've moved in, we're now actually running that particular broker with people from I believe the ministry, but we're supervising it directly.

So, yes, we take it very seriously. There are a lot of brokers right across the province, so it's a massive job, but we're regularly looking at each of the brokers. I think it's a credit to the service that we're the ones who discovered the problems through our auditing, and then the further investigations continued.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Minister, you have said that you do regular auditing and monitoring through Jobs Ontario Training. But the truth is, before this Brantford instance came to light in February, this was not true and you were not doing this across the province. In fact, Minister, when I went to a briefing in your very office with your staff and Jobs Ontario employees, I asked the specific question of what was being done for accountability and to ensure it was being done. At that stage, that was one month after you were being briefed about the Brantford incident. Your ministry officials said to me, "No, we have regularly monitored," but you did not have it prior to the Brantford incident.

Why don't you admit that this program was done in such haste and was politically motivated and that a year after this program was announced, you still did not have any accountability mechanism in place to ensure that Jobs Ontario brokers were spending the money on Jobs Ontario Training programs?

Hon Mr Cooke: I don't know how to answer a question from an opposition member who says, "You don't have any monitoring in place," when I just said that it was because of our regular monitoring, through the auditing that we do with the brokers, that we discovered the problem. This wasn't something that the member for Eglinton discovered and reported to the government. This is something we discovered because we're concerned that public money is spent wisely.

Now, when we've got a lot of brokers involved and thousands of jobs being created across the province and thousands of employers involved, then obviously there are going to be instances where there will be some difficulties. When those instances are discovered, it's our responsibility to get them investigated. As the member knows, the case in Brantford has been reported and is being investigated by the OPP. So it's being dealt with appropriately, aggressively, and I think to the credit of the ministry.

GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, are you aware of the fact that when casino gambling was introduced into the state of New Jersey, horse racing attendance and wagering fell by a third? What steps are you taking to make sure the same thing doesn't happen here in the province of Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We have looked at many studies associated with casino gambling and horse racing, and there are different results in different studies, depending on certain circumstances. At this point in time, we are talking about one casino, a pilot project in Windsor, and we are working very closely with the track in that area, which has been experiencing some difficulty for a while. We'll be working closely with them to see if there are some ways the new casino and the track can work together to draw patrons.

Mr Eves: Lotteries, sports betting and now casino gambling are taking increasingly larger slices out of what was a very viable industry in the province of Ontario. At the same time, the parimutuel tax in the province of Ontario is the highest in North America, with the only exception being the California thoroughbred racing program. At 5%, your parimutuel tax is exactly 900% higher than it is in the state of New Jersey, which is 0.5%, and where they also have casino gambling, by the way.

You need to create a level playing field here in the province of Ontario. Will you make a commitment that you will lower that tax to give the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario a chance to succeed?

Hon Ms Churley: It's impossible to take at face value all of the statistics that come in around the levels of taxation, because in many of the states in the United States there are hidden costs that the industry has to pay for, which I'd be happy to share with the member later.

Mr Eves: You're the minister. You're supposed to know this stuff.

Hon Ms Churley: But certainly we have been working with the horse racing industry because it has suffered somewhat as a result of the recession --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Parry Sound.

1450

Hon Ms Churley: As the member knows, if he would like to hear the answer, the government --

Mr Eves: I have a question for you, David. Is it open today and will it be open six months from now?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound, please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: The member did not listen to one word of my answer and I really don't think he is interested in hearing the answer. So I would be happy to speak privately later with anybody who would like to listen.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Peterborough.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): This question is for the minister responsible for automobile insurance --

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker -- I did try to do it before the member had started her question -- I would like to give the House notice that I will be filing a notice of dissatisfaction with the Minister of Education's answer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): If all members would file their dissatisfaction outside of question period.

Ms Carter: This question is for the minister responsible for automobile insurance reform. Many seniors in my riding of Peterborough, many of whom are on fixed incomes, have raised concerns about premium increases that will result from Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act. Can the minister tell this House what impact Bill 164 will have on the cost of automobile insurance and how this will affect seniors in my riding?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I thank the member for Peterborough for her question. It's a timely one, because, as members will know, during the debate on Bill 164 the insurance industry started with wild predictions of 25% increases in rates, then they were 20%, then they were 15%, then they were 12%.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Is that as wild as your no-fault public automobile insurance?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Burlington South.

Hon Mr Charlton: Members may be interested in having noticed an interview with Cliff Fraser, the regional vice-president of State Farm Insurance, in Thompson's World Insurance News the other day, where Mr Fraser now applauds the whole process around Bill 164 and admits, even from the industry's perspective, that the increases associated with Bill 164 from the insurance industry's perspective will be between 6% and 7%.

We still stick to the original comment that we made about Bill 164, that the costs associated at maximum will be between 3% and 4%.

Ms Carter: I'd also like to raise the issue of the classification system for drivers and its impact on low-risk drivers. Many seniors have driven for many years without accidents. Can the minister tell us whether Bill 164 will penalize drivers who have long records of safe driving?

Hon Mr Charlton: Bill 164 basically gives to the government the authority to move in the future to deal with the classification system, and we intend to do that after sitting down with the industry and redesigning the classification system.

But specifically with respect to drivers who have good driving records, it is the intention of reform in the classification system to make bad drivers pay for the problems in the system, to reward good drivers across the system, so that good drivers, whether they're 18, 47 or 72, and bad drivers, whether they're 18, 47 or 72, are in fact dealt with equally and appropriately.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Transportation, who is getting ready to give one of his famous answers. Last week the Premier announced that two private consortia are being formed to prepare bids to finance and build Highway 407. The Premier also said that these two groups will get $1.5 million each to prepare their submission.

The public wants the 407 built and would like it built as soon as possible, and if that involves the private sector, I think that's great, that's good. But the public also wants to be assured that its hard-earned tax money is being spent wisely and well. Minister, why is the Ontario government paying $3 million to the private companies so that they can prepare a bid for a government contract?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The question is valid indeed. The sentiment, the element of competition in the marketplace is alive and well because the two consortiums represent fully 80% of active transportation players, people who are building in the province of Ontario.

The responsibility and the obligation of the government are to make sure that the taxpayers get value for money. Each consortium will be getting $1.5 million, but they will put in much more money in order to arrive at their specs. But competition is alive and well. We see it as the essence, that element in the marketplace, and it should ensure that the taxpayers get a fair shake.

It will also mean that for the first time the free-enterprise system is involved at the infrastructure level, right at the beginning, so they can bid on a bigger piece of the action. The bigger the piece of the pie, the more savings for the taxpayers and better value for money.

Mr Daigeler: As I indicated, I am all-supportive of the fact to have the private sector putting forward some ideas and being involved in this project, but so far all you have really said is that the government is putting out money so the private sector can prepare its bid. I'm not really assured at all that the taxpayers' money is well accounted for, and in particular after the issue that was just raised during this question period by my leader, when we know that Jobs Ontario money apparently seems to have been misdirected in Brantford.

Can you assure me and this House and the Ontario public that the whole bidding process and the eventual awarding of contracts surrounding the 407 will be open for the closest public scrutiny and for intense examination by this Legislature?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Absolutely. We have an obligation to make sure that everything is aboveboard. But to go back to the essence of the question, 26,000 direct jobs: This government is putting the machine in drive. This project, that will be approximately $3 million, will not be built in seven years but will be built faster so the jobs will take place faster. That's the crux of the matter. In terms of due process, you will find that this administration has nothing short of an immaculate record.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. July 1 is going to be the beginning of the end of the forest industry in Ontario. The employees and the employers are both going to suffer badly. This is the most damaging tax hike in the history of the province of Ontario. You have doubled both the area charges, which have gone from $51 to $102, and the stumpage fees, and this will kill hundreds of forestry jobs throughout eastern and northern Ontario. How do you justify a 100% tax increase on jobs in the forest industry?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I wish that the member would not use language which, if I may, says that all is doom and gloom, because I think that if you look at what has happened in the area of lumber prices over the last year and a half and if you look at some of the other actions that have taken place in the last year, you would find that increases in stumpage fees are in fact in order.

All we have done is that we have equalized the base stumpage rate that sawmills pay so that it will now be equal to the base rate which pulp and paper mills pay. While that may affect some individual producers, I have indicated in meetings with the lumber manufacturers that we will be prepared to work with individual producers to ensure that they have a period of adjustment. With respect to the area charges, the fact is that the changes in the area charges will contribute very little to the delivered cost of wood. In fact, the greatest portion of the delivered cost of wood comes from all the other factors.

Let me just say this: I want to ask the member where he was and where his party was when the current federal government hit all sawmill producers with a 15% export tax based on the final price of lumber.

1500

Mr Jordan: I have a letter from Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd. The total effect of these increases to CP Forest Products is expected to be in the range of $2.2 million in 1993. This is probably conservative, as it is impossible to factor in additional costs of purchased wood attributable to the increased stumpage rates. I would expect the 1994 cost increase to be in the range of $3.3 million. The company is stating very clearly that it cannot cope with that increase. If you needed it, it should have been phased in, not a 100% increase.

Here we are with the small, non-integrated loggers. Those are the ones that do not have a union, the non-integrated ones, the small business people, and they make only $8 a cord on the wood.

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

Mr Jordan: They make only $8 a cord. He's increased it by $10 a cord. How do you expect them to stay in business? There are 163 --

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mr Jordan: This is my question. There are 163 employees in the minister's riding who will be out of work. I ask the minister, would he please, for the sake of the small, non-integrated loggers, remove that increase in the stumpage fee?

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, I would urge the member to take care in some of the figures that he's using. I too have seen the letter from Canadian Pacific Forest Products, which has at least two very large forest management areas. They also have a number of third parties that work on those forest management areas. It may be the case that if there is a $2.2-million increase in costs, this $2.2-million increase in costs will be shared among a number of operators. I think it's just going a bit overboard to say that somebody is going to have to pick up all of a large cost. The fact is that on those very large areas of forest land, many people are harvesting, many people are hauling. There are many third-party agreements.

Finally, let me say to the member that we acknowledge -- I acknowledge -- that based upon the business relationships that some individual operators have, they may have some difficulty. I have already indicated that we are prepared to work with those companies that are in a strained position. We have done this before by means of deferring stumpage fees. I would simply say that through the very difficult period over the last three years, we were able to work with sawmillers.

I wonder where the federal government has been through all of this. Nowhere have they been anywhere in sight helping those sawmills or those loggers.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've sat patiently throughout question period and, prior to that, ministerial statement period, waiting for the Minister of Health to inform the House of her rather important flip-flop that she announced yesterday regarding user fees for seniors' drugs.

The Speaker: There's nothing out of order. The member knows full well what the standing order is with respect to ministerial statements. Petitions?

Mr Jim Wilson: Point of privilege.

The Speaker: A point of privilege, on a new matter, I trust.

Mr Jim Wilson: I feel that my privileges have been made null and void, and certainly abused, with respect to the fact that that government was elected on a sanctimonious platform with respect to no user fees in the health care system.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the energetic member for Simcoe West please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It sounds as if the member for Simcoe West indeed has material for a question for question period, and if there are more question periods, then indeed he may rise in his place and pose a question.

The member for Brant-Haldimand with his petition.

Mr Jim Wilson: I'd ask for unanimous consent that I could place that question.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to ministerial statements?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I hear at least one "nay."

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition as follows:

"Your assault on the education of the children of our province is intolerable. We ask that you immediately cease the social contract cutbacks and advance to the boards of Ontario the funding that they require."

This is signed by 882 separate school board teachers from the regional municipality of Waterloo.

A second petition with the exact same wording, petitioning as follows:

That's signed by 2,163 teachers employed by the Waterloo county public school board.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition here that's signed by over 100 names, which we have been receiving each day, 100 or so, and it's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I have also signed this petition.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, Ontario, is a facility providing housing, medical care and recreational/educational services to mentally handicapped, and in some cases also physically handicapped residents. These residents require 24-hour supervision and medical care.

"Parents and relatives of residents at Huronia Regional Centre are concerned about the process of staff cuts taking place and wish to ensure that the quality of care to residents does not decline as a result of a widening ratio of staff to residents. There is further concern that resident medical doctors are being cut from staff and/or retiring and not being replaced.

"We, the undersigned, being parents, relatives or friends of residents at the Huronia Regional Centre, Orillia, Ontario, respectfully request that the government of Ontario impose no further staff cuts at this facility until such time as suitable alternative living arrangements are secured for the residents."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

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

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has decided to close Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services diagnostic laboratory at the college as of May 1, 1994,

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

"To reverse the decision to close the Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services laboratory located on Centralia's campus."

I have signed the petition.

1510

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support this petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): 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."

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly. I've presented several of these over the last several weeks. This will be the last presentation of petitions in relation to Bruce A and I would like to read the full petition.

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

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

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

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

"In addition to the undersigned, this petition is endorsed by the following municipal, business and labour groups:

"Councils: Bruce township, Huron township, Kincardine, Kincardine township, Owen Sound, Port Elgin, Ripley, Saugeen, Tiverton;

"Chambers of commerce: Kincardine, Port Elgin, Southampton;

Business associations: Kincardine, Port Elgin, Bruce County Realtors Association;

"Labour groups: CUPE 1000, the Society; Grey/Bruce Labour Council," and several other organizations;

"Riding associations: Bruce NDP, Bruce Provincial Liberal Association, Bruce provincial Progressive Conservatives;

"Bruce County School Board and Grey/Bruce Community Industrial Training Advisory Committee."

Well over 15,600 other people have signed this petition. I support the petition and have added my name.

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

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

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that your new tax on brew-on-premises home brew is unfair, unwanted and unreasonable, we are concerned that it will eliminate jobs without increasing government revenue; and

"Whereas this new tax is inspired by big, multinational brewing corporations whose only desire is to keep us from enjoying home brew;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament to scrap the tax before it begins tomorrow."

That's signed by 240, and I affix my signature.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): As you know, Mr Speaker, the tradition of the House does not allow a minister to read a petition, so I am reading this petition on behalf of Brian Charlton.

"We, the undersigned, are concerned about the ramifications of passing Bill 164. It is our understanding that the bill will result in an increase in auto claims costs and therefore result in an average increase in insurance premiums of 20%.

"We are particularly concerned about the increase in rates for low-risk groups. Enough data has been collected to prove that women and senior citizens are in a low-risk group. We have fewer accidents and thus we make fewer claims. We do not feel it is fair for people in low-risk groups such as women and senior citizens to pay higher rates to subsidize the higher risk drivers.

"We would like Bill 164 to be stopped."

It's signed by a number of people in the Hamilton area.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38. We believe that this bill defies God's laws, violates the principle of religious freedom, reduces the quality of life, removes all legal protection to workers regarding when they must work, and will reduce rather than improve the prosperity of our province. The observance of Sunday as a non-working day was not invented by man but dates from God's creation and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people, both physically and spiritually. We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

It's signed by 54 residents of the Brant, Norfolk and Oxford areas. I have affixed my signature.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Lieutenant Governor:

"Whereas the NDP party have always stated that they were against user fees;

"Whereas the NDP party have now decided to renege on this position;

"Whereas the NDP party have decided to impose user fees on the drug plan for our senior citizens;

"Whereas our senior citizens feel cheated by the NDP government and find the promises of this government to be hypocritical, sanctimonious, absurd, and to absolutely fly in the face of anything they said in the last election;

"Therefore, we ask this government to resign, as they have lost the trust of the seniors of Ontario."

That's signed by the member for Carleton, Mr Sterling, by many of the members of my caucus and other good citizens in this province who still believe in principle and still believe that what you say in an election campaign is what you do after you're elected.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition to present that's been sent to me by the women of Sandgate, a women's shelter in Georgina. They've done a remarkable job of collecting this petition. As you can see, it's been signed by thousands and thousands of people. I'll read this petition.

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

"Whereas Brian Kavanagh will be eligible for parole on July 22, 1993, after serving only 20 months (one sixth) of his sentence, that this travesty of justice be addressed immediately by whatever means available and that are within your power to prevent the premature release of this person from custody.

"On January 31, 1991, Ellen Sands Kavanagh was stabbed 32 times in her back, hands, ear, eyes, cheek, neck, chest and stomach with a fishing knife; her head was bludgeoned twice with a 15-pound axe, fracturing her skull in three places and breaking her jaw. Her neck was slashed with a saw. Her estranged husband, Brian Kavanagh, was convicted of manslaughter in November 1991 and was sentenced to 10 years in a federal prison.

"On July 22, 1993, Brian Kavanagh comes before the National Parole Board. On that date he is eligible for unescorted temporary absence and day parole. He has already applied for a halfway house in the city of his choice and will only have to report between the hours of midnight and 6 am to that location. The victim's family lives in terror at the thought of his release. We, the undersigned, wish to loudly proclaim that:

"This is not our concept of Canadian justice."

After witnessing on the news last night the family speaking, I think they very much would like to see this supported. I know there are thousands of people who have signed this, and it certainly does send an overwhelming message to the government. I have signed my name to it.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there is a grave concern about the recent proposals affecting the Ontario drug benefits program; and

"Whereas this statement has caused a great deal of anger and frustration among the seniors of this province; and

"Whereas seniors do not prescribe their own medication and feel that the government should address the origin of the problem more carefully;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, are opposed to user fees for seniors' drugs and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to accept the list of signatures on the attached document and request the government to work closely with seniors to develop an alternate plan."

This is signed by Doug Schnurr and Shelley MacKay, and actually covers a list of names which was not quite in proper form but includes Irene Dosman, Hilda Dustow and others from the Mildmay area who form part of a seniors' action committee designed to protect the integrity of programs that have been heretofore considered sacred trusts to the people of Ontario. I attach my signature to this petition.

1520

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that your new tax on brew-on-premises home brew is unfair, unwanted and unreasonable, we are all concerned that it eliminates jobs without increasing government revenue; and

"Whereas the new tax is inspired by big multinational brewing corporations whose only desire is to keep us from enjoying home brew;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament to scrap the tax before it begins."

CHILD CARE

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'd like to present this petition on behalf of over 1,000 signators, supporters of the Rainbow Village Childcare Centre.

"We, the undersigned, are board members, staff and parents of the Rainbow Village Childcare Centre. We feel it is unfair to assess a non-profit child care centre for property taxes. We feel that Rainbow Village Childcare Centre is a seminary of learning and should be exempted from property taxes."

I affix my signature of support.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have another petition that deals with the drug benefit program:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is a grave concern about the recent proposals affecting the Ontario drug benefit program; and

"Whereas this statement has caused a great deal of anger and frustration among the seniors of this province; and

"Whereas seniors do not prescribe their own medication and feel that the government should address the origin of the problem more carefully;

Along with Karen Fariello, the people in Formosa have signed this, and they're represented by their president, Theresa Schnurr, and several others, including Sister Elsie Deemert and Sister Dorothy Middleholst, and I have added my signature in support of their request and the request of the seniors of the area to guard this sacred trust.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendments:

Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Kirbryn Holdings Inc

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Village of Merrickville

Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Hellenic Orthodox Community of Kingston

Bill Pr54, An Act to revive Paragon Financial Corp

Bill Pr55, An Act to revive Philmanser Investments Ltd

Bill Pr80, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Eddy from the standing committee on social development presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Committee of the whole.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed; committee of the whole.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 6, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la municipalité régionale de Durham

Bill 102, An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'équité salariale

Bill Pr1, An Act to revive 506548 Ontario Limited

Bill Pr2, An Act to revive the Women's Counselling Referral Centre

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Veterinary Technicians

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of London and Covent Garden Building Incorporated

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association

Bill Pr11, An Act to revive Chua Di-Da (Amidatemple) of Toronto

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the City of London

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting The Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation

Bill Pr17, An Act to revive Aga Ming Property Owners Association

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Gloucester

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Town of Gravenhurst

Bill Pr21, An Act to revive John G. Todd Agencies Limited

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting Cambridge-Guelph Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting Georgian-Simcoe Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting Picton-Trenton Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting Stratford, Huron and Bruce Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting Waterloo-St Jacobs Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting Waubaushene Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr34, An Act to revive Rosalind Blauer Centre for Child Care

Bill Pr36, An Act to revive Canindo Development Limited

Bill Pr37, An Act to revive P.O.I.N.T. Incorporated

Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Township of Atikokan

Bill Pr69, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa

Bill Pr74, An Act respecting the City of North York

Bill Pr77, An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill

Bill Pr84, An Act to revive Maranatha Christian Reformed Church of Woodbridge

Bill Pr85, An Act to revive The Optimist Club of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Bill Pr87, An Act respecting the Township of Aldborough and the Village of Rodney

Bill Pr88, An Act respecting the Cruickshank Elderly Persons Centre.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

Consideration 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 First Deputy Chair (Mr Dennis Drainville): I recognize the honourable Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I wonder if you'd allow me to invite a couple of members from the staff to sit in front of me, in view of the complexity of some aspects of this legislation.

The First Deputy Chair: That would be fine.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Chairman, we believe the Finance minister needs all the help he can get, and we'd be pleased to assent.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you'd allow me, Mr Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that members of the assembly recognize Graham Stoodley, who is director of legal services for the Ministry of Finance, and Craig Slater, who works in Management Board, who have been of enormous assistance in drafting the amendments and dealing with this legislation.

The First Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable Treasurer for those introductions.

We begin with section 1. Questions, comments or amendments? The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We will not be proposing amendments specifically to this section of the act. In fact, we will not be proposing amendments to any section of the act. Our position on this legislation, and I think it speaks to the purposes set out, is that this legislation itself is probably the worst piece of legislation we've seen, that it sets up an impossible process so that the purposes that are set out in these sections in fact cannot be achieved, and it also commits future governments to unmeasured financial liabilities.

We also believe that this legislation is likely to paralyse this government because of the legal challenges this government will face as a result of presenting and passing this legislation, should that be the outcome of this debate.

In our view, this is fundamentally flawed legislation and it is not susceptible to amendment, which is why we will not be proposing amendment.

1530

We understand that the third party intends to present some amendments, although there is some confusion as to just exactly how and when and what amendments it's going to be presenting. As we understand it, the amendments that the third party presents are not likely to be amendments at all, but are in fact the substance of a new bill, and we will ask, as this process continues, that you give your attention to the legitimacy of amendments.

The position that the third party has presented today reflects a whole different set of alternatives from those that the third party has up until yesterday claimed were the best alternatives on which to proceed. In fact, I believe the amendments the third party will present are simply a way of trying to put a better face on the fact that it has supported a very bad piece of legislation, a piece of legislation which will not achieve the purposes set out in section 1 of this act, which will not achieve restraint, which will in fact defer significant costs to a future government. The third-party amendments will simply add complexity to chaos.

It is for that reason that we are not proposing amendments to this section or to other sections. We do not see that the government amendments which have at this point been tabled are going to do anything at all to address the issue of whether this legislation can be made workable, and do not address the very real, long-term problems that this legislation creates. In our view, this legislation should be withdrawn, not amended, and if it will not be withdrawn by this government, it should simply be defeated.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chair I think one of the things we often do as we begin bills is to have some idea if all of the amendments have been tabled by both the government and the third party. As you know, we will not be moving amendments. It is our information that there may be others that have not been made, but I wonder if we might not have a recitation now of the amendments which you have received. I think that is customary, and if we could do that before we move into other parts of the debate on section 1, it would be of some help.

The First Deputy Chair: The suggestion has been made by the honourable member for Bruce that we have a recitation of the amendments that have been brought to the table to this point in time. That is a customary proceeding, as I understand, in the House. Are you rising to object to that, the honourable member for Markham?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Chairman, the leader of the Liberal Party has made an opening comment -- more like an opening salvo --

Mrs McLeod: And intended as such, thank you very much.

Mr Cousens: We love you dearly, except what you say. I just don't want to see you spend all the time -- as long as I get a chance to speak here, because the problem we have is that the Liberals get up and make all kinds of pronouncements and statements and --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Just don't blow a gasket like you did in question period.

Mr Cousens: You never know what's going to happen, and that's what happens in the House. I'm willing to defer to that. I would like to comment as well, before I make my opening remarks, that all our amendments are not tabled. We have tabled a number of them and we have certain others that we may, depending on how this debate evolves and develops, bring in. I'm just not sure; therefore, I do not want to begin to say that all the amendments from our caucus are on the table.

The First Deputy Chair: We have had the request that we go through the amendments, and I would recognize the honourable Treasurer. Do you have amendments, sir, and could you please indicate which ones they are?

Hon Mr Laughren: We have tabled our amendments with the table. I don't know whether the official opposition wanted me to list the sections.

Mr Elston: Just a note of the sections.

Hon Mr Laughren: We are moving amendments to sections 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 39, 40, 41 and 47.

If I have the floor, I was going to make a couple of comments on section 1.

The First Deputy Chair: If we could just get all of them recorded, then we'll go on to the -- I believe there are no amendments from the Liberal Party, so I would go to the third party. Do you have any amendments?

Mr Cousens: Indeed we do. It's rather peculiar that the government comes in with so many amendments. If they'd done some drafting in the earlier stage, we wouldn't expect as much catch-up at this point. It shows the haste with which they're operating, the panic by which they're driven and the obvious lack of preparedness that they are --

Hon Mr Cooke: What section is this?

Mr Cousens: What section is this? Let me answer the question to the honourable Chairman, who isn't always so honourable.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Get it right, Don.

Mr Cousens: "Get it right," says Elinor. Go and enjoy Canada Day. It's a black Thursday for you and me.

Interjection: Alvin wants to know what he said.

Mr Cousens: Alvin wants to know -- never mind. There is such a thing as a white Christmas, so I don't know what he has to say about that.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: And you celebrate Christmas, too, so never mind.

Subsections 11(3) and (5) of the bill, subsection (4) --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Twelve.

Mr Cousens: Chris, I'm doing this. Section 12, as Mr Stockwell just indicated, and I very much appreciate his help; subsection 23(2), section 24.

Interjection: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

Mr Cousens: That's right: The whole of section 24 will be impacted by what we're talking about. Sections 25 to 32: We will have major changes to propose on that.

Hon Mr Cooke: Couldn't you get it right the first time?

Mr Cousens: We had to respond to what you gave us and it's been pitifully hard. Subsections 33(3) and (4); subsection 36(1) of the bill; subsection 36(2). So let's just say section 36 has a considerable amount of change. Section 37: We have a number there. We will close off with the new section 49 of the bill. We're replacing what is there. Section 49 of the bill will be amended by adding a new section.

The First Deputy Chair: If I might question the honourable member for Markham, we have in our possession here at the table an amendment for section 39 and we also have --

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I was just getting my help here from the honourable member from Etobicoke --

Hon Mr Laughren: You were in trouble before that.

Mr Cousens: It's great, you know. We've got a team, which is something more than you've got. Section 39 and section 37 and section 41.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Although they have not yet been introduced, I've noted that the Conservative amendments to subsections 11(3), (5), (4), (12) and subsection 23(2), along with the amendment proposed or tabled for subsections 33(3) and (4) are all, to the extent that they propose to strike out sections, it's my view, out of order. In fact, you require a vote against those sections and, as a result, those amendments are out of order and should be removed from the list.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order --

The First Deputy Chair: Hold on for a second. Let me just respond to that before we have any more points of order. I would say to the honourable member for Bruce that we've just received these at the table. I will make a ruling on those amendments as we come to them in the order of the proceedings. The member for Etobicoke West on a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: What you're saying is, as we proceed to those sections, you'll make your ruling, allowing us to --

The First Deputy Chair: Of course.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, thank you.

The First Deputy Chair: Before we continue, unless you're on a point of order, the honourable member for Markham?

Mr Cousens: No, I would like to take the floor, following the opening statement of the honourable leader of the Liberal Party.

The First Deputy Chair: We still have received these amendments and the honourable Treasurer wants to comment. Then, if you wish to comment on the amendments as well that you've put forward, that's the procedure we'll follow at this very instant. So I would say to the honourable Treasurer, if you have some comments relating to the amendments.

1540

Hon Mr Laughren: Very briefly, Mr Speaker, I took issue somewhat with the official opposition in that I do not regard the Conservative amendments as attempting to rewrite the bill; I think that they're legitimate amendments that simply try to cast the bill in a way that is more in keeping with what they believe it should be. I don't think that because they do that there's anything wrong with that. I think that it's well motivated and that we will deal with those.

I do regret the fact that the Liberal opposition has taken the easy way out and has decided that they're not capable of making decisions on a bill like this and they're simply going to vote against it, either because they think it's perfect the way it is and that therefore they're not going to move any amendments. I think the people in the province are getting a little weary of seeing the Liberal opposition not making any decisions at all, simply opposing everything that the government or anybody else does.

The First Deputy Chair: I think we'll take comments from the honourable member for Markham first on the amendments that have been placed before the House.

Mr Cousens: I want to combine some remarks. I mean, the games keep changing.

The first thing I want to say is that I don't want to be here right now. I can think of so many other places I'd rather --

Interjections.

Interjection: Why don't we go to Bob's cottage?

Mr Cousens: It's true. I think it was Perrin Beatty who said, "If Bob Rae wants to be out at the end of a dock this weekend, there's nothing wrong with that, except that maybe he should be in Vancouver or Ottawa, where the Prime Minister's called him."

But to be here in the Legislature today dealing with this bill and the amendments that are before us, first of all, I want to make it very, very clear that the Conservative caucus is not thrilled with this bill or with the social contract.

The problem I have is that I keep on having the revisionist Liberals trying to interpret our actions and our stands and our positions without giving us time to at least explain what it is we want to do. I think it really has to be repeated here, and I'll repeat it again and again just so that there isn't any doubt as to our intention --

Hon Mr Cooke: You're going to vote against it on third reading.

Mr Cousens: Our intention --

Hon Mr Cooke: We knew that at first reading.

Mr Cousens: You don't have any control in this House, Mr Chairman, I can tell you.

Mr Stockwell: That's not for sure.

Interjection: You better check the numbers on second reading, David.

Mr Cousens: Even my own members are barking away. It's just terrible.

Mr Elston: I see some pretty determined faces behind you. They'll support you.

Mr Cousens: I've got the floor, and if it takes me a few minutes to explain what thoughts are up here, I'm going to do it.

The point that I want to make is that in our coming through second reading of this bill, our purpose in giving approval as a caucus to second reading was the intention of the government to try to reduce the public service costs, and a $2-billion level was at least a meaningful level that began to make the Ontario fiscal and monetary policy somewhat viable.

We're into tough economic times. You'd never know it by the way the Liberals act, because the Liberals have consistently said, "We don't want anything," without coming forward with any kind of responsible options. What we're trying to do is say that at least the government, in coming forward with its expenditure control plan and the social contract, has tried to find some ways of reducing the costs of government.

Now, that's a first. You're talking about a New Democratic government that, when it came to power, it was "Spend the way out of the recession." For some reason, and we haven't had a full explanation on how the honourable Minister of Finance came to this awakening, the government has now accepted the fact it can't continue as a government to spend as it did, so there's a stake in the ground where the government says: "From this point forward, we're going to try to reduce our spending. We're going to try to do something on the costs of just salaries through the whole public service of the province."

Our caucus in supporting those two initiatives did so in the blind faith, at that time, that there would be something that could come forward that we could work with that leads towards a good reconciliation of the competing needs of the province, not only the various unions that make it up but all the people who are part of this sectoral interest.

Our desire then is, if the government is going to do this, to find ways of doing it responsibly. Try to find ways so that as we make amendments you're not going to end up three years from now worse off than you are today. That is the problem with it, because it's going to be not unlike Pierre Elliott Trudeau with wage and price controls. He brought those in back in the 1970s, and as soon as the wage and price controls were lifted, it was a surge upwards. The cost of everything escalated quickly.

The amendments that are being brought forward by our caucus are ones that we hope will begin to deal with the three-year period we're in, not just create a need for more increases afterwards, deal with the situation honestly and hope that the government is able to work with us in opposition to find some ways of reconciling these very serious objections we have.

We have major objections with this bill, major objections, and in spite of those, the intention of the government to reduce the amount of money being spent in the public service by some $2 billion is a meaningful step. We feel, as responsible members of the opposition, that it's one thing to just stand back and criticize, criticize, criticize and not come forward with any kind of constructive amendments that can take us forward into the next three years in a better way than we are now.

We are in a crisis. The Treasurer has said that, and we accept it. We believe there is a role that we can play in opposition to try to bring forward meaningful amendments that will change the bill, hopefully reduce the impact three years from now, hopefully find the $2 billion, hopefully do it without causing large numbers of people to lose their jobs, hopefully ease the pain and suffering that this bill is coming in with in such a way that we can remove parts of that. You don't remove all of it. Not for a moment can one say that when you're into a $2-billion saving of this nature you're going to make everybody happy. But at least be responsible.

Indeed, that's the kind of leadership our leader, Mr Harris of the Ontario PC Party, the member for Nipissing, has been voicing for the three years since he became leader of our party. In saying this now as a beginning comment, it therefore means that our amendments are important; they're important to us, and they're important to the large general public service out there.

We hope that the kind of thinking expressed in our amendments, which -- I know that the Liberals have voted against everything. I mean, that's one thing they're consistent on. They have voted against everything this government has done, because they're still not over what it was like to have government at their fingertips when they were in power.

It's one thing to be opposition; it's another thing to be responsible in opposition. At least our own consciences are clear. I'm not going to talk about the consciences of the Liberals because who is to say how much conscience there is in their hearts, minds, souls or beings. That is not relevant.

As we lead into this, I would be pleased if we're able to deal rather honestly and fairly with each amendment and see some significant change come out of this bill and not just play with it. Let's try to move forward in such a way that we can do something with it.

We have our amendments, and I trust that we'll have opportunity. There has not been any agreement on time for discussion of this bill. Indeed, that could create a problem because we have no desire to filibuster this. If there's any fairness in it, then we can proceed section by section through the bill and seek to have this done.

The point is, and I said at the very beginning, I don't want to be here right now. I'd rather be elsewhere. The House should be recessed at this point. We were three weeks late coming in; we're now staying on into July. I just think it's important that we try to clean this up and have whatever is going to be done in place as soon as possible rather than just protract further discussions. Hopefully, through these discussions we can lead to some kind of improvement to what we have in this bill.

The bill is flawed; it requires change. The amendments that we have, hopefully, will direct the attention of all members of this House and the people that it serves in the kind of direction we want to take it.

1550

The First Deputy Chair: Just before we recognize some other members, we are looking now very specifically at sections 1 through 4. This being committee of the whole House, are there any specific comments having to do with sections 1 to 4? If there are, I recognize the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I welcome the opportunity to begin the discussion on the bill. I happen to think, and I think people will come to recognize, that this is perhaps the most important bill we'll deal with over the life of the government. Perhaps you say that about a lot of bills, but I happen to think that this represents absolutely fundamental change. So I'm glad to be here to begin a detailed debate on the bill.

I think it's clear -- and we can have our differences of opinion; I think the three parties' positions are clear -- the government believes this is the right bill and is anxious to proceed with it. The Conservative Party, I personally think, sent out the wrong message when it voted in favour of the bill. I think the message that was received out there, in our opinion, was that the bill is directionally very right and can be fixed up with amendments. That was the message that I think the Conservative Party sent out. That's fine, if they want to do that.

Our party has quite a different perspective on it. I'm sure we'll get into a debate and you can say you don't agree with our perspective, and that's clearly the prerogative of all the members of the Legislature, but our belief is that the bill truly is fundamentally flawed. That's why I welcome the debate, Mr Chair. I believe that's the expression I should use when you're sitting in the chair of the committee of the whole. We'll refer to you as Chair. I believe the bill is fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed because at the heart of it are some very fundamentally different approaches than we believe in and we will support. So I hope we do have a really good debate on it.

My leader just indicated we will not be proposing amendments because, as I say, we believe it is unamendable. Perhaps after several days of debate here, the public can make up their own minds, and then if the bill passes and the government has the numbers to do it, the public will see it in action.

I will say as well that I think on behalf of our party we will do nothing to be obstructionist on the bill. We feel, in some respect, an enormous sense of responsibility because the bill calls for 9,000 collective agreements to be reached, less than five weeks from now, and then nine of what the bill calls sectoral agreements have to be reached in five weeks. We're talking about peoples' lives here.

The option if they don't reach it in the bill is that the Minister of Finance in the end has the responsibility and the authority and the obligation to impose those agreements on 9,000 collective agreements, affecting almost 20% of our workforce in the province of Ontario. We welcome a thorough debate on it, but we will avoid accusations that we are being obstructionist on it. We will try to air fully our concerns.

Now we begin the debate and, if it's permissible, I'll actually start with the explanatory notes. I hope committee of the whole permits us to do that.

The First Deputy Chair: Actually, no, they're not considered part of the bill.

Mr Phillips: The purposes of the bill then, the preamble of the bill. Can the Minister of Finance confirm to us that the bill, if a collective agreement is not reached between the parties, will give him the authority for the next three years, until I think it's March 31, 1996, to finally impose collective agreements on the million people who are in the province of Ontario? If that's not the case, what is the resolution of a collective agreement that isn't reached through collective bargaining?

The First Deputy Chair: Would the honourable Treasurer like to respond?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm in your hands, Mr Chair, on the process. But, no, I have no intention of negotiating 9,000 agreements out there across the province. What this does on August 1 -- that's making the assumption that there are not voluntary agreements reached before then -- if after August 1 agreements expire, they expire, and at the end of the three-year period, the process starts over again for the parties to negotiate agreements.

Mr Phillips: I hope we can perhaps get what I would regard as more forthcoming answers, because if an agreement isn't reached, how do you impose the settlement, Minister of Finance?

My understanding in reading the bill is that there is an appeal mechanism that ends up on your desk. So could you tell the House, if a collective agreement is not reached, how you are going to do what the Premier promised publicly, and that is that if the government was not happy with the results of the collective agreement, the government would step in.

I can recall the Premier saying that if people are laid off, and in the judgement in the government -- and that's you, Minister -- if in your judgement that is not an appropriate collective agreement, the government was going to step in. That was a promise made, I think, by the Premier.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think perhaps there needs to be some clarification. I don't think it's a deliberate misstatement by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, but I believe what the Premier was talking about was if a sectoral agreement -- which is not a collective bargaining agreement but a sectoral agreement -- prior to August 1 was arrived at that didn't meet the criteria which we have laid out, then that wouldn't be appropriate. It would not be deemed to be an appropriate agreement. But there is no power in this legislation for the Minister of Finance to impose a collective bargaining agreement.

I would add that if after August 1 a collective agreement expires during the next three years between employees and their employer, there's nothing to stop those people from negotiating a new agreement as long as they don't negotiate an increase in compensation, because that is ruled out by the bill.

We need to make clear that when we're talking between now and August 1, we are talking about voluntary agreements at the sectoral and possibly the local level, we're not talking about collective bargaining agreements as we traditionally know them.

Mr Phillips: I think we're probably playing with semantics.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, no.

Mr Phillips: Well, you say no, but a sectoral agreement and a local agreement impose on the parties the same obligation as a collective agreement. If you want to use the term "sectoral agreement," fine, use sectoral agreement. I'll use collective agreement because it imposes on the two parties the same obligations. I'm just saying that the way I read the bill, you have the final authority, "The minister may designate."

Hon Mr Laughren: What section are you on?

Mr Phillips: I'm on part IV, and I thought the Chair said we could deal with part IV.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, it's okay. I just want to know which section you're on. I'm not challenging you.

Mr Phillips: Well, you're not answering my question and you're playing with semantics. If you say, "A sectoral agreement is different than a collective agreement," so a sectoral agreement is not a collective agreement, it's something you will choose to say is different, I say it is a collective agreement, and you have the authority, you alone have the authority, to finally determine whether this is an agreement or not.

I'm saying to you that from now on, for the next three years, you or your designate, you, the Minister of Finance, have the authority to make the final determination on whether or not 9,000 agreements involving a million people will or will not be an agreement. You finally sign those things. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Laughren: That is not correct. I have the authority, and the obligation, as the member puts it, between now and August 1 to approve sectoral agreements that affect, for example, the health sector or the municipal sector or the agencies, boards and commissions sector, to approve an agreement by which they will achieve certain savings over the next three years --

Mr Elston: Or you can reject them.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- or reject them if they are inappropriate. That's correct. But after August 1, that ends. After August 1, I have no authority to impose any agreement on anyone during the remaining length of the social contract period, which is a period of three years.

1600

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt have any more questions on that?

Mr Phillips: As I read the legislation, there are within the legislation opportunities for parties to essentially grieve the agreement, and in the final analysis, it is the Minister of Finance who makes the determination on that grievance. If I'm incorrect on that, I'd like to know that I am.

Hon Mr Laughren: Persons have the right to grieve on matters associated traditionally with their collective agreement that do not have to do with the social contract. I believe I'm correct in that regard. But that surely is different than dealing with my imposing a collective bargaining agreement between parties. That's not what I do.

This legislation imposes, if you will -- and I think the member for Bruce has got a point in the way he's making it in an out-of-order kind of way -- this bill in a way imposes an agreement upon the parties based on compensation only, not on other matters that might be in place already through a collective bargaining agreement or in new matters that might be negotiated during the next three years that are not based on compensation. They could come to an agreement, if the collective bargaining agreement expires during that time, on matters other than compensation.

Mr Phillips: I'll let the other members, because I realize they want to participate, but as I look at what is included in the sectoral framework, there's very little in a significant way that wouldn't be included in a sectoral agreement. You've got everything from provisions relating to organization restructuring, productivity, alternative work arrangements, binding resolution of disputes.

Can you indicate the things that might be in a collective agreement that wouldn't be in a sectoral agreement? What sorts of things would you see in a collective agreement of a substantive nature? You're talking about compensation in the sectoral agreement and in the local agreements, all the compensation, all the hours of work, the unpaid leave, the pension contributions, I gather, the working conditions. What sorts of things might be in a collective agreement that you don't see in the sectoral and local agreements?

Hon Mr Laughren: The obvious example, of course, would be wages, another might be seniority rights, but also I would point out that what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt was reading from was optional criteria within the sectoral agreement. Every sectoral agreement doesn't have to have every one of these components in it for it to be designated as a legitimate sectoral agreement, but it does have to honour the basic framework of the social contract, which means that, for example, there's protection of low-income people in the social contract, there are compensation savings in it and there's a limit of 12 days' unpaid leave or days off without pay, a maximum of 12 per year.

Mr Elston: Temporary layoff.

Hon Mr Laughren: So those are the kinds of -- "temporary layoff" -- criteria that are in the sectoral agreements. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt read from a list of optional criteria, quite appropriately. Those don't have to be in every sectoral agreement, but they certainly could be, because they would perhaps make for a restructured and better-functioning public sector.

The First Deputy Chair: I recognize, continuing our discussion of sections 1 to 4, the honourable member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Let me just say at the outset that it's really a little ironic to be addressing any section of this bill and hear the Liberal members say they welcome this debate. These are the members who wanted to defeat this bill at second reading, and now the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said, "We feel in some respects an enormous responsibility."

Well, that has got to be one of the most two-faced comments I've heard in this House. If they felt the enormous responsibility, they would have done what we did, which was to bring this bill to where we are today, in the committee of the whole House, where we can do something about the fact that the bill is poorly drafted, and where we do have an opportunity to bring amendments to the floor of this House and debate those amendments.

The fact is that the Liberals have voted against this bill because they didn't have any solutions. At the time we had the vote on second reading, they were in the position that we were, where they could either be constructive or just waste their vote.

It's incredibly amazing to hear the Liberal members talk about how this bill could have been defeated. The member for Bruce counts about as well as the member for Mississauga West, who put out a press release saying that this bill could have been defeated by all the opposition parties plus the members in the government who wish to vote against the bill. The fact is there was no way this bill could have been defeated by the two opposition parties, the independent members and those members who sit in the government who wish to vote against this bill.

It's just unfortunate. It probably explains why they said they had an $11-million surplus when they went out of office when in fact they had a deficit. It probably just goes to confirm that they still can't add in the Liberal Party. They can't add members in the House in terms of voting on a bill at any reading and they certainly couldn't add in terms of the treasury when they were in office as the government.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. What section is the honourable member alluding to?

Mrs Marland: It's nice to know that the Liberal caucus is now welcoming this debate, to get back to the comments made.

Mr Elston: We've always welcomed the debate.

Mrs Marland: I wish the member for Bruce would decide not to interject and would speak when it's his turn to speak. I really object to the fact that he sits there and prattles away with his interjections. In fairness, I did not interrupt when the member for Scarborough-Agincourt was speaking, and I would ask the same respect and cooperation from the member for Bruce.

I think what we're dealing with here is the fact that this Bill 48 is a mess. It will not work in its present form. We have known that from the beginning, which is why we wanted to get it into committee of the whole, in order to place our amendments.

The good news today, although I have only just received the government amendments so I don't know what they say yet, is that obviously the government recognized that it was a poorly drafted bill. If it had been a perfect bill, then the government would not have needed to bring in its own amendments.

Mr Elston: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We have yet to spend an hour in committee of the whole on Bill 48. I don't mean to interrupt the member from Mississauga -- I apologize for this -- but just now our office has received a notice of motion by the government to time-allocate the operation of Bill 48 in committee of the whole. We didn't send this bill out to committee. We are in committee of the whole, and already, with less than an hour, we have time allocation.

I ask the direction of the Chair, therefore, as to how it is we are to proceed to deal with the amendments in any fashion that gives us a chance to deal with the abrogation of collective agreements in this province, and how we're expected to carry out our duties as members if this hangs over our heads. Mr Chair, I ask your direction.

The First Deputy Chair: I would say to the honourable member for Bruce two things: The first thing is that this table has no consciousness that there is such a motion.

Mr Elston: You have just been told.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. We have not received this at the table. Any arguments against such a motion being put to the House should be put at the point when that motion is placed before the House. It has not been placed before the House at this point.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Considering the fact of the information that was just given to this House by the member for Bruce, and I would believe it to be accurate, now that we have entered in all these amendments and both parties have stated, previous to this notice of motion being delivered to the Liberal caucus and I'm sure the Conservative caucus, that we were in no way going to filibuster this, that we are offering constructive solutions, it certainly leaves this caucus, our party, in a very difficult situation, having offered up significant amendments, and in less than an hour of committee of the whole, we're being put under the gun on time allocation.

I just want to put on the record our complete dismay at this government and its attitude to opposition and real opposition which we've tried to offer on this issue. It frustrates us to absolutely no end.

1610

The First Deputy Chair: I hear what the honourable member is saying. Again, I say to the honourable member that this has not come to the House, that it is not a motion that has been put to the House. We don't know when it will be put to the House at this point in time and it is not up to the chairperson to deal with this issue until it comes up through the proper channels.

The honourable member for Mississauga South has the floor, and I would ask to please focus on sections 1 to 4.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I'm happy to do that. I'm holding in my hand the government amendments, and there are 25 pages of them. I think that confirms, while speaking on sections 1 to 4, that the government itself recognizes that this is a poorly drafted bill, and it brings in 25 pages of its own amendments.

I'm simply saying to this government that we are dealing with Bill 48 and the havoc that it has wrought around this province, because of the people who live and work in Ontario and are in fear and jeopardy of their wellbeing because they see no way out with Bill 48, as it's presently drafted, that some of them can even survive financially in this province, and the problem for them is that their lives have been planned and based around security that they had in existing contracts.

The fact is that this government is willing to say to the public, "It doesn't matter what you've had, this is what it's going to be," and what we're saying as a party is that without our amendments, we have a tremendous concern about the direction that Bill 48, including sections 1 to 4, will take this province in. We see that sections 1 to 4 and a substantial number of the other sections of this bill are tremendously regressive.

The Treasurer said in answer a few minutes ago to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that they're not looking at other matters, that they're really concerned about the compensation. The fact is, that's what everybody's concerned about. Everybody's concerned about their compensation. Isn't this what it's about? It's about working, earning, and in turn, paying taxes in this province. It's about the working people surviving.

I'd like to ask the Treasurer, if there are no sectoral agreements, who then will adjudicate? What will the parameters be? What is your next step? Are you the adjudicator? Are you the person who then will decide? Could you answer that question, please?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not quite sure which section we're addressing here, but generally speaking, if there are no sectoral agreements reached by any of the sectors out there or any particular sector doesn't reach an agreement, then of course what happens is that this bill, as of August 1, is what kicks into place, and then that is the compensation and other matters that will be the order of the day. So there's no requirement that there be sectoral agreements before August 1.

If there are sectoral agreements, however, it is to the benefit of employees in those various sectors, because there will be lower savings targets in each of those sectors, in each municipality, for example, so there is an incentive for people to sign sectoral agreements. They may decide not to. They may decide that they don't like the principle that's involved in this bill and that therefore they're not going to agree to any sectoral agreements. That's fine, but not only will they not have access to a lower target but they would not have access to the job security fund, which is $100 million a year for three years, and now that must be accomplished by August 1.

So there's a real incentive to accomplish a sectoral agreement. It's not simply that they only have four or five weeks to do it. There were negotiations going on for the last couple of months to try and get agreements. Also, if there's no sectoral agreement, there can still be agreements reached at the local level between employees and their employer. There's no requirement, but it is to the advantage of everyone, I believe, that there be voluntary sectoral agreements reached.

But as a government, we cannot assume that this will happen, because if we did and then it didn't happen, where would we achieve the $2 billion in savings in public sector compensation? That's why we need this bill, which is a form of fail-safe, to make sure we achieve the savings we've made a commitment to achieve, in this fiscal year and in the next two fiscal years.

Mrs Marland: I say to the Minister of Finance, when you talk about the job security fund, what people in this province are interested in is working. They're not looking for a job security fund; they're looking for a job. They already have jobs that they want to keep; that's what this issue is about. They're not interested in a job security fund because they've been laid off from the jobs they have today. They're interested in continuing to work in their place of employment today.

When you talk about sectoral agreements, are you looking at the fact that in different sizes of municipalities, that kind of framework is very difficult to develop? How do you address the size of the sector when you start breaking it up into small municipalities?

Hon Mr Laughren: To respond, in section 3 of the bill the public sector has been divided into various sectors. There is the Ontario public service sector, there is the health sector, there is the community services sector, the schools sector, the colleges sector, the universities sector, the agencies, boards and commissions sector and the municipalities sector. A municipality, whether a small one or a large one, an urban one or a rural one, a local municipality or a regional municipality, would fit into the municipality sector and within that sector would be given a specific target on savings.

I don't think the member for Mississauga South is disagreeing with the need to achieve savings in public sector compensation, but her comments have led me to believe that perhaps she's having second thoughts in that regard. I don't want to read anything into her mind that might not be there already, but I really am starting to wonder about the Conservative opposition, as to whether or not it is still on side on the need to achieve savings in public sector compensation.

Mrs Marland: Because of the shortage of time, I don't really think the Treasurer and I should waste time exchanging conjecture. I don't want you to read anything into what I'm saying, Treasurer, other than that I am extremely concerned about where Ontario is today, with a Premier who won't even represent us nationally. I'm even more concerned about the fact that we have Bill 48 before us, which is one big mess, and now we know we're going to be curtailed with a time allocation motion to control the amount of time we can spend to even provide a remedy for this badly drafted bill.

What I'm asking you about that municipality or that school board is this: Are their savings going to be measured against school boards and police forces and public works departments in municipalities across this province, or are you going to recognize the city of Mississauga and its particular needs and its particular demands against the town of Bracebridge, which is 10,000 people, versus almost 500,000 people in the city of Mississauga?

1620

Hon Mr Laughren: I wouldn't compare any municipality to Mississauga, to start with. I just wanted to reassure the member for Mississauga South that the targets for savings that were allocated to each municipality were based on their compensation; that's what it was based on. Then we also are taking into consideration the number of employees in each municipality who earn below $30,000, because there was a danger of a distortion. In my own constituency, there is perhaps nobody earning over $30,000 because of part-time people and so forth who do the job. That has been taken into consideration. I want to assure the member for Mississauga South that the targets have been established in as fair a way as possible in keeping with the compensation of the various municipalities.

Mrs Marland: Minister of Finance, that is the concern of a municipality like Mississauga, that you did take into the equation the people who earn under $30,000, yet when it comes to the bill you're exempting them. I heard the member for Grey say earlier this week that nobody in his municipality earns over $30,000, yet they have to be part of the contributors.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll attempt to clear it up. First of all, the reductions in expenditures for each of the municipalities are not in the bill itself. That is being done outside the bill.

Secondly, in that process each municipality has been given a target and that target is taking into consideration the number of people who earn under $30,000 a year, because it would not be fair, for example, if a small municipality had one person, ie, the clerk, who was earning over $30,000 and everybody else was part-time and earned under $30,000, to achieve the savings entirely out of the hide of the one person who was earning over $30,000. The targets have been reduced according to the percentage of that municipality's payroll that is under $30,000.

For that reason, there's an attempt, first of all, to recognize that in the municipalities across the province. Secondly, the bill itself does exempt people earning under $30,000 a year from the provisions of the Social Contract Act; there was an awareness that people earning under $30,000 are not those who can afford to give up compensation.

The First Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Mississauga North wanted to continue.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like to address the point raised by the member for Mississauga South and the Minister of Finance. I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance this specific question:

You will know, Minister, that the targets for municipalities under the social contract were assessed by virtue of municipalities filing financial information records. Your government used the financial information records of a municipality such as Mississauga for the year 1991; you used the total compensation paid by the city of Mississauga in 1991 as your benchmark for the social contract target. In other words, what you did was that all municipalities must file financial information records, and in those records there is a category called "total compensation paid," and that includes total compensation paid, all the money. It includes all benefits; it includes all people, no matter what they have made, over and under $30,000; it includes overtime; it includes part-time workers. There is one total sum that is reached.

Your government took that total amount and took 5% of that and said that is the target that municipalities such as Mississauga must meet. But what you have also done is that you have exempted people under $30,000, so you have said to municipalities such as the city of Mississauga that the target they must reach must include dollars that you have exempted.

I see the Minister of Finance shaking his head, but I will tell you, I have been informed by the manager of the city that they have a letter, and they were trying to get in touch with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to explain the problem they have encountered.

In dollar terms, what that means is that the 5% or the target for the city of Mississauga is, let us say, about $6.5 million, but if you had excluded from their target the dollars that you have excluded of people making under $30,000, their target would only have been something like $4.8 million. So Mississauga has a shortfall of close to $2 million by virtue of, I respectfully say, faulty mathematics on your government's part. They have no opportunity of reaching the target because you have included dollars they have to meet which your legislation exempts.

Minister, I would like you to verify whether the 5% or the social contract target that municipalities have to reach includes all compensation paid as filed by municipalities for their financial information records of 1991. Before you respond to this, let me inform you that I have been informed by the city that indeed it does include all compensation paid, and you have not made any change or measurement for those who are exempt under the legislation.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member is referring, by "the people who are exempt," to the under $30,000. Yes? Okay.

First of all, there was an assumption in the original targets that, I believe the number was, about 14%, of employees earn under $30,000 in the municipalities. I believe that was incorrect and that in some municipalities it's significantly more than that. That is being adjusted to make sure that municipalities are not penalized, if I could use that word without you holding me to it later; that municipalities will not have to achieve targets that include compensation for people earning under $30,000. That is being done because I do recognize the point the member makes, and I believe we've corrected it now.

Mr Offer: It is not just those who are under $30,000. You have also put into the equation people in 1991 who worked overtime, who were part-time, who were casual. You factored benefits into that figure, which a municipality cannot adjust for because those are benefits. I'm wondering if the minister is saying that not only are they going to adjust for the $30,000 and under but also for all of those benefits that you have shackled the municipality with that cannot be met by the municipality in its social contract targets.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I will not make that commitment. There are limits to how complex we want to make this whole exercise, and I think that what the member is suggesting would indeed make it much more complex. Secondly, there is the necessity of achieving the fiscal savings that we laid out at the beginning.

1630

The First Deputy Chair: Further questions? In rotation, we will go to the honourable member for Etobicoke West. We're still on sections 1 to 4.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, section 4, with respect to the $30,000 employee exemption. I have a list of municipalities as long as your arm, but a few of them, Sydenham, St Vincent, Sullivan, Holland and so on and so forth have received --

Mr Elston: They all sound like Grey.

Mr Stockwell: There are a number in Grey, but not just Grey, around this province, who have outlined their reductions by your Municipal Affairs minister, and the perfect example I can give you is the $16,000 Sydenham reduction, but they only have two employees who earn over $30,000 a year.

I understand you'll take it into consideration when you reduce their amounts, but explain to me exactly what you expect small municipalities such as these to do.

Hon Mr Laughren: I expect, with the revised reductions they will get, that will remove the major irritant that's there now -- not just an irritant, it's a major problem, I would concede. So I think that's not going to be a problem when we remove the under-$30,000 component from municipalities that, for example, have only two or three employees earning over $30,000 and a whole raft of employees or a lot more employees, three or four or five or six, earning less than $30,000. So I really do believe we've come up with a formula that will resolve that problem.

Mr Stockwell: This formula is where? That's the first question. No one I know of has seen this formula other than maybe you. I think the local municipalities would like to be the judges of whether or not this formula would work. Surely, before we vote on this bill, we will be given the opportunity of seeing this magical formula that's going to resolve these issues.

The next question I have is with respect to sectoral framework agreements. If there is not an agreement in a sectoral framework, you're suggesting that you would then not impose a collective agreement. The question is, what would happen if there is no sectoral agreement, they don't take advantage of the carrots that you offer? Who then would sit and preside over any kind of negotiated settlement?

The First Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Nickel Belt has a response?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not sure I understood the question, but if he's saying that in a particular sector, such as the municipal sector, which you've been talking about, if there's no sectoral agreement reached and there are no local agreements reached in the various municipalities, then what happens is that the provisions in this bill take effect as of August 1.

Mr Stockwell: Who then interprets whether or not the provisions of this bill are applied to specific sectors? Is that a decision that you make? Is that a decision that your cabinet makes? I mean, who makes the exact decision as to how this bill is implemented within each sector?

Hon Mr Laughren: At that point, whatever is in this bill applies to municipalities, with the additional requirement that each municipality has a specific reduction target it must achieve each year for the next three years. So that's what will determine the savings in that particular municipality, every municipality in the province and everybody else who has an employer-employee relationship in the public sector in the province. So after August 1, this is what determines the compensation paid in the entire public sector.

Mr Stockwell: I understand that, Mr Finance Minister, but somebody someplace will have to interpret what exactly will be the agreement: how many dollars will be taken here, how many dollars will be taken there. There's a whole bunch of open-ended questions left in here. The question I have for you is, who then sits down with those parties and determines exactly who gets what nailed, what comes off and where are the reductions to take place?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sorry, I did misunderstand the question in the first instance. At that point, it's the responsibility of the employer -- the municipality, to use this example -- to determine how it's going to make itself function, given the requirements of this act for savings. That's why there's some safety put in the legislation regarding the protection of low-income persons, for example, concerning the maximum number of days off without pay, concerning all employees having to be treated fairly so that the only people who pay the price of days off, for example, without pay would be people in the front lines as opposed to people in management.

So that's what will take place, but somebody has to administer that. I think that's what the member's asking and I think it's a fair question. That would, of course, be the employer, whether it's in a hospital or a municipality or whatever.

Mr Stockwell: Briefly, then, we have now, let's say, the municipalities. The municipalities implement a plan. Who, then, signs off on that plan, saying that plan is acceptable, and in essence becomes the arbitrator of a long-term three-year collective agreement? Who puts their initials to that, that says, "I am now the boss of both worker and employer; I sign off an agreement and impose a three-year collective agreement"? Who is that person?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, after August 1, if an employer comes up with a plan to accomplish the required savings for that -- I'll use the example of a municipality again -- that plan must be posted. That plan is open to an appeal by the employees, for example, to an adjudicator who would sign off on it and say, "Yes, that's an appropriate appeal," or, "It's an inappropriate appeal." There are time limits in the bill that lay out how long that can take, so it doesn't take for ever. So that's who in the end would determine that it was an appropriate plan of action to accomplish the savings required.

Mr Stockwell: But again, through that, there's an adjudicator who then signs off on the plan, but there's an appeal process involved.

Hon Mr Laughren: To the adjudicator.

Mr Stockwell: Right. As I understand the appeal process, the adjudicators operate under you. They report to you, the Finance minister. They are your warriors out there negotiating these deals. In essence, would it be fair to say that if there's no deal, the final sign-off for any collective agreement bound for three years between employer and employees ultimately becomes the responsibility of the adjudicator, but in realistic terms, according to this legislation, you, the Finance minister?

Hon Mr Laughren: The adjudicator would be appointed by Lieutenant Governor in Council. If you think I'm going to involve myself in every --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): But you've got to.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I'm not going to. The appeal process --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: Let me finish. The appeal process begins and ends with the adjudicator and the adjudicator will have the appropriate criteria for plans of achieving the savings. So you can say that the ultimate responsibility is the Minister of Finance if you like, but in fact, once the adjudicator has signed off on it, either with an appeal process or without an appeal process, that then would become the operative plan for that municipality or hospital or whatever.

Mr Stockwell: Lastly, I just want to make sure everyone's understanding this part of the legislation. I don't know anybody who would suggest to me that you can appoint an adjudicator and that adjudicator becomes the be-all and end-all for all decisions at a political level.

Let's be frank here. The adjudicator is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor and he is appointed by whom? The government. Who in the government appoints the adjudicator? The Finance minister is going to appoint these adjudicators. You can tell me all you want about an adjudicator, but you've appointed this adjudicator. You've written the rules about what the deal must be. So then you yourself become the all-powerful one who can implement a three-year collective agreement on both employee and employer.

Just to get down to the short strokes of this thing, you are the decision-maker. You appoint the adjudicator to carry out your wishes, your bidding. In essence, when they sign that off, they're only signing it off according to your terms, your conditions, your collective agreements.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member wants to say that the buck stops here, that's fine. I don't mind acknowledging that. However, I would simply reinforce what I said before, that the adjudicator must adhere to what's in this legislation and not to some whim of mine. The adjudicator must follow the rules as laid down by --

Mr Elston: This is your whim.

Hon Mr Laughren: We do live in a parliamentary democracy where legislation does have to be brought forward by ministers of the crown. If you've got a better system than that, I'd like to know what it is.

I would say to the member for Etobicoke West that these are the rules under which the adjudicator will have to perform, and I don't think the fact that he or she is appointed by an order in council means that I'm going to be meddling in every plan out there to accomplish savings at the local level.

1640

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I want to address some concerns with regard to the job security fund and get some clarification. I understand section 1, particularly paragraph 4 of that section, but I must just share with you a brief quote here. It says:

"I will be supporting this legislation because this is probably, of the pieces of legislation this government has introduced, as close to the Conservative philosophy as anything they will ever have introduced."

That was my good friend the member for Etobicoke West, Mr Stockwell. We understand, sir, why you supported it. We're not quite sure why others did. Let it be clear that had all members of the opposition, along with the members of the government who voted against this, stood unanimously against this bill, we would have been within two votes of defeating the bill and the government. We all know there were six members of the government who didn't bother to come in and vote and two others could have just as easily got locked in the washroom. We really did have a chance.

In any event, my concerns, to the Treasurer, surround some advice given out in relationship to the first section -- I guess we'll call it the purpose clause of the act -- advice given out by members of your staff to people in the municipal sector. I asked a question on this in the House but didn't get an answer. Maybe you can help me with it.

They're saying that 12 days will not meet the target you've set, whether it be my own municipality or many, many other municipalities. In fact your officials have clearly indicated that they recognize this is a problem throughout the municipal sector. Just giving everybody 12 days off, when you factor in all of the different problems, whether it be the exemptions for folks under $30,000 not being included or whether it be the critical people who are not included -- whatever it is -- they're coming up, in the case of my municipality, $1.8 million short. But in many, many municipalities they're coming up hundreds of thousands and, indeed, millions of dollars short.

Your ministry people have said their options are to negotiate more days than 12 as days that would be taken without pay as option 1, even though that's not allowed under the bill. They could look at layoffs and that would be, it seems to me, contradictory to paragraph 2 of this section, where you state that the purpose is to "maximize the preservation of public sector jobs."

The third option is service cuts and these are coming right out of your ministry, sir, that were given to these people.

Mr Elston: It was out of Municipal Affairs.

Mr Mahoney: I'm sorry. That's right, it was out of the financial division of Municipal Affairs, my House leader points out. The other thing is that it's to preserve services. So you want to preserve jobs, preserve services. It doesn't allow for more days off. The fourth option was that the municipalities could, in effect, institute a tax increase to the property taxpayer. I don't know how that advice fits in with the purpose clause in this particular bill. Maybe you could help me out.

Hon Mr Laughren: I shall attempt to provide an answer. If you'll allow me to wax philosophical just for one moment without delaying the debate, because I know members want to get this legislation through, the debate around expenditure reductions and on the social contract, I think, has made it clear to a lot of the people in the province that, while they support expenditure reductions by government -- everybody wants the government to spend less money, for obvious reasons -- what's becoming very clear, as we go through a process of achieving $4 billion in expenditure reductions and $2 billion in public sector compensation through the Social Contract Act, is that there's going to be pain felt out there all across the province. The day is gone when we should think that we can achieve this size of expenditure reductions in government without its being felt all across the province in the delivery of services and in the provision of jobs.

I think that people are realizing it now, that while they want government expenditures to be reduced, and I do too, there is a price to be paid for that, and that is inevitably going to be in some cases fewer services being delivered, being delivered in a better way perhaps, in a more efficient way. But also there could very well be in some cases some layoffs, because anybody who thinks that we can achieve expenditure reductions of this magnitude, along with the expenditure reduction package of $4 billion, without having an impact out there is going to be disabused of those ideas in the next couple of years.

I think that while people don't like to see a reduction in services at the community level, they do appreciate and will increasingly appreciate the fact that if we're going to achieve the reduction in expenditures by government, this is the way it's going to be felt all across the province.

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate that answer and the philosophical aspects that led into what I think was a direct admission that there will be layoffs from this. I haven't heard that admission by the Treasurer or by the Premier or by the government.

It's quite clear then that your statements, to the Treasurer -- follow me on this -- I don't know how you can call it a job security fund, Treasurer, when really what it is, as I understand it, is a fund that will top up unemployment insurance for one year to allow those people who are laid off to have a little more money than they might otherwise have as a result of losing their job. So it's not a job security fund.

But seriously, if it were a fund that was used to pay for the job or to subsidize the municipality in some way to keep that worker on, then you could say it is a fund used to secure that job. That's not what it is. It is a fund used to help individuals who have just lost their job, to help them survive some kind of transition period, up to 12 months, when they're out of work, clearly.

It may seem like a small point, but to me it's fundamental to the whole legislation and to our claim that the legislation is fundamentally flawed, because it says you're claiming to be providing a job security fund when you're not doing that. You in fact are admitting that -- they can't negotiate more days off. I saw you nod in agreement when I said that that's not in the legislation. So that's not on. That advice from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs staff to the municipal sector is not on. That's wrong advice. They can't do that. So they can lay off, they can cut services or they can increase taxes.

Nobody's disputing the fact that there has to be pain. We have argued from day one, however, that you should listen to organizations like the provincial conservation authorities, who have offered you $100 million on the platter, who have admitted that they're part of the problem, who say that they can resolve the problem through adjustments internally within the conservation authorities around the province. Would you only listen to them?

The municipalities have said -- there was a proposal that was never formalized, and it would have to go through the negotiation process, but I understand, to the Treasurer, there was a proposal to effect a 5% cutback in the municipal sector in wages for six months with a 1% increment increase every six months. So you'd go to 95% of your wages today and in six months you'd go to 96%, six months after that to 97%, up until you got back to 100% of the wage level. The municipalities, some of them that looked into this as an option, were saying, "Give us this option, give us a tool by which we can effect that and negotiate that." You're not doing that, Treasurer.

Clearly, the point is strongly made that, when you get to the purpose clause -- and I've seen you and your officials nodding in agreement with my statement, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but nodding in agreement with the principle that it's not a job security fund -- it just shows that the whole principle, the purpose of the legislation, is flawed and not something that we're able to support, unlike members of the third party, who think that they can --

1650

Mr Stockwell: Is there a question here?

Mr Mahoney: I've already asked it -- members of the third party, who think that they can vote in favour of this because -- what was it? -- it is as close to the Conservative philosophy as anything they've ever intended, and then stand up and say that it's flawed and it's wrong and in a short few days -- I guess they read it. I guess they hadn't read it before they voted on second reading. They've since read it, found out that they agree with us, and I understand they're going to be in fact voting against it on third reading.

Interjection: No, I can't believe it.

Mr Mahoney: I heard a rumour to that effect. But I wonder if you might have a response to the job security issue and whether or not that section of section 1 should be changed dramatically.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I would assure you that not even I could vote for this bill if I thought it adhered to the principles of conservatism.

Mr Stockwell: It does.

Mr Mahoney: It does.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, it's responsible fiscal administration of the province of Ontario, for which there was no evidence during the Davis or the Robarts years. So I don't think it has got anything to do with progressive conservatism. I won't get into the Liberal years.

The member makes a good point on the job security fund. I would add one caution on his comments, though. One potential use of the money is the ability to extend employment through use of this fund, which otherwise would not be possible, so that there would be an opportunity for an employer to access this fund to extend employment which would otherwise end. To that extent, there's a potential for job security that would not otherwise be there. But basically I don't quarrel with much of what the member said, but that part of it, it seems to me, does give it legitimacy to be called a job security fund.

Mr Mahoney: Just very briefly on that point, if the fund can be used to extend employment for a certain period of time or to keep a permanent job in place, does that not then deplete the fund and make less money available to help those people who are being laid off? You're going to be spending money to keep full-time jobs going. Is it a job security fund or is it -- but quite seriously, what is it? If you're creating a job security fund with X millions of dollars in it and you're creating a top-up fund for unemployment benefits, call it what it is and change it and tell us that there are two separate funds here.

Hon Mr Laughren: It does both; that's why it's called what it is. If someone has his employment extended, then he doesn't have to draw on it as a top-up to unemployment insurance, for example. So the member is trying to make a bit of a wonky argument, it seems to me, in dealing with this fund.

Hon Mr Cooke: He's not trying; he did a pretty good job of it.

Hon Mr Laughren: He did a good job of making a wonky argument. But it seems to me that the purpose of the fund is twofold. It is the way the member described it, but it's also to extend employment which otherwise would end, and this fund can be accessed for that. Of course, I would want to put in a caution here that the job security fund is available to those who are part of a sectoral agreement. That's the purpose of the job security fund.

Mr Phillips: It's a hammer.

Hon Mr Laughren: I wouldn't call it a hammer; I'd call it an incentive to achieve voluntary agreements at the sectoral level. I think that's what we're all after, including members of the opposition, I would think, particularly those who have a problem with the legislation. In order to avoid the necessity of the legislation, of course, we've provided an incentive for people to achieve voluntary agreements through sectoral agreements and through local agreements.

Mr Mahoney: It clearly would be an incentive if it were offered in a spirit of cooperation and negotiation. But when you put a date and a hammer on the end of it, it's no longer an incentive; it's clearly, "Do this or else."

The argument is, with all due respect, not wonky at all. The argument is that you have simply said you are providing a job security fund, which in fact is an unemployment fund -- that's all it is -- and if they come to the table and come into your central agreement and buy into what you're trying to force them to do, then you'll take some of that money and put it into some yet-to-be-defined process that might protect a few jobs? I don't know. You're creating --

Hon Mr Laughren: To do what?

Mr Mahoney: Well, Treasurer, you're creating a system -- you've admitted it -- where you're going to create layoffs all over the province in every sector. You've admitted that today for the first time. I heard the Treasurer admit it. That would be in Hansard. You admitted that there would be layoffs.

Hon Mr Cooke: That isn't what he said at all.

Mr Mahoney: If that isn't what you said, Treasurer, stand up and say it again. There are going to be layoffs throughout every sector that is involved in these negotiations. It's one of the options, and I was referring to the municipal sector. Your officials have admitted it and you have too.

Hon Mr Laughren: I must say that people wonder why politicians are not more forthcoming and frank when they have discussions either here or elsewhere. I want to tell you one of the reasons that makes me cautious is when somebody takes what I've said and distorts it. I never said this legislation was going to cause layoffs all across the province in every sector, either through sectoral agreements or any other cause.

If the member opposite wants to take my words and twist them and distort them, then I'll leave that up to him and let him sit in judgement of himself. But I want to tell you that I've tried to be very direct and frank and say that in some cases there may -- there may be -- be layoffs at the municipal level or whatever. I did not say that this would mean there would be layoffs all across the province in every sector.

I would simply ask the members that if they want me to be direct in my responses and as frank as possible, please don't twist that response when I give it.

Mr Mahoney: I'll accept the Treasurer's -- I really was not trying to twist your words.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: No, I was not.

Hon Mr Cooke: It comes naturally.

Mr Mahoney: Yes, it probably does when I deal with you.

The fact is, Treasurer, that you have admitted, in response to the question I asked -- you want to use the term "may well be layoffs." You can sit in judgement of yourself, sir. The reality is that your officials are telling people in the municipal sector that one of the options they have to meet the targets is layoffs. Now, you can put semantics around that any way you want and you can throw a tantrum if you want to throw a tantrum; there will be layoffs as a result of this bill and it is not a job security fund.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll respond differently in the future to the member opposite and be less direct and forthcoming.

Mr Cousens: The Liberals, and I can see that they've got points, but we have amendments and the government has amendments and I'm wondering whether we could proceed. There's an awful lot to be done and the time is limited. I'd be quite prepared --

Mrs Marland: If the Liberals have so much to say, why don't they put them into --

Mr Cousens: The point is extremely valid, "If the Liberals had so much to say, let's put some amendments around it," but that's part of the process.

Mr Phillips: What would you amend this piece of crap for?

Mr Cousens: Well, you know, if you want to talk like that, as the Liberals, I don't think that's parliamentary language for the honourable member. If you want to start talking like that, that's not the way we are.

I suggest, Mr Chairman, if there's any way we can approve 1 to 4, and then move to number 5 and proceed with some amendments.

The First Deputy Chair: Is there any more discussion on sections 1 to 4? The honourable member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: I have a question and it has to do with -- I'm pulling out the legislation. As we're dealing with sections 1 to 4, section 2, the definition of "public sector," which "means the public sector as described in the schedule." My question to the Minister of Finance is, has there been any change to the definition of "public sector" by amendment to this legislation?

The First Deputy Chair: I wonder if the member for Mississauga North could pose the question again so the honourable Minister of Finance could hear it. I believe he was indisposed.

Mr Offer: My question to the Minister of Finance is: Section 2 contains definitions. One deals with the phrase "public sector" and it's defined as "in the schedule." I'm wondering if there has been any change by the government in terms of the description of the definition of "public sector."

1700

Mr Phillips: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The Minister of Finance legitimately has to leave here at 5:45, so from our party's perspective, we have no difficulty if the parliamentary assistant should stand by and answer the question. I believe the minister has something to do right now, will be back and then has to leave. From our perspective, and I suspect from the third party's, we're quite happy to have the parliamentary assistant respond to these questions.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate that very much and ask you to be as gentle on him as you have been on me.

But if I could give a one-word answer, no.

The First Deputy Chair: Excuse me. Before we continue on, do we have consent of the House that the honourable parliamentary assistant take the seat of the minister? We do? Fine. Carry on.

Mr Offer: To the parliamentary assistant, you will know that the Minister of Finance has indicated that there has been no change in the definition of "public sector" in the social contract legislation. I have a problem as a result of that, and I'm hoping this can be clarified.

On June 23, I asked a question of the Premier, and the question to the Premier dealt with the definition of "public sector." My question dealt with the issue that municipalities privately contract for -- let me give you two examples: the pickup of garbage, and for school buses.

Under the schedule which defines "public sector," it says that those groups, private sector contracts, would be caught up in the net of Bill 48, the social contract legislation. Clearly that is the way the legislation reads.

My problem now deals with the Premier and/or the Minister of Finance, because the Premier's response to my question, when I brought forward the implications of that definition, was, and I read from Hansard; these are the Premier's words: "...discussing it informally with ministers here, that's not our view of the intent of the act." The Premier is indicating that that is not going to be the intent of the act, even though that is the wording, and says that amendments would be brought forward to exclude that definition.

So my question is -- help me out on this -- what did the Premier mean when he said these words, or what did the Minister of Finance mean when he said there were not going to be any changes to the definition?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): As soon as the legislation is passed, the schedule can be amended by regulation.

Mr Offer: Well, this causes a great deal of difficulty, because we have the legislation now, we have the appendix now, we have the schedule now, and the schedule says for municipal affairs that a public sector includes, and I am paraphrasing, a corporation which provides (a) for the collection, removal and disposal of garbage and other refuse for a municipality; or (b) the operation and maintenance of buses for the conveyance of passengers under -- these are school kids we're talking about. The Premier has said in this Legislature, in Hansard, that this is not the intent of the legislation.

We have now heard the Minister of Finance say that there have been no changes, or, in other words, it is the intent of the legislation. We have an obligation to the people who collect refuse for municipalities, to the people who drive school buses across this province. Are they or are they not part of the bill? The Premier says they are not going to be. The Minister of Finance says they are going to be. Amendments or whatever down the line are not what people are calling for. We want to know: What is your position on this crucial issue?

Mr Sutherland: Again I would say that the issue could be dealt with through regulations.

The First Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Mississauga --

Mr Offer: No, no.

The First Deputy Chair: No? We need to move in rotation, then. The honourable member for --

Mr Offer: I would like to defer to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

The First Deputy Chair: We have been going in rotation.

Mr Phillips: We can come back to this, Mr Chair, because I think we'd like to discuss it more.

The First Deputy Chair: If you're sure you don't want to handle this. The honourable member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: It's just fascinating, sitting here, that the Liberals have so many questions about this bill when they didn't have a single amendment to bring forward to it.

Mr Offer: It's not amendable. It's a rotten piece of legislation.

Mrs Marland: It's a dynamic participation that you are making in this bill. You must be so happy that we have committee of the whole so that you're now having an opportunity to speak to a bill which you wished to defeat outright.

Mr Offer: Absolutely.

Mrs Marland: All right. If it's not worth amending, then why bother taking up the time when we have constructive amendments here that we want to get through? We want to amend this bill so that it ends up being something that's equitable and workable for the people of this province.

At this point in time, we do not believe that either of those aspects are contained in this bill, but we do want to get on with the work of amending the bill so that if and when this government passes it, it will contain those areas about which we represent the concerns of the people of this province, which those people who wanted to defeat it outright were not willing to do. Knowing full well that this government has the numbers and has the power to pass the bill without any amendments, we're simply saying that if they're going to pass it, let's amend it to contain those factors that are of most concern to us.

In sections 1 to 4, I wish to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, who has had to leave -- we have this wonderful thing called the "public sector job security fund." When you read it, it sounds quite encouraging to those poor people who are going to have to be laid off when the Bob Rae socialists pass this bill.

Interjection: With your help.

Mrs Marland: The Liberals are so paranoid; they say "with our help." I really think it's so regrettable that the Liberals do not yet know that the NDP government has the power to pass this bill tonight, on its own, without any single vote from this side of the House. I don't know why the Liberals do not understand that, but I'm not going to harp on it any more. It's the biggest mistake they've made, and they're trying to justify the position they took, which was ludicrous. And now, of course, they're trying to use up the time so we can't even get on with the amendments.

Under the public sector job security fund, it says in subsection 8(2), "The purpose of the fund is to provide, in accordance with this act and the regulations,

"(a) payments to employees who are released from employment by their employers; and

"(b) payments to employers for the purpose of extending the employment of employees who will be released from employment by the employers."

In other words, on the surface the job security fund sounds like it's going to solve everything: It's going to look after the employees who have to lose their jobs or it's going to help the employers keep the employees working. If it weren't so serious, it could almost be humorous, it's so incredibly written. In any case, this is what the public sector job security fund is.

Now, bear in mind, of course, that there's no private sector job security fund in this province; we're talking now about creating a public sector job security fund.

On the surface you think, well, there's the solution; nobody has to worry. If they lose a job, they're going to get money from this fund. If they might have lost their jobs, the employer can get money from this fund to keep them.

1710

It really is quite fascinating until you get further on in the next section, in part V, under subsection 14(3), where it relates to the fund. It's all about the payments and it says, "Subject to the regulations, the administrator shall make payments out of the fund to a bargaining unit employee who is released from employment by his or her employer if," and there are four conditions under that "if."

The one that I wanted to ask the parliamentary assistant about -- I guess this administrator is some omnipotent god in the Bob Rae socialist organization in this province -- is the one that says:

"(d) the administrator is satisfied that the bargaining agent that has bargaining rights in respect of the employee made all reasonable efforts to enter into a local agreement with the employer to implement the sectoral framework."

In other words, this fund is not up to the people who really need it. The string is right in the hand of the administrator. I would like the parliamentary assistant to explain what exactly has to be done in order for "the administrator" to be satisfied. While you answer that question, Kimble, could you also say who the administrator is?

Mr Sutherland: I was under the impression that we're still dealing with sections 1 through 4. This question relates to section 14. I think it should be dealt with at the time when we get to section 14.

The First Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable member. Further questions on sections 1 to 4?

Mrs Marland: There's obviously no point in asking questions on sections 1 to 4 or probably any other section in this bill. I just asked a very legitimate question, and now the parliamentary assistant -- it's unfortunate that the Minister of Finance had to leave, because I would be completely assured that he would have answered my question. The fact that you're now sitting in his place and you choose not to answer my question on some fairy-like excuse that it happens to be partly in one section and partly in another, infuriates me. The total process is a waste of time.

Mr Phillips: I go back to section 4. Frankly, we do have quite a few questions. As we said in some of our opening remarks, we think the bill has some real serious problems and I would hope this is an opportunity for us to raise the questions we've got, to point out to the people of Ontario where our concerns are, and in the final analysis, the people would judge who is right.

On section 4 -- in fairness to the minister, I must say I have no difficulty with him being out of the House right now; he indicated earlier to me that this was going to be what happened -- this is an area of the bill that I think many people in the province will have real questions about.

I hope the parliamentary assistant can help me here. This provides to the minister enormous powers. Firstly, there is a $400-million stick here. Call it what you will, but it is a stick. It is a $400-million stick in the hands of the Minister of Finance which says, "Reach a sectoral agreement before August 1 or you lose $400 million."

I would say to the parliamentary assistant, if any company negotiating with its employees used this kind of stick, I think the government would be all over it. If a private sector company said, "Listen, you've got till August 1 to reach an agreement with us or we take this away from you," that would be seen as bargaining in bad faith. But there's a $400-million stick.

There's only one person, as I read this, who can designate a plan as a sectoral agreement, and that is the minister, and this is what I was trying to get at earlier when the minister was here, about the enormous powers that I think are delegated here, but maybe the member can help me. It is only the minister who can designate a sectoral agreement; the sectoral agreements are worth $400 million; if they don't reach the sectoral agreement, there's $400 million added to the targets; "The minister shall not designate a plan as a sectoral framework unless, in the opinion of the minister, the plan meets the following criteria," and then there are five, I think, far-reaching criteria, that, as I read the bill, will have enormous impact on every single local agreement.

The government may feel comfortable with this because it will be its minister who's making this determination. I would say that it sets an enormous precedent for the future because I could see the possibility of future governments saying, "We're going to have another sectoral agreement with different criteria," and the NDP will be caught, because you've already agreed that these are acceptable ways of doing collective bargaining.

There are five very far-reaching criteria that will, as I say, impact every single local agreement. Then there are also in section 12, in part IV, another nine provisions that it says "may consider" in the framework. The first five have to be there; the next nine may be.

My question is this -- because the minister, when he was here kind of said I was overreacting to the power of the minister, but I would just like the parliamentary assistant -- is it right that it will be the minister and the minister alone who can agree on whether there is a sectoral agreement; are we talking about a $400-million penalty here if people don't reach the sectoral agreement; and, can the parliamentary assistant comment on, if this were a private sector bargaining situation, would an employer be allowed to issue that kind of penalty against a deadline and not be charged with bargaining in bad faith?

Mr Sutherland: I think in response to the member's questions, the minister can designate plans according to the criteria, but if there are other optional criteria that have come together, that could still be considered appropriate.

Mr Phillips: I barely got the start of an answer, let alone an answer. Can I just go back over what I asked?

Firstly, can you confirm that it is the minister and the minister alone who can designate a sectoral framework; can you confirm or deny that there is a $400-million total penalty here if there's not a sectoral agreement; and, can you confirm that all five of those criteria must be in the plan before the minister can designate the plan as a sectoral agreement?

Mr Sutherland: To your three questions: yes, yes and yes.

Mr Phillips: Then I would also appreciate an answer on the fourth question, and that is, if in the private sector we were dealing with collective agreements and a company chose to issue that kind of predetermined penalty against a time frame, would it be charged with bad-faith bargaining; and secondly, the minister, when he was responding to me earlier, and maybe you were here when he did, indicated that I was exaggerating the power that the minister had in this bill. What you've just confirmed to me is, it is the minister and the minister alone who will approve these sectoral agreements. There is a $400-million penalty if people don't agree by August 1 to meet the Minister of Finance's edict and all five of these things must be in the plan, and for anyone who's looked at them, they are far-reaching. They are intrusions on local collective agreements beyond which we've ever seen.

1720

You may say, "Well, I'm happy about that," but they are intruding on 9,000 collective agreements, something that only the Minister of Finance has the authority to approve. In the final analysis, the Minister of Finance alone will determine whether or not a sectoral agreement meets his criteria and those criteria will impact every single collective agreement in the province, public sector agreement, impact dramatically.

The NDP government may think they like that right now. Maybe they think they like that. But the precedent you're setting here, where a future minister of whatever stripe, a Conservative minister, a Liberal minister or whatever stripe, you've set a bill here that will allow a future minister to set the financial criteria, to agree or not agree on these agreements and to impose those sectoral agreements on almost a million working people in the province of Ontario.

My question, if the member would go back to it once again for me, is, if this were in the private sector, would this be seen as bargaining in bad faith? How is it that the minister, when I asked him the question earlier, denied that this bill gave the minister sweeping new powers, and you've just confirmed for the people of Ontario that it does give the minister enormous powers to intrude in collective bargaining?

Mr Sutherland: I just want to clarify that the minister himself cannot impose a plan, but the plans, in order to be designated, need to meet the five criteria, in general need to meet the five criteria to be designated. But there is the one exception, if you look in subsection 11(4), special circumstances. It says:

"Subsection (3) does not apply to a plan if, in the opinion of the minister, special circumstances apply and it is desirable to designate the plan as a sectoral framework."

Mr Phillips: If you can help me on what sufficient support for the plan means. Does there have to be a majority of the parties involved, both a majority of the employees and a majority of the employers, in that sector before the minister can designate sufficient support, or what are the criteria for sufficient support?

Mr Sutherland: I'm sorry, I can't give you an answer to that question at this time. We have to wait until the process develops and evolves a little more before we'd be able to give you a definite answer.

Mr Phillips: As I hope people who may be watching this debate are beginning to realize, we are essentially being asked to buy a bill that gives enormous powers to the Minister of Finance and we are getting no definition of how the minister's going to exercise that power. The minister, who is here, indicates disbelief on that, a very simple question.

Just so everyone knows, we're talking here about a three-year plan involving compensation in the province of $43 billion a year; we're talking about a penalty, if you don't agree to this agreement, of $400 million, and it will be the minister alone who will designate the plan.

We've asked the question, "What will the criteria be for determining if there is sufficient support for the plan?" The answer we get is: "You'll only find that out later. We can't tell you when you're voting on the bill what we mean by 'sufficient support' for the plan." Why would you want anyone to vote on a bill where it is that vague about how you're going to exercise your authority?

Mr Sutherland: I think sufficient support would have to be assessed on the basis of the circumstances in the sector and what can be worked out up until the August 1 time limit.

Mr Phillips: I'm going to stay on this a while longer. I said at the outset I was looking forward to the debate and I hoped it would be a long debate. As a side issue, I understand the government's planning to restrict the debate on this.

But what could be more fundamental to the bill than this, that is, would there ever be a situation where a group of employees were asked to participate in a collective agreement process, in collective bargaining, and then one says, "How do we make a determination of whether or not we're supporting this?" and the government essentially is saying, "We'll make that determination for you"?

There is no indication in here that there has to be an indication that half of all the employers and half of all the employees in the sector agree to it. It looks to me like we're buying a bill here where the minister and the minister alone is going to determine whether or not there is a sectoral agreement.

I actually can see the possibility in this case, and you can dissuade me of this, where a sectoral agreement could be reached -- and tell me if I'm wrong here -- where less than half of the employers involved in the sector haven't agreed to it and less than half of the bargaining agents representing the employees haven't agreed to it, but where the minister says: "Too bad. I've determined there's a sectoral agreement."

Could you ever see a case where there is less than 50% support among the employee groups for this sectoral agreement, but yet the minister has designated it as a sectoral agreement?

Mr Sutherland: I think the member is dealing with a lot of theoretical circumstances at this stage. The purpose of what we're trying to do is to get the parties to come to the table and negotiate sectoral agreements that the majority of the parties will agree to. If that is the case, then I think the minister would be responding in a positive fashion.

Mr Phillips: I assume the third party would like some opportunity to comment as well, not to necessarily even wrap up this section because we may have to come back to it. But what you're asking the Legislature to do is to agree on a bill that in this case gives the Minister of Finance enormous powers.

The bill is passed and two or three weeks from now we find out the minister has approved sectoral agreements that may have very little support among the employers in that sector and among the employees in that sector. But the minister has chosen to designate that and to order that plan to be implemented.

We are not talking about minor matters here; we're talking about a fifth of all of the workers in the province, $43 billion in payroll, and we're also talking of collective agreements and working arrangements that have been developed over decades.

I guarantee you, absolutely guarantee you that these sectoral agreements are going to impose fundamental change on the relationship between employers and employees sector by sector by sector. Yet we have no indication in the bill of how the minister is going to determine whether there is sufficient support for the plan in the sectors.

He may say, "Well, you'll just have to leave that to my good judgement, and you know that I've got good judgement, and surely you wouldn't think I would do anything that wouldn't be right." Well, I will say that there is no bargaining unit out there that would buy that. There's no bargaining unit that would say, "You determine for our members what's best for them." Actually, the whole bill is essentially the government saying: "We know best. We know best how to impose 9,000 collective agreements on a million people."

I go back to my concern and I ask the government once again, "Will you help us to get the answer to the question of how you're going to determine when there's sufficient support for the plan, so that all of those employers and employees out there don't find that we bought a plan that won't work."

Mr Sutherland: I don't think you can at this time say there are general hard and fast rules. Obviously, though, if the majority on both sides were supporting that in a general sense, I think the minister would make a positive designation.

1730

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, sections 1 to 4 have been moved. Is that correct?

The First Deputy Chair: I called for a discussion and we have continued to have discussion.

Mrs Marland: Okay. Now as long as the Liberals wish to stand up and discuss sections 1 to 4, we won't move out of sections 1 to 4. Is that correct?

The First Deputy Chair: That's correct.

Mrs Marland: That's the process we're into here in committee of the whole: As long as they wish to stand in this House and discuss anything in sections 1 to 4, we can be talking sections 1 to 4 from now until the time allocation motion kicks in and we're all out of time and we're down to the vote on third reading. We'll never get to any amendments. Is that correct?

The First Deputy Chair: It is up to the Chair to recognize any person who has questions, amendments or comments on sections 1 to 4.

Mrs Marland: I'm not criticizing the Chair at all. I'm simply confirming for the people who are watching this charade that they understand what's going on here. The point is that we do have constructive amendments to Bill 48. We are not happy at all in any sense of the word with Bill 48 as it is drafted and as it is presented here for committee of the whole today. But it is true that the Liberals can stand up and filibuster and go on and on and on and stay in sections 1 to 4.

They don't have any amendments to any sections of this bill, but they can keep us from reaching those sections where we do have constructive, remedial amendments by the very fact that every time they stand in this House, the Chair has to recognize them because that's the process in committee of the whole.

If that's the case, then we might as well get another question answered, because obviously the fact that the Liberals are choosing to monopolize the whole time this afternoon is not satisfactory to me, it's not satisfactory to any of my other colleagues here and I'm not about to yield the floor to the Liberals who had nothing to say on this bill at second reading except to vote against it. I'm not about to yield the floor now, in committee of the whole, and let them just use all the time that is left at our disposal to try to deal with this junk piece of legislation as it is printed and as it is presented in this House today. We can't even find out what the amendments are that the government wants to make to its own bill, recognizing the flaws in its own bill.

Dealing with part II, "Expenditure Reduction Targets," a very, very interesting subject, expenditure reduction targets at whose expense? I suggest at the expense of the people who live and work and pay tax in this province.

Under part II, subsection 7(4) it says -- and for those members of the government who are not following this at all, I noticed this afternoon, if you choose to get your bill out and you choose to follow the business of this House that's before you, you might be interested in turning to page 6 of the bill and then you might be able to follow with great interest and great commitment to the people of this province what is printed in this bill that you're going to come in and pass in this House.

The First Deputy Chair: Might I ask the honourable member a question first? The honourable member has just indicated some interest in page 6 and section 7, and with due respect, I just want to say that we still are on sections 1 to 4.

Mrs Marland: That's right, and this is actually section 2.

Under "expression of target" it says, "The minister may express an expenditure reduction target as a specific amount of money or by means of a formula or other method for determining an amount of money."

If you want examples of something that's pure bureaucratic gobbledegook, I would suggest that is the section, and I would like the -- I don't know what riding the parliamentary assistant is from --

Mr Stockwell: Oxford.

Mrs Marland: I would like the member for Oxford, who is answering the questions or is supposed to be answering the questions at this point in this committee of the whole House, to try to explain what that means. What does it mean, "or by means of a formula or other method for determining an amount of money"? I haven't heard you answer any questions yet. We were doing very well with the Treasurer, but unfortunately, the Treasurer has a challenge this afternoon with his time schedule, which I respect.

But the problem is, you see, that the parliamentary assistant, as he is now doing, is leaning across his desk asking the staff to explain the section to him. I say with respect that if he doesn't know the answers, then we should have somebody sitting there who can explain this bill, because if this bill has to be interpreted by the public, I can tell you it's going to cost millions of dollars in lawyers' fees to get the interpretation of the bill, and that's without the regulations.

Wait till we get the policies and regulations that are behind this bill, those policies and regulations that we never get an opportunity to debate because they don't come before the floor; they don't come into this chamber for debate. So this is a section of the bill that I think must have come from Alice in Wonderland.

Mr Sutherland: It's just a way of saying that you may also do it by a specific percentage to reach the actual amount that you want to get at, or you may use the actual money figure.

Mrs Marland: I have to say I beg your pardon. I didn't hear your last sentence as you were starting to sit. What was it that you said?

Mr Sutherland: What I was saying was that it either means you can use the specific dollar figure to get to the amount or they may want to work out some formula based on a percentage basis, and it's just to allow for that.

Mrs Marland: A percentage basis of what?

Mr Sutherland: It could be a combination of things. It may be a percentage of expenditures, it may be a percentage of grants etc or it may be a combination of those factors.

Mr Phillips: Could you be a little more vague?

1740

Mrs Marland: As the member has just said, perhaps the parliamentary assistant answering the question could be a little more vague and maybe we could understand.

You mentioned grants. We're talking here about the expression of targets. The target we're looking at is an expenditure reduction target. If you can't explain what an expenditure reduction target is, how do we expect the public sector employers and the partners, as you like to call them, the municipalities, the school boards, the police, the hospitals and the universities, all these partners that you want to be a part of your Bill 48; if you can't explain what an expenditure reduction target is under subsection (4) other than to use your mannerisms, which are visible but not in print -- "It could be this, could be that, could be this, could be this, could be a formula or could be grants, whatever."

Could you give us a more clear answer to my question, so we don't have to hire lawyers to find a definition of what the answer is to that question? Or do you wish to have the latitude that you can individually interpret what the answer is; dealing with individuals, which makes it even more unjust?

Mr Sutherland: Let's be clear. The actual target amount will be set. The reference to formula is a question of how you're going to get to that, how you may achieve that target amount through a combination of the other things I had mentioned in my previous answer to you.

Mrs Marland: You just said the actual target will be set. Okay, then why do we have subsection (4) that says, "The minister may express an expenditure reduction target as a specific amount of money or by means of a formula or other method for determining an amount of money." I'm asking you, what is the other method?

Mr Sutherland: The section is in there to provide flexibility. There is no other specific method developed at this time, but there may be one that does come about. It's just to provide flexibility.

Mrs Marland: Oh, now we're starting to get to the short strokes here: "It may be something else determined at another time." That certainly gives a lot of confidence and a lot of security to the people who are going to be impacted by this legislation. What you're saying is that you don't have the answer: "It may be determined at another time." That answer is not acceptable. It is not good enough for this government to bring in legislation and then say "something to be determined in the future," some other method, something else it may need to pull out of a hip pocket somewhere down the line.

Why do you print it if you don't know what it is? If you don't have an explanation for what it is, why is it there? It's printed in your bill. If your answer is, "Maybe it's something for another time," then I would suggest to you, maybe this whole bill is something for another time. What do you mean by another time?

Mr Sutherland: I will try and respond once more. As I said, up until this point it's all been expressed in terms of an actual monetary amount, an actual amount of money to be found in savings. It may come, as a result of negotiations between the parties, that they may want to have it expressed in a different way. All it does is allow for the flexibility to have it expressed in that different way.

The First Deputy Chair: Further questions and comments?

Interjection.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I'll be brief so the honourable member can ask a question as well.

To the parliamentary assistant, in section 1 of the bill, "The purposes of this act are as follows," 3 says, "To provide for expenditure reduction for a three-year period and to provide criteria and mechanisms for achieving the reductions."

I wonder if you could explain. One of the concerns that has been expressed about this part is that a number of the reductions are going to be deferred; for example, for those who can't take their 12-day unpaid leave, that will be put off until after the three-year period. Can you tell us how that is going to be dealt with? It would seem we're going to have to pay a lot more after April 1996 for those people who -- what is it? I think they're in emergency services or perhaps teachers, that kind of thing.

Is it correct, first of all, that there will be deferred costs that will be beyond this period of three years? Could you answer that one?

Mr Sutherland: It may occur. It doesn't necessarily say that it absolutely will occur, only in those areas as critical services. But I want to also say that it may be more appropriate to have the question asked under section 26, which deals more specifically with the question he is raising.

Mr Beer: I asked the question under the purposes because it seems to me that's a rather critical point. I guess I ask it as well because it's hard to know whether we will ever get to that section. I know there are a number of questions on these first four parts.

Can I ask the parliamentary assistant, what categories are they talking about in terms of those services that would be provided? What groups of people would not be able to use their 12 days so that that would be put off? Have you done any study of what the cost of that would be? For example, if you're a municipality and you're responsible for firefighters or, in the case of school boards, for teachers, how do you see all of that being paid for when presumably, from your answer to my first question, there may well be -- that's what you said, but I think it's clear that there would be -- a whole series of expenditures that transfer payment agencies would have to make after March 31, 1996?

Mr Sutherland: The actual regulation defining what the critical services specifically will be has not been finalized yet, so we can't give you a definite list, but you could probably get an idea by reading the act, and what areas have been identified to be covered would give you some sense of it, anyway.

Mr Stockwell: If you haven't defined what "critical" is, how do you know how many days are going to be deferred and the costs therefor allotted?

Mr Sutherland: Because we have a fail-safe provision in the actual act, you don't have to necessarily define all that to be able to achieve savings. Obviously, there will be some attempt, as much as possible, but there's still the fail-safe mechanism to ensure you'll reach your targets.

Mr Stockwell: That wasn't the question. The question was, if you haven't determined who's critical and who then can defer their pay pause days, how do you know how much money that's going to cost municipalities and your partners? The question's very clear. You don't have a critical list; therefore, you can't determine how many pay pause days can be deferred; and therefore, you don't understand the impact three years down the road.

Mr Sutherland: I think the member's correct. You may not know that information right now, but I think as the process goes on -- or it may come out of negotiations that that would be established as to what the amount might be.

1750

Mr Stockwell: Isn't that rather critical? You're sitting here or standing in your place today suggesting we don't know who's critical, we don't know how much will be deferred, we don't even know the impact of the cost, yet you're claiming to save $2 billion a year. What if after three years you've just deferred $3 billion? What have you served in this piece of legislation? Where's the benefit if you defer $3 billion?

Mr Sutherland: Having that list established, in terms of what critical is, is not absolutely necessary while negotiations are going on, people working out sectoral agreements and local deals.

Mr Stockwell: Let me be more direct. It's not critical. I don't know anyone who doesn't think it's critical. It's very critical to know who can take the pay pause days and who can't. Is a cop critical? In Metropolitan Toronto we've got 5,000 of them. Can't they take their pay pause days?

Let's figure out the payroll for the Metropolitan Toronto Police. The impact on Metropolitan Toronto will be in the neighbourhood of $100 million in pay pause days. If we work it out across the board and you determine these people are all critical -- and according to Metropolitan Toronto staff, they assume 58% of their employees are critical -- you don't think that's an important number to know, about how much money you're saving? I can't believe that.

Mr Sutherland: At this stage I can't give the member any more answer than I've given him already.

Mr Stockwell: You can't give me any more. You haven't given me any. You haven't even got half a glass of water here.

You can't tell us who's critical, you can't tell us who's going to defer their pay pause day, you can't tell us how much money is going to be deferred, but you're telling us to accept this. Municipalities claiming up to 58% of their employee base is critical. They're going to defer 58% of their pay pause days and in essence be faced with potentially as much as a $3-billion expense at the end of three years. Explain to me how you don't think that's important.

Mr Sutherland: They are issues that are to be dealt with within the sectoral agreements and to try to be resolved in that negotiation process in the different sectors.

Mr Stockwell: The answer is insane. Think about it. You're going to go into negotiations with people and everybody who determines that they're not critical --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I'm trying to ask the question and Mr Durham Dump is not in his seat, so, Mr Chair, I would appreciate if you could stop him from heckling.

You're going to go into negotiations. You're not going to know who's critical. Doesn't it make sense to you that everyone who comes to that table is going to be pleading and begging with their employer, "Call me critical, because if you do call me critical, I don't have to lose a nickel in pay," and you don't have any savings in this $2-billion apparent fiasco.

The question stands: If you can't determine who's critical, don't you think that these partners' employees will come to the table all claiming to be critical and not losing a nickel of pay? Can't you see that being the case?

Mr Sutherland: As I said in my previous answer, at the sectoral negotiations the analysis will be done and those issues will be put forward. The member is probably correct that some groups may try and have themselves designated critical when they're not, but I would assume that many of the employers at the table may not agree to having them designated that way and they'll have to negotiate that based on the analysis put forward at the time.

Mr Stockwell: This is crazy. You've set down the legislation. You're the ones calling them critical. You won't tell them who's critical. You're going to tell them to go and negotiate that. Now they're going to try and negotiate an agreement that if they are correct and 58% of their employees are critical, they've simply deferred their payroll for nearly two thirds of their staff for three years.

I want to get right to the point here. You're telling me that we should pass this piece of legislation without any knowledge of who's critical and who's not, without any knowledge of how much money can be saved and what can't, without any knowledge of how much money we're going to defer for three years and without any knowledge of exactly what saving is involved for the taxpayer. Is that what you're trying to say?

Mr Sutherland: What I'm saying to you in response is that a list of who is critical will be developed, and it will be developed before August 1.

Mr Stockwell: There are a million items that you can go on in here, but this to me is probably one of the most fundamental. Why it is the most fundamental, and I put this to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, is if you're going through all this pain, all this trouble and all this work, it would seem to me that you'd want to know you're going to collect or do away with the $2 billion you're talking about.

Now, if you're saying to me you cannot supply a list of what's critical, would you, as parliamentary assistant, at least accept this: that if you determine ambulance service, firefighters, police, day care workers, senior citizens' buildings, health care, nurses, hospitals, teachers, all those positions are critical, it really in fact takes whatever benefit you have out of your legislation. Would you not agree with that?

Mr Sutherland: I think, to help the situation, it's important to understand how it will work for those who are designated critical. Their holidays and vacations during this period in many cases may be unpaid, and then after the period they would get days off to make up for that. So you still should be able to achieve the saving.

Mr Stockwell: I want to ask this one last question.

The First Deputy Chair: One last question for the honourable member.

Mr Stockwell: You're suggesting to me in your answer that these officials would bank their holidays, then come 1996 they would be allowed to take holidays. What gives you that impression, if they can't afford to take one day a month off for the next three years, they would be able to take three weeks successively off after 1996? It makes no sense if they can't get the time off during the three-year period that they be able to get time off afterwards. What kind of warped, distorted, backwoods logic is that?

Mr Sutherland: I think the member for Etobicoke West is trying to imply that after this three-year period is up, all these days off would be taken at once. Obviously, they'll still have to be worked out so that services can still be provided.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I move that the committee of the whole rise and report.

The First Deputy Chair: Mrs Boyd has moved that the committee of the whole rise and report. All those in favour of the motion.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I understand this House sits until 6 o'clock, so why is the motion being made at four minutes to 6?

The First Deputy Chair: Because there is further business to do before 6 o'clock.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks leave to sit again. Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to announce the business of the coming week.

On Monday, July 5, we will continue committee of the whole consideration of Bill 48, the Social Contract Act.

On Tuesday, July 6, we will give third reading consideration to Bill 48.

On Wednesday, July 7, we will continue the adjourned second reading debate of the Ontario Loan Act, Bill 25, followed by the adjourned second reading debate of Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act.

On Thursday, July 8, during private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 19 in the name of Mr Lessard and ballot item number 20, second reading of Bill 57, standing in the name of Mr Sorbara. On Thursday afternoon, we will give third reading consideration to Bill 25, the Ontario Loan Act, followed by the adjourned second reading debate of Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): It now being precisely 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday, July 5, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.

June 30, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAY CARE

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM FESTIVAL

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

GO RAIL EXPANSION

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

SOCIAL CONTRACT

BOATING SAFETY

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CONTAMINATED SOIL

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

RACE RELATIONS

TAX INCREASES

FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

ROUGE VALLEY

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TENDERING PROCESS

FOREST INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

HEALTH CARE

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

PAROLE SYSTEM

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

CHILD CARE

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE