Hansard Transcript 1993-Jul-06 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I bring a matter of urgent attention to the Attorney General and the minister of government services. The General Division court is located in my riding, and it's an extremely aggressive and active court. Many jury panels are brought in from time to time to be selected for it to serve the ends of justice.

Recognizing the fact that jurors, as a result of action by this government, no longer receive a stipend until they've served 10 days, I believe it is, I have to bring to the attention of the Attorney General and the minister of government services that in fact a juror's car was towed away by local government services while this juror was sitting on a jury.

It seems to me that flies in the face of fairness to jurors as they receive no compensation. It also could impact on the question of whether or not a juror might be influenced by that to render a verdict one way or the other. I don't believe that happened, but I urge the Attorney General and the minister of government services to devise some plan, perhaps a sleeve to be slipped over the visor of the juror, to avoid this happening in the future.

I might also add that the parking lot at that courthouse is an abomination. There is a hole there that, if your car was anything other than a tank and sank into it, you'd break the axle. I find this to be totally objectionable.

Justice is a number one priority and should be for everyone in this province. I strongly urge the ministers to look at this and perhaps to find out whether there's some local problem between the local government services representative and the courthouse. If that's the case, that should be remedied promptly.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Early in 1992, there was a great deal of excitement over a provincial-municipal cost-sharing arrangement known as disentanglement. Disentanglement was to achieve a more accountable, efficient and effective government by eliminating overlap, duplication and confusion with respect to the delivery of services and programs. The municipalities were to cover the cost of property assessment services and certain provincial highways and the province would pick up the cost of welfare allowances.

It took some time and a lot of money, but an agreement was reached in January of this year. The final agreement was to be ready in April and implemented in January 1994.

The then Municipal Affairs minister said this exchange of responsibilities should mean savings for the property taxpayer. It sounded as though the province was doing the municipalities a favour, giving them a break, saving them money.

Then in April, the government brought in the expenditure control plan and cut millions in unconditional grant transfers. The partnership and the trust that went along with it died. The expenditure control program was followed by the social contract, which involved another round of cuts to municipal budgets.

Today we see that for the 10th straight month the number of welfare recipients increased, this time by 3,000, an incredible 21% higher than this time last year.

Since the disentanglement process is obviously stalled, I call on the minister to clarify what means are being proposed to remove the ever-growing welfare burden from the property taxpayer.

NIAGARA GUARDIAN

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): We had some sad news last month in Niagara-on-the-Lake, when the Niagara Guardian newspaper published its last edition.

The Niagara Guardian was an independently owned community newspaper. It was the dream of John and Tuula McPhee, which turned into reality back in 1989. For the past four years, John and Tuula have poured their hearts and souls into this newspaper. Unfortunately, despite their efforts, this small independent found it difficult to continue to compete against its chain-owned competitor in the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake during these tough economic times.

John McPhee was the managing editor of the Guardian and, as is the case with most weekly newspapers, he served as its primary reporter, photographer, editorial writer and layout artist. When an event happened in Niagara-on-the-Lake, John was there, notepad in one hand, camera in the other.

Despite the sensitivities of operating in a small community where the people you write about more often than not tend to be your neighbours and friends, John did not compromise his journalistic instincts. He wrote hard-hitting news stories and was never afraid to be critical. When John didn't agree with something you'd done, you knew it. I know about that. So did the rest of the community after reading the editorial page. Like many other public officials, I felt the sting of John's pen on more than one occasion. Yet through it all, you couldn't help but maintain a healthy respect for this talented journalist.

In these days of chain-owned newspapers, it is indeed regrettable that yet another independent has disappeared from the Ontario media scene. The Guardian may have been put to bed -- and according to John that's where he's gone too, to catch up on four years of missed sleep -- but its legacy lives on in the minds of its faithful readers, who feel a sense of loss when they check their mailbox each Tuesday and find the Guardian is no longer there. My personal thanks to John and Tuula.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to talk about the disturbing tendency of this government to impose punitive policies and unfair tax and fee hikes which have a disproportionate impact on Ontario's seniors.

The NDP government has gutted the Ontario drug benefit program by removing 230 prescription drugs, many used by seniors, and is about to impose user fees on at least some seniors in this province. They have imposed rate hikes of up to 32%, as well as means testing to determine the choice of accommodation for seniors in care. The NDP government has imposed sales tax hikes of up to 10% on life insurance, home insurance and automobile insurance carried by seniors. The NDP government is withdrawing choice in home care by announcing a reduction in private sector participation to 10%. The NDP government has increased fees for vehicle and driver registration.

All of this was done without consultation and in many cases without even the courtesy of advance notice to seniors. This government must stop expecting seniors to carry the NDP's bad fiscal management on their backs, and the seniors must be protected from the chaotic economic policies of this government.

1340

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today to point out another example of why the NDP government has lost the confidence of the people of Ontario.

On July 26, 1990, Bob Rae addressed the board of directors for the Ontario Medical Association and said, "There is no fairness in a system that allows the government to dictate unilaterally your level of pay."

On June 1 of this year, the Bob Rae government introduced legislation that will allow the NDP to dictate unilaterally the dispensing fees paid to pharmacists.

The only thing worse than the NDP's flip-flop on negotiated settlements is the sleazy way in which it introduced Bill 29, which is designed to correct the mistakes of the Liberals by eliminating the commercial concentration tax. However, this bill also contains additional provisions that will facilitate major changes to health care in Ontario.

Instead of bringing in separate legislation, the government is attempting to make significant changes to our health care system by tying the changes to the abolition of just one of David Peterson's 33 tax hikes. Much like Bill 50, Bill 29 will allow government bureaucrats to make critical decisions about the medical needs of Ontario citizens. Instead of consulting with pharmacists and patients, the government will arbitrarily decide what drugs are deemed medically necessary to be included on the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The Ontario PC Party will not support legislation that dictates fees to pharmacists and we will not endorse legislation that allows bureaucrats to play God with the medical needs of Ontario citizens.

FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Peterborough's Festival of Lights is once again in full swing. Saturday, June 26, was the first night of the seventh season of this unique festival. People brought their lawn chairs and relaxed under the sun and then under the stars. This first evening featured the Peterborough Symphony Orchestra with its conductor Stan Kopac and guest Louise Pitre. The 17 nights of the festival will feature well-loved local performers and distinguished guests.

The concert is followed by six illuminated boats doing an intricate ballet on Little Lake and a great show of prowess by the Peterborough Waterski Club. The grand finale is always a spectacular fireworks display.

Festival chairman Fred Anderson is to be congratulated. Each year the Festival of Lights gets better and better. Ken Lennox's wonderful picture of the dancing boats was an added bonus this time.

On Canada Day, the proceedings were augmented by a multicultural festival. Food from 12 different countries was available from a marquee. Huda al Haddad and her helpers are to be congratulated on this special and appropriate contribution.

The festival continues on Wednesday and Saturday evenings through the summer. It is a wonderful way to make friends and enjoy the community spirit and the talents of our city. Drop by on a Wednesday or Saturday evening soon. You'll be delighted.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Because of time allocation, Mr Speaker, which, as you know, is considered closure in this House, tomorrow at 5:45, third reading of Bill 48 will take place. Still, no one is aware of the Conservative position on the social contract legislation.

Yesterday Mike Harris called Bill 48 a "flawed bill," and then he said, "We want to ensure that this legislation is able to pass."

It's no wonder that the Conservative position on the social contract is still unknown. The leader of the Tories, Mike Harris, is talking doublespeak. Today, the Toronto Star says that Harris is refusing to say how his party will vote. It's amazing that they have not yet decided to vote against Bill 48.

Lyn McLeod has told you from the beginning that Bill 48 is bad, bad, bad. The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto has told you this legislation is bad, bad, bad. Reporters and columnists are saying the social contract bill is bad, bad, bad. Are the Tories going to let Bob Rae get away with bang, bang, bang?

Come on, Mike Harris. Stop playing games. Bill 48 doesn't solve the problem; it just defers the costs for three years. You know your amendments will not fix this legislation. This legislation cannot be fixed. It is bad.

Come on, Mike, what's it going to be, yes or no? Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. You know the bill is fatally flawed legislation. Tell the House today that you and your caucus will not support Bill 48. Help us defeat this bill and this bad NDP government.

ERIC NYSTEDT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Constable Eric Nystedt of the Minden detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police, who was fatally stabbed July 3 while attending a domestic dispute at an isolated cottage at Furnace Falls, near Minden.

Pursuing a suspect through the woods, Constable Nystedt emerged with a serious stab wound to the upper leg. He later died on the way to hospital. Constable Nystedt is the 11th Canadian police officer to die in the line of duty in the last seven years.

The young man will be remembered as a friendly, competent officer who was well-liked in the community and enthusiastic about his police duties. Described by officers who knew him as a fitness nut, he was an avid cyclist and golfer and a member of the OPP cross-country racing club. At 24, Constable Nystedt was full of promise, courage and dedication.

Police officers are entrusted with the role of protecting society and upholding the values we hold most dear. We expect that one day they might have to give up their own lives to protect those around them, but we do so praying they will never have to make such a sacrifice.

Constable Nystedt's death is a tragic loss to his family, the OPP detachment at Minden, the entire police community and the province at large.

Tomorrow, the Progressive Conservative leader, Mike Harris, and I will travel to Sault Ste Marie to attend the young officer's funeral.

I know every member of this House will join me in paying tribute to the late Eric Nystedt and extending our heartfelt sympathy to his parents, Richard and Mary-Lou, and to his brother, Scott, a fellow OPP officer stationed in Ottawa.

CHILDREN OF DIVORCE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to tell the House about a unique program designed to lessen misery suffered by children of divorce. The Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia, has put together a mandatory seminar for divorcing parents.

This four-hour seminar focuses on the needs of children during a divorce. It is based on the fact that divorce is a very stressful experience, especially for children. Topics include how families experience divorce, typical reactions of children, developmental needs of children, skills to help children cope and pitfalls for parents to avoid.

We all know that children often get the short end of the stick when parents decide to go their separate ways. They often become pawns in a lifelong battle between parents who just don't seem to get along, parents who often accuse each other of acting like children. This seminar opens their eyes to the permanent damage that can be done to the very human beings they so often fight over.

The Georgia program is available two evenings and two mornings a month at a cost of $30. It is conducted by qualified professionals from Families First, a United Way agency. I'm sure most parents would agree that the future of the children is worth at least $30 and a few hours of their time.

I have sent this information to the Attorney General, because I think it's something our family courts should be looking at here in Ontario.

VISITOR

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 Desmond Leakey, member of Parliament for Jamaica. Welcome to our chamber.

It is time for oral questions and the honourable member for Renfrew North.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, it is time for oral questions. My count of 10 seconds ago indicated that there were 18 members of the government, about six members of the cabinet here --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Where's Lyn McLeod?

Mr Conway: I'm here. I'm going to be asking leader's questions.

I have two questions today on behalf of my colleagues, the first to the Minister of Energy, Mr Wildman, who is not present, though he is supposed to be here. My second question is to Ms Lankin, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who is supposed to be here. She is not here. Obviously, I'm going to be required to stand those questions down.

I understand the pressures on my ministerial friends, but I repeat that we have a practice that indicates -- and I know that Mr Hampton, Ms Boyd, Mr Cooke, Mr Buchanan, Ms Coppen, Mr Silipo and Ms Ziemba are not scheduled to be here, although Ms Ziemba is. I understand they're not to be here; we have a mechanism that suggests that we shouldn't expect that. But Mr Wildman and Ms Lankin are supposed to be here. Neither of them is here.

I will stand down my first two questions and await their arrival and encourage my friend the government House leader to get these people here quickly.

1350

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Likewise, the leader of our party has a question for the Premier. We'd ask that that question be stood down as well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Then we begin rotation with backbench questions.

Mr Eves: I have a second lead question for our party, if I may be permitted to place it.

GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: On May 5 of this year, I asked you how much the increased policing would cost the city of Windsor as a result of the casino project. I pointed out to you that you had that information in a report submitted to you by the Windsor Police Services Board in January of this year. This is now over six months later. How much is it going to cost?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As I said at that time when the member asked the question, the report to which he is referring was a very early preliminary report that, I believe, was conducted by the police services board and was not presented to me. The information in that report was very preliminary, before we had advanced very far in our plans, so I don't have a cost at this time as to further police services. We do know that we have, for the time being, extended the police force in Windsor by 10. We will continue to work with the police in Windsor as we progress through the process in terms of how much more policing will be required.

Mr Eves: My supplementary question to the minister is: Seeing as how she doesn't have her act together from figures that were provided in January and a question that was asked in May, this one's a little simpler.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Read it slowly, so you can understand it.

Mr Eves: You should be talking about understanding anything.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Eves: The reason I'm asking these questions is very simple: The government seems to be intent on proceeding with this casino project without doing its homework, without having the facts. All they know is that they want to open this thing by New Year's Eve, 1994. That's it. You don't care about the problems you're creating in society. You've done nothing to address them. You don't know how much policing's going to cost.

On November 5, 1992, you stated, Minister, that your casino project team would be taking measures to deal with compulsive gambling. Seeing as how you want the interim casino up and running by this New Year's Eve, can you tell us exactly what procedures you have in place for those who suffer from gambling addictions, how much money you've set aside, how this is going to be administered and exactly what you're doing? Can you tell us that today?

Hon Ms Churley: We said from the beginning that this is one of the areas we would be looking at in consultation with the experts who deal in this kind of area. We have put together an interministerial committee to work on this, as I said, in consultation with the experts in the field. They should be reporting to me some time in July or August on the best steps to take. When I have that information, I will get it to the member.

It is not fair and not correct to say that the minister and the project team have not been working on this and in other areas and moving towards the best conclusion. As the member knows, the interim casino is not up and running yet. We are trying to look at the best process, the best program to put in place. We are consulting with other ministries to make sure that we come up with a good plan for that.

Mr Eves: In April 1992 -- this is more than 15 months ago -- you said you would consider diverting some of the proceeds from casinos to the horse racing industry in the province, to charities in the province. That was over 15 months ago. Have you made a decision on that? That doesn't take a casino up and running. It doesn't take any of this gobbledegook you've just talked about. Have you made that decision or not? Yes or no? How much are you going to divert to charities in the province and the horse racing industry?

Hon Ms Churley: The member has his facts wrong, I must say. I have never said that we would be diverting direct funds to the charities.

Mr Eves: Listen. Open your ears.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If you would be glad to check Instant Hansard this moment, I said that the minister said she would consider. I didn't say she said she would do it; I said she would consider and I'm asking her to tell me today, 16 months later --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. However, I would ask the member to temper his language.

Hon Ms Churley: If the member would like to hear the answer, I'm willing to give him an answer. The answer is very clearly, if you'll be patient and wait just a moment, that I have said in this House for some time and I suppose you didn't hear it at that time, that the casino proceeds will not go into the horse racing industry directly or into charitable gaming. That's very categorical and very clear. We are working with the horse racing industry and we are working with the charitable organizations to see how we can all work together. We have decided --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Churley: I think that concludes my answer for the time being.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): How does one proceed? Half the cabinet which is supposed to be here is not here. One of the ministers I want is here. I'm in your hands, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I don't know what help I can be to the member. The Chair is not privy to lists. We have question period and any member of the cabinet is here to answer whatever questions you may wish to pose.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I will take my first leader's question then to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Yesterday morning in the national capital area a number of the interprovincial bridges connecting Ottawa with Hull were blockaded by Ontario and Quebec construction workers. There is a rising tide of frustration and anger about the ongoing attitude of the Quebec government with respect to very restrictive economic policies with respect to Ontarians or New Brunswickers or anyone not from Quebec doing business in Quebec.

My question to the minister, and my colleague Mr Grandmaître asked a similar question two weeks ago: In light of what happened yesterday on those interprovincial bridges in Ottawa-Hull, it is very clear that frustration is turning into anger. My constituents in eastern Ontario are becoming very, very frustrated about the restrictive practices being employed and pursued vigorously by the Quebec government.

In light of what happened yesterday in the national capital area and having regard to the 14% unemployment rate that the Treasurer rightly complained about in his budget of some weeks ago, what further actions or steps, as the Minister of Economic Development and Trade for the province of Ontario, do you intend to take on behalf of the working men and women of eastern Ontario who on a daily basis confront these increasingly frustrating restrictive practices being employed by the Quebec government?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I agree with the member opposite in his characterization of the level of anger and frustration and certainly share that sense of frustration.

There are two arenas for addressing this, with respect to a negotiated process at least. The first is in the interprovincial trade negotiations that are going on in which there has been some progress with the negotiators around a number of issues. I think it's fair to say, however, that the federal government in the latest document that it tabled fell short of the mark of the concerns of the provinces, and Ontario is preparing and will be tabling next week a counterproposal which we think will have much greater support from the majority of the provinces.

In the meantime, I think the issues with Quebec, as we know on all sides of the House, have mounted, and there is tremendous frustration and there seems to be an increasing vigour with which they're applying some of their regional procurement policies and other sorts of things. We have indicated in response to the questions here that we will be meeting at the officials' level. The first contact has taken place. I expect that I will be involved in a meeting following the deputies, to commence bilateral negotiations.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: I will say to the member that if we are unsuccessful in bilateral negotiations, I would be prepared to recommend to cabinet consideration of taking unilateral actions. That would be a very serious step in light of the agreement we've made with other provinces not to erect trade barriers at this time.

1400

Mr Conway: Whether it's in Ottawa or in my part of eastern Ontario, in communities like Pembroke -- and it's not just construction; it's the trades, some of which are the construction trades. The Minister of Transportation knows only too well the outrageous restrictive practices being employed by the Quebec department of transport affecting truckers in the upper Ottawa Valley, insane restrictions that are completely indefensible in the light of the policies of the Ontario government, which have been very open.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Time for action.

Mr Conway: It is clearly time for action. For the people whom I represent in Renfrew county, whom my friends the members from the Ottawa area, like Mr Grandmaître and Mrs O'Neill and others in our caucus -- and I know I speak for my friend from Carleton -- represent, we are running out of time and excuses because it is so obviously and so transparently unfair. To the best of my understanding, we are not having these problems on the Ontario-Manitoba border. To the best of my understanding, we are not having nearly these kinds of problems on the Ontario-New York state or Ontario-Michigan frontier. My question, on behalf of the over 25% unemployed in the construction trades and all of the unemployed loggers and truckers in Renfrew county is, when is the talking going to stop and the action going to start?

Hon Ms Lankin: I want to say that the members whom he mentioned and their concerns are well noted with me, as are the concerns of the member for Ottawa Centre, Ms Gigantes, who has raised this issue with me on numerous occasions and advocated on behalf of the people, particularly in the capital region, these issues of concern that have been raised.

I would point out to you that until this last number of months, there had not been a process of negotiations under way with respect to these issues for years, although members of all parties have indicated that this is a problem. The situation with respect to Quebec has not changed in terms of the application of its rules. The impact in these recessionary times is certainly much more hard felt here in Ontario.

We have an open system in Ontario with respect to trade. I think that most of us in this House want that kind of system to be in place across all the provinces. We have been involved in trying to reach that goal. We have agreed, as part of an agreement by all provinces, not to erect new trade barriers at this point in time while the negotiations are going on. I think the situation has become so urgent that we are now starting bilateral discussions with the province of Quebec. If that does not succeed, if there is no --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- backing down by the province of Quebec, I say to the member opposite, it will be important for us to take action at that point in time, which will mean violating the agreement we have arrived at with other provinces with respect to a moratorium on new trade barriers.

Mr Conway: This is a particular problem we are having in eastern Ontario with Quebec. I understand that there are a variety of multilateral issues, but I repeat that I'm not hearing from my friends in the northwest of this province these kinds of difficulties with Manitoba. Let me tell you that yesterday it was a blockage on the Alexandra and Macdonald-Cartier bridges. Tomorrow, I suspect, if there is no improvement, is going to be something worse.

We have an obligation, those of us in elected office, to deal with this. Today, both Le Droit and the Ottawa Citizen are reporting that Quebec business people are advising the Ontario government to pursue retaliatory action, like New Brunswick. That's coming from Quebec business people in Hull. They're advising the Ontario government to do what New Brunswick did a few months ago, which, I might add, painful as it must have been, has gotten Quebec City's attention.

Of course, none of us likes this, but I can no longer go home to Pembroke and tell unemployed construction people and loggers and electricians and everyone else that we're going to have an open-for-business market in eastern Ontario, while they're going to face unbelievably, outrageously inane restrictions at every level in Quebec.

My final question: Given the urgency and the specialized nature of the problem we're having on the Ontario-Quebec border, will you and your colleague the Premier invite Mr Bourassa and Mr Tremblay to a meeting in either Ottawa or Hull in the next few weeks to take this issue unto yourselves to see if you cannot work out some kind of an interim solution before we have much worse than we had on the Macdonald-Cartier and Alexandra bridges yesterday in the national capital region?

Hon Ms Lankin: The suggestion the member makes is exactly my intent with respect to the course of action over the next few weeks. I agree with you and I think that is the important next step.

I would point out to you that the threat of retaliatory action that New Brunswick took got the possibility of bilateral negotiations started. We have already got agreement from Quebec to begin those bilateral discussions. The meeting at the officials' level to set the terms of the agenda in those meetings will lead within the next few weeks to that meeting you're asking for taking place.

I would point out to you that this issue and Quebec's treatment of Ontario and other provinces with respect to mobility of labour and regional procurement has gone on for a number of years. It is time, I agree with you, to bring it to an end. But I would point out to you that for all the years you were in government, you didn't deal with it when you had your counterpart Liberal government in Quebec. I would ask for your assistance now in dealing with that Liberal government in Quebec in talking to your counterparts there as well in terms of your own political ideological family.

I suggest to you that the best for all of Canada is for us to come out of this with a lowering of trade barriers, not an escalation of trade retaliation that would inhibit any negotiations.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: I do agree with the seriousness of the issue with respect to the Ottawa region and that our position must be that if Quebec will not deal at the table in the meeting in the next few weeks, actions in response must be taken.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Conway: There is a difference between a world of 5% unemployment and 15% unemployment. While I accept the honourable minister's advice, I'll tell you that the people I represent understand today that their economic prospects are much more under pressure than they were three or four years ago.

The Speaker: Could the member place his second question, please.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A second question, to the Minister of Energy, responsible for the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario: Mr Minister, this morning we awakened to news that Local 1000 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees has threatened that if there are any layoffs at Ontario Hydro as a result of the social contract obligations being imposed on Hydro by the Rae government, CUPE will strike the Hydro corporation. Can the minister indicate to the House, as the minister responsible for this very vital service, what his response on behalf of the government is to this threat?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Energy): I thank the member for his question. He will know, as I've responded in the House previously, that there have been discussions going on between Ontario Hydro and the government and those responsible for negotiations around the social contract, and that Ontario Hydro has assured us that the restructuring Ontario Hydro has already begun negotiating with the members of CUPE 1000, as well as the society of engineers, has been such that Ontario Hydro is committed to maintaining its decision not to have rate increases, and yet at the same time to be able to achieve the restructuring without further dislocation than was understood to be part of the restructuring already.

Interjections.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What question is he answering?

Mr Conway: Did Jim Bradley really have a brother with a beard? I'm like Mr Stockwell; I'm trying to figure out what question you were answering with that verbiage.

Let me be a little more direct. Can you, as minister responsible for Hydro, indicate whether or not in recent days, since the announcement of the $100-million target for Hydro, you have discussed with, met with or corresponded with Mr Maurice Strong as chairman of the Hydro corporation, and has Mr Strong committed on behalf of the Hydro board to meet those targets of $100 million worth of savings in this year?

Hon Mr Wildman: The answer is yes. I have had discussions, as have other members of the government, with Mr Strong and senior executives from Ontario Hydro. As I said in my earlier verbiage, to use the member's term, Mr Strong has committed to maintaining the position Ontario Hydro took with regard to rates, to maintaining the negotiations with CUPE 1000 on the restructuring that Ontario Hydro had already initiated, and to meeting its targets under the social contract.

1410

Mr Conway: That's a very helpful clarification, very helpful.

We are left with the apparent situation that Hydro is going to make the $100-million cut this year, that Hydro is somehow going to be able to do that and keep its promise that there will be no rate increase for 1994. Your first answer seems to suggest that there will be no layoffs to trigger the CUPE strike against Ontario Hydro.

My question then is, by what alchemy, by what measure, by what magic, is Hydro going to achieve this $100-million saving, particularly because you seem to be suggesting, parenthetically, that there may in fact be cuts, layoffs, in which case you will precipitate the CUPE strike?

Hon Mr Wildman: No, no, no. The member is mixing two matters together. The first matter is that, as he knows, Ontario Hydro initiated, before the discussions around a social contract, a major restructuring and downsizing of the corporation. Those negotiations are ongoing between the bargaining agents and Ontario Hydro, and those will indeed, I suspect, involve considerable restructuring and changes at the corporation. I will not comment on those negotiations. All I'm saying is that I don't expect that the commitments Ontario Hydro has made with regard to the social contract will either precipitate further layoffs or in any way threaten the reliability and the commitments that Ontario Hydro has to provide electricity at cost to the people of Ontario.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question was for the Premier who, I now am told, is not coming to question period, so I will place the question to the Treasurer. The public has been, certainly in my experience, demanding a new way of doing politics. In that spirit, we put forward constructive amendments to your social contract legislation that ensure that our long-held principles of restraint could be both fair and workable. A week ago, in good faith, I talked with your Premier and I forwarded to your Premier and to your caucus a draft copy of our amendments.

To date, Treasurer, the Premier has not bothered, nor have you or anybody from your caucus, to call me to indicate any willingness to discuss these amendments either publicly or privately, formally or informally. Then, less than an hour into the formal discussion in the Legislature, your party moved a time allocation motion to limit any debate there as well.

Treasurer, we've tried to work for a constructive process on this legislation which we think is fair. I suggest to you that in not responding to our amendments and in not responding in the Legislature and in cutting off debate, you are moving into this realm of narrow partisanship, no better than the Liberals are on this issue. This is the old politics that I thought we agreed we were trying to change.

Members, in two hours' time, will not have had an opportunity to debate our amendments. I hear you have six more amendments that aren't even introduced yet, and yet at 5:45 --

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

Mr Harris: -- you want everybody to vote on those amendments.

I would ask you today, Treasurer, since you will not discuss them formally or informally, will you indicate to us today which of our amendments you will support and which of our amendments you will not?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The leader of the Conservative Party did indeed forward a package of amendments to us last week, just as we forwarded our amendments to his caucus. It was my anticipation that we would be moving through the bill amendment by amendment last Wednesday and subsequently on other days, but it became evident fairly early on in the process that we were getting nowhere in the clause-by-clause debate. We debated all day Wednesday and didn't get beyond the first amendment, the first section of the bill, despite the fact that the House leader had offered to extend an extra day's hearings, I believe, on the clause-by-clause stage of the bill. So I don't think it's fair to say that we, in unseemly haste, rushed in the time allocation motion. This is simply not the case.

All I can say to the leader of the third party is that I have looked at his amendments very carefully, and hopefully we'll be able to deal with them this afternoon.

Mr Harris: Mr Treasurer, let me be specific. One of our amendments calls for a 5% decrease in wages across the board, all public sector, effective on the anniversary date of their contracts. This amendment respects the anniversary dates; it ensures that the 5% will come out. But more importantly than that, it's fair and it encourages ongoing negotiations between public sector employers and employees by rewarding initiatives that result in greater efficiency in government. It's fair, it's effective over the long term, it eliminates any possibility of snapback at the end of the three-year period. Will you support that specific amendment this afternoon?

Hon Mr Laughren: No. First of all, I'm not sure what the leader of the third party means by the anniversary of the contract.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Why didn't you ask three days ago, then? Why didn't you ask? You didn't even give a time. You weren't looking at it seriously.

The Speaker: Order, the member for London North.

Hon Mr Laughren: All I was trying to convey to the leader of the third party before his seatmate lost her cool was that I didn't understand what he meant by the anniversary date, to what extent he meant the date of the expiry of the contract or an anniversary which would be one year hence. Since the social contract is a three-year contract and we must achieve --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: If you had read the amendment, it would have made it very clear that it's the anniversary, not the expiry of the contract; the anniversary date of the expiry of the contract. We've made that very clear. If you had read the amendment, if you had discussed it, if you were prepared to have debate, you would have known that.

You indicate that you won't support that one. Let me ask you about this: Many small municipalities, school boards and hospitals say it's virtually impossible to meet their targets under the existing bill without layoffs, because few, if any, of their staff make over $30,000. To make this matter worse, your government now has an amendment that will amend the bill to exempt part-timers who, on an annual basis, make under $30,000. So under this scenario, a $500-a-day part-timer who works less than 60 days a year for the government will be untouched by your restraint efforts as long as he works for less than 60 days. Our amendment corrects that and changes that. Our amendment makes sure that won't take place. Can I ask you specifically --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member for Nipissing please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the leader of the third party place his question.

1420

Mr Harris: I ask you specifically, will you support our amendment that says those under $30,000, and part-timers as well, will not be exempt from this legislation?

Hon Mr Laughren: One of the prime motivations of the bill was to protect people who are at relatively low income.

Mr Harris: No it wasn't. It was to cut the size and cost of government.

Hon Mr Laughren: Of course it was, but while we're doing that, the leader of the third party would ask the people earning $20,000, $25,000 or $29,000 per year to make a contribution to the problems we face in this province.

I acknowledge the fact that in order to protect people earning under $30,000, there are going to be distortions along the lines to which the leader of the third party makes reference. I acknowledge that, but I would put to him that the distortions or the unfairness of having people under $30,000 make a contribution through a 5% reduction to their income is a much greater distortion than having a few people who, if you annualize their salaries, would earn over $30,000 a year.

Mr Harris: At $20,000, you hiked their taxes.

Hon Mr Laughren: And you want to do more. You want to take more --

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question, the member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It sounds as though the leader of the third party is trying to wriggle off the hook and will be voting with us on third reading.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to ask this question to the Premier of the province. As the Premier is in his office and not here, I'll have to ask the Solicitor General, I guess.

In light of the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations refuses to concede that there are some very genuine problems that will exist as you begin this extravaganza of casino gambling in this province, would you comment on the fact that organized crime is very much likely to move in a very big way in the province?

In fact, there's a quote from William Jahoda, who is a former mob overseer of gambling in Chicago, who said the following: "In a May 16, 1992, letter to the Chicago Crime Commission, Jahoda warned that converging on Chicago 'will be every pimp, burglar, drifter, car thief, booster, arsonist, counterfeiter, prostitute, dope dealer, con man, hijacker, extortionist and worse."'

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There's no more on your list?

Mr Bradley: I ask the minister, would he and his friend the Premier, who runs everything in that government, like to see an Ontario as described in this particular letter?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I will refer the question to the minister responsible for the casino issue on behalf of the government.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'll be happy to answer the question from my friend from the opposition. Without any insult to anybody from the Star, I have to say that the Star story is a tired old rehash of clippings from the last decade. It has nothing to do with the reality of --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Churley: I can see I'm in trouble now, but it's true. Had the Star bothered to talk to OPP Commissioner O'Grady or Windsor Police Chief Adkin, they would have been told by them that the situation is well in hand. We have to remember that the OPP is responsible for the security at the casino and, unlike the opposition, the government has full confidence in the OPP.

I just want to read this to you; you'll want to hear this, I know: In an interview last week, Windsor Police Chief Adkin said that proper steps and planning concerning crime at the Windsor casino were already taking place and that it is already paying dividends. This work being done will stop criminal influence before it happens. That is a quote from the Windsor police chief.

Mr Bradley: Virtually everybody in any centre where there has been casino gambling, at the beginning, before it starts, has had the same line before the cards are dealt, but after the cards are dealt -- I ask the minister, and I really wanted to direct this to the Premier or the Solicitor General: In light of the fact that under the social contract legislation there are bound to be cutbacks because of the less money that's going to be available to police forces, that there are bound to be cutbacks to police forces across this province, does she not understand that we're bound to see an increase in crime at the very same time that police forces are being cut back in their resources and their numbers? Does she not shudder at the thought of Robert Fuesel of the Chicago Crime Commission saying that the legalization of casino gambling would fuel a renaissance of organized crime at the very time that our police force resources and numbers will be diminished?

Hon Ms Churley: No, I'm not concerned about that statement because I don't accept that statement. The mob has been driven out of the large casino operations completely, and I have full confidence in the OPP and the police community, which we've been working with from the beginning.

I have lots of other quotes. We hear a lot of the negatives, perceived negatives, from the opposition, but there are all kinds of positives that have been talked about out there. For instance: "If you want to do it right, that's the way to do it....you have to go slow or things go wrong." This quote is from the US gambling industry analyst on the Ontario government's deliberate -- some are saying too slow -- efforts to create a tight regulatory system of regulations. That's just one quote of many. If only you had another supplementary, I'd give you others.

We are being noticed around the world, in a very complimentary way, in terms of how we brought the police in from the very beginning to set up a very tight regulatory and enforcement system. I'll be glad to share more information with the member about this later.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Early last month, there was a meeting in Vancouver of the ministers of trade from across this country dealing with interprovincial trade barriers. There were only two provinces that were not represented at that meeting: One was Ontario and the other was Saskatchewan, two New Democratic Party governments.

Coming out of that meeting, Madam Minister, the province of British Columbia declared quite boldly that it was in favour of interprovincial trade barriers. Does your absence from that meeting, along with your other NDP colleague from Saskatchewan, and the attitude of the BC government reflect Ontario's attitude towards interprovincial trade barriers, and is that the reason that you are reluctant to take action on the present situation with construction workers crossing the border from Quebec into Ontario while Ontario workers do not have the same right to go back the other way? In other words, are you acting in good faith in terms of trying to resolve this problem or do you have a philosophical problem with resolving the problem we are now facing in eastern Ontario?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I don't have a philosophical problem with resolving the issues. I don't quite understand the member's question. He seemed to indicate that the BC position was in favour of trade barriers, and was that why I wouldn't deal with quick action against Quebec, which would be to erect trade barriers, which would suggest, then, that I was in favour of trade barriers. But what I've been saying is that we don't want to take unilateral steps unless we are forced, with no other choice. We would like to negotiate to bring trade barriers down.

I can say to the member that my absence at that meeting is of no import with respect to the position that we have taken. I had intended to go right up until that very morning. That day we had both a priorities and planning cabinet and caucus meeting with respect to Bill 48 and the legislation coming in, and I was asked by the Premier to say we sent officials. I called and made my position known to the chair. I had that passed on and have in fact been in touch with people subsequent to that. So I did miss the actual afternoon of the meeting but have continued to pursue the issue.

1430

Mr Sterling: Maybe the minister doesn't understand how important this issue is to the people of eastern Ontario, particularly the construction workers in eastern Ontario. When you drive through the subdivision in the city of Kanata, which I represent and which is fortunately building a few houses there, the street is littered with trucks from the province of Quebec, whereas the workers and the carpenters from Ontario do not have the same right to drive their trucks over to the province of Quebec.

This Legislature passed a resolution in April telling the government of Ontario to take retaliatory actions equivalent to the province of Quebec. We now have people from the province of Quebec, the right to work group from the province of Quebec, saying, "Ontario, take retaliatory action against the politicians in our own province." In other words, it acts against their own interests. They see that this is so unjust.

Madam Minister, you can say, "We are having bilateral discussions." The Liberals had bilateral discussions. Our former government had bilateral discussions. They came to nothing. The only thing that has got Quebec off its seat with regard to being fair is what Frank McKenna has done in New Brunswick.

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

Mr Sterling: This Legislature has said, "Do the same thing here." That was given endorsement by the Conservatives, by the New Democratic Party members and some of the Liberals who sat in this Legislature at that time.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question.

Mr Sterling: Madam Minister, when are you going to take action?

Hon Ms Lankin: I have answered questions to this member, to the member from the Liberal Party and on other occasions to other members in this House, and I have indicated that there is action being taken. I have spelled that out and I am going to spell that out one more time.

We have entered into negotiations with all the other provinces with respect to removal of trade barriers in provinces right across this country. Those negotiations are taking place as we speak. They are ongoing.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The date. Give us a date.

Hon Ms Lankin: There is a framework which has been signed that has time frames and dates in it. As the member opposite keeps nattering away about a date, let him pick up the document and look at it himself. The dates are there in terms of when we will be reporting back and when the negotiations will be concluded.

Part of entering into the negotiations was an agreement on the part of every province that we would not unilaterally erect new trade barriers during the course of negotiations. While you're at the table bargaining, you don't put new issues on the table that have to be negotiated away. We are trying to respect that. We have made it clear to Quebec that we need action quickly on several issues, and the construction issue is of prime importance to us.

In closing, let me say those meetings will take place bilaterally with Quebec, as well as the multilateral talks. If action is not achieved over the course of this summer, we will take action, we will take steps, we will support, as I've indicated to this member, the intent of the resolution that was passed by this House.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I received a phone call from a constituent this morning in response to an article that appeared in one of the Toronto media which made its way up to Timmins. The question was around the provincial sales tax that is being applied on the insured portions of the CMHC mortgages. What was being alleged in that article was that basically that would make it very difficult for people to be able to take advantage of that particular program by virtue of the cost. I'm wondering if you can give any assurances to that particular individual on that question.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I missed some of the question, but I'll attempt to answer it and he can pick up what I miss in a supplementary.

The tax on the insurance did in fact come down with the budget this year. The impact of the tax I do not believe is onerous. I was reading in one of the tabloids -- I can't remember whether it was the National Enquirer or the Toronto Sun -- a story which used the example of a $200,000 home. The cost of the tax on the insurance on that $200,000 home, I think, would be around $380, as I recall, which I don't think is an onerous burden.

I know no one likes to pay more tax on anything. I appreciate that. But at the same time, I believe that the way in which the tax increases in this budget were designed to help us get our financial house in order was not an unfair application of the retail sales tax.

Mr Bisson: By way of supplementary, I just want to know what kind of notification, if any, was given in regard to moving on this particular initiative to home owners and buyers.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's a more difficult question to answer. It was announced in the budget, so there was notification in that sense. Then right after the budget there was a notification went out. Now, we don't know who the potential home buyers are, of course, but there was a notification went out to CMHC indicating that this was indeed the case. That's my understanding of what the old Ministry of Revenue sent out, and then the CMHC would notify home buyers as to what the tax was and how they would actually pay it.

But I would remind you that in the example I used, it's one fifth of 1%, so I don't think that's an onerous burden, although, as I said earlier, I could understand why people don't like to pay it. But I think that it's not an unfair tax.

CONDUCT OF MINISTERIAL STAFF

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. There was a recent article in a Toronto daily which discussed the dismissal of two members of the Minister of Citizenship's personal political staff for interfering in a case before the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

There are a number of issues raised in this article that call for clarification. What specific instructions, I would like to know, did the minister give her political staff concerning contact with the Human Rights Commission, and can the minister provide this Legislature with a copy of these guidelines? I'll be rather interested to see that.

I know it is normal for members of the minister's political staff to contact the human rights officers about specific cases. What specific rule was it that these two members of the minister's personal political staff broke? What exactly was that transgression that merited their dismissal? The minister said that she did not ask for detail. Then what information did the minister have upon which to base her decision to dismiss these two members of her staff?

In conclusion, the article says that the minister found out about these matters after the member's personal political staff offered their resignations to the deputy minister. Why would the minister's personal staff submit their dismissal forms to the deputy minister?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): In fact the member opposite has been very inclusive in his questions and I don't know if the Speaker will permit me to answer each and every one of them because usually we don't have enough time. But I think what I will do, first of all, is talk very clearly about this particular issue and say, as I've mentioned very often in the House, that political interference in specific cases that are before the Human Rights Commission is not tolerated. People know this in the House and we all respect that particular type of issue. The minister has a responsibility for the process of the commission, but the actual interfering in or inquiring into a particular case is not to be done, and we know that very clearly.

One of the questions that the member opposite asked was about what type of instruction I had personally given to the members of my staff. We have a written protocol. It's not just instructions, but there is a written protocol that very, very clearly outlines the procedures that are to happen if a case should come before the staff.

In fact, if I might say, this gives me the opportunity right now to say to everybody in the House that I often get letters, I get inquiries, I get calls from the member opposite who has asked this question about a specific case. I always have to write back -- and I know, Mr Speaker, you're telling me to move on -- but I always have to tell the person who has been inquiring about the case that we cannot inquire specifically about a particular case, nor should the minister know about an individual case.

1440

Mr Curling: I don't think that the minister has answered my question at all. First, if I did call your office about a specific case, I would talk about the human rights, the delay and the long time it takes to process cases. I'm talking about procedure.

I ask you to share with us your guideline, and I also ask you, how is it you could make a decision about two members, when of course you did not hear the specific case? I would like to know specifically why those members of your personal political staff handed their resignation to the deputy minister and not to you.

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, I'd like to clarify to the member opposite, there was a breach of a protocol, the written protocol, and to be specific and honest with the member opposite, the article that was written in the Toronto Star I think was very well done and very well documented. That particular area about where the members had left the employ of the ministry and that the resignations had been handed in to the deputy minister unfortunately was erroneous, but that is one small little detail that unfortunately happened in that particular article. The rest of the article I think was fairly clear.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, over a month ago, this Legislature approved a plan of action for how to deal with the Quebec situation. We had NDP members, we had some Liberal members, we had all the Progressive Conservative members endorse a motion by the member for Carleton that called upon the government to follow the plan of action that was taken by the Premier of New Brunswick in dealing with Quebec.

Minister, because that motion asked you to do the same thing for Ontario on behalf of all Ontario workers, particularly those in eastern Ontario -- and I might add, it goes all the way up northeastern Ontario as well -- I ask you this: Do you have so little respect for the Legislature that you have chosen to use your executive position to overrule the vote and the will of the Legislature and to ignore what we told you to do in that motion that was passed right here in the Legislature of Ontario?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I have a lot more respect for this Legislature in terms of providing honest interpretation of events than some members in the Legislature.

Let me say very directly I've responded on this issue today a number of times and a number of times in the past. With respect to the resolution, I have indicated the resolution, which calls for us to take unilateral action to erect new trade barriers, would also be in violation of an agreement that the province of Ontario has entered into with all of the provinces and on which we are currently in negotiations.

Mr Harris: That is the direction you were given by the Legislature. That is what the Legislature asked you to do.

Hon Ms Lankin: If the leader of the third party would be quiet for a moment, I will try to answer his question.

Let me continue to say that with respect to the resolution, I have also indicated that we have requested and have agreement from the province of Quebec to enter into bilateral negotiations with respect to these very pressing issues. That meeting will be coming up very soon. If no action is forthcoming as a result of that meeting, then we will be looking very seriously at taking actions which would be retaliatory of nature. I can see that happening over the course of this summer and responding in fact to the intent of the resolution that was passed by this House.

Mr Harris: I listened very carefully. What the minister said was: "I don't like what the Legislature asked me to do. Therefore I'm not going to do it." That is exactly what you said. You said, "I and the cabinet and the Premier, and me, the minister, I have a different way of dealing with this." The Legislature directed you as to how you would deal with it, and you have chosen to flout the Legislature and say, "The heck with the will of the majority of the people of this province," and you're going to proceed in your own way in spite of what we told you.

Could I ask you this: The minister, in addition to flouting the Legislature, says -- instead of attending a meeting because she was busy with something else and this issue wasn't as important as this other meeting and you couldn't reschedule any of your other meetings on Bill 48; they had to be right at that time.

Could the minister table with this Legislature the letter or the brief that she sent out to that ministers' meeting? We have not seen that, nobody knows what you have said and quite frankly I hereby challenge your commitment to dropping the interprovincial trade barriers, based upon the fact you wouldn't bring it up at the first ministers' meetings on the Constitution. You have never been serious about it. Will you today table that brief you sent out west so we can see how serious you are about interprovincial trade barriers?

Hon Ms Lankin: Is the member questioning that I don't want to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers or that I don't want to erect new ones with respect to Quebec? I don't think they know what they're arguing over there from the third party.

Mr Harris: We know exactly what we are arguing, and you got a clear direction from the Legislature and you chose to ignore it.

Hon Ms Lankin: I have not said that I have no respect for a private member's resolution that was passed in this House during private members' hour. I have said that with respect to that resolution --

Mr Harris: Oh, it's private members' hour so it doesn't count. Is that what it is? We are wasting our time every Thursday. Private members don't count. That's exactly the problem. Why do you schedule it if it doesn't count?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The leader of the third party, please come to order.

Hon Ms Lankin: I hope the press gallery realizes that we really understood there wasn't an issue for today, so we're all working at trying to create one here.

I say to the member opposite that with respect to the process of negotiations, both multilaterally and bilaterally --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: I say to the member, and I want to try to walk through this very briefly one more time, that we are in multilateral negotiations. We have, at that table, agreed not to erect any trade barriers. We have tabled positions and I have been at meetings and have argued the serious intent of Ontario to facilitate bringing down interprovincial trade barriers. Bilaterally with Quebec we are trying to address as a priority issue the issue of construction workers, and particularly as it affects eastern and northeastern Ontario.

If we are unable, over the course of the summer through negotiations, to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion, I will be prepared to recommend to my cabinet colleagues taking steps that are in keeping with the intent of the resolution that was passed.

That doesn't not respect the resolution --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- but it does try to put that into the reality of a set of negotiations. May I say that the member who sponsored the resolution said very directly to me --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- that he hoped it was a pressure tactic on Quebec to bring it to the table. The party there also recognizes --

The Speaker: Please take your seat. New question, the member for Durham Centre.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for recognizing me today. I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Mr Harris: The brief kind of hedged a bit didn't it? Why don't you table it? That was the question, dummy.

Hon Ms Lankin: Excuse me, Mr Speaker, sexist.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Durham Centre, please take his seat.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): You told us to shut up, but when you are called a dummy, it is sexist.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): You told him to shut up. What is that? What did you say to him?

The Speaker: I ask the members of the House to come to order, including the member for Oakville South, immediately.

I had recognized the honourable member for Durham Centre before all the racket and I will now allow the member for Durham Centre to place his question.

1450

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): You have double standards, don't forget.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Mills will come to order immediately.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, this is the second time within a week I have noticed behaviour from members of the opposition towards a female member of this cabinet which I would like you to take under consideration --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West will remain seated.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- because I don't believe they would use those words against a male member of this cabinet.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Why don't you talk out the real issue, that's the Quebec issue. You are supposed to be representing eastern Ontario in cabinet and you do nothing. What a bunch of crap.

The Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville should come to order.

To the member for Ottawa Centre, I acknowledge that the level of language in here often is not appropriate.

Mr Turnbull: The double standard.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's not a double standard.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I think that the best a Speaker can do is to implore members to have respect for Parliament. If they choose not to show respect for Parliament, they will have to wrestle the question within themselves. This afternoon's display is not worthy of any member in this assembly. I would ask the members to allow the member for Durham Centre to place his question so that we can complete question period.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would quite agree with the statements that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has just made. I would also like to point out, with respect to the point of order from the member for Ottawa South, that I think there were inappropriate comments made on both sides of this Legislature and I would appreciate it if you would appreciate once in a while that there are two sides to this House.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since you are dealing with the member for Ottawa Centre's comments about the behaviour of members of the Legislature, I thought I heard her say -- I could be incorrect -- "especially the male members of the opposition." I simply would like the Speaker to take into consideration the condescending attitude that I have seen by the Premier and certain members of the government side towards the leader of the official opposition over the past several months.

Hon Ms Gigantes: We're not talking about condescension here. We're talking about terms in language.

The Speaker: Order. In case it wasn't absolutely clear to anyone, I was referring to the conduct of this chamber and not any member in particular. It rests with each one of the elected members here to ensure that we have appropriate decorum in this chamber.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy, and it frankly arises from some concern which a lifelong friend of mine has written to me about.

This friend of mine lives in northeastern Ontario. He is a director of a number of environmental groups, as I have been in the past. Frankly, although he comes from northeastern Ontario, some of his concerns are the same as my own, and that is in regard to Bill 143, which as you know was the Interim Waste Authority bill.

My friend, whose name is Dr Richard Denton, speaks of concerns about his area as not being a willing host for Metro's garbage. He is concerned that Mr Harris has said that he would repeal Bill 143. My concern is that 143 stay in place and that Durham not have to deal with Metro's garbage any more than Kirkland Lake does.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): In response to my friend, Bill 143 has been passed by the Legislature. It is a statute of the province of Ontario. The government of Ontario is committed to that law. The IWA process will proceed according to its mandate, taking into account Bill 143 and government policy. I can only speak for this government. This government remains committed to Bill 143 and ensuring that there will be a full environmental assessment on any decisions made by the IWA in its search for proper sites for the garbage for the greater Toronto area.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to bring to the attention of the House that the Minister of Health in Jamaica is in the Speaker's gallery and we could pay attention to that and recognize him.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the member's point of order. Indeed, we had the opportunity to introduce the honourable member to the assembly earlier.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The honourable minister mentioned that because Bill 143 was a statute of Ontario, therefore the government was committed to the law. The same was not true of the boundaries negotiations act in the case of London.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. Petitions? The member for York Centre.

Interjections.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a petition signed by 133 residents of my community of York Centre and surrounding communities, including Rexdale and other areas, patients of a number of doctors in my community: Dr Patricia Waite, Dr Trudy McNabb and Dr John Dawson, who practises in the Richmond Hill area. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That 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."

As I said, sir, this petition is signed by 143 residents in my riding and I affix my signature to it as well.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that's signed by many scores of people from Fergus. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support this petition and have signed it.

SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS CONSERVATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition signed by a number of Scarborough constituents and friends of the Scarborough environment.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Scarborough Bluffs are of a distinct nature, unique to the North American continent; and

"Erosion of the bluffs and loss of their face has been proceeding at an accelerating and alarming rate in the past year, particularly in the Sylvan Drive area; and

"Construction of a stabilizing lakefront road has already secured adjacent bluffs; and

"The lakefront road will be one component of the waterfront trail being developed by the waterfront trust,

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Natural Resources to make securing of the bluffs an immediate priority and to enable the Metro Toronto conservation authority to proceed with necessary construction."

I'm pleased to add my signature to this.

1500

GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've signed the petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have 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 provisions of quality health care services across the province;

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

This is signed by hundreds of people from my constituency, and I also attach my signature.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"That the social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

"That the government withdraw Bill 48 and, in place of this bill, that the government work cooperatively with the public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services."

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Brant-Haldimand.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A member when he submits a petition must sign it and indicate whether or not he supports the petition.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: There's no point of order; please take your seat. Please, there's too much noise in the House. I can't hear anything.

Petitions? The member for Mississauga North.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to this assembly but also to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I had recognized the member for Brant-Haldimand; my apologies.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I'm always prepared to wait my turn.

The petition reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

It's signed by 301 residents of my riding and adjoining areas, and I've affixed my signature in support.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I have a petition signed by 131 residents of the province, mostly in the riding of Parry Sound.

"Whereas I believe in the need of keeping Sundays as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom, the elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families;

"Whereas the amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated;

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act."

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the people of Ontario:

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

"That free speech and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"That the social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

I'm glad to affix my signature with these many hundreds that are here.

GAMBLING

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 65 members of the Strathroy United Church, who petition the government of Ontario to "cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition signed by numerous people from the Ottawa-Carleton area, and I appreciate that I have the opportunity to present this petition before the House recesses. The petition reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"The amendment included in Bill 38 to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have affixed my name and have voted against this bill on second reading.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas proposals made under 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:

I've signed my name to this petition. It is from 125 concerned citizens of London and other parts of southwestern Ontario.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am herewith presenting a petition signed by 546 people who are in opposition to Bill 38, which legalizes wide-open Sunday shopping. I have affixed my signature to this petition.

DAY CARE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly, and primarily to the Minister of Community and Social Services. It reads:

"As a result of Bob Rae's expenditure control plan, the region of Peel has proposed to discontinue the family day care program. This will affect 932 children, ages six weeks to 10 years, in the region of Peel.

"Family day care is provided for working lower-income families, as well as working single parents. These cuts will leave all 932 children without safe, regulated day care.

"We as a community could be faced with higher taxes. How? Not only will the providers be added to our current unemployment lists, but parents may be forced to quit work because they cannot afford the high cost of day care. The result: increased usage of the welfare and mother's allowance system."

This has been signed by hundreds of concerned people: providers and people who require the use of this system in the region of Peel. It is to this Legislative Assembly and particularly the Minister of Community and Social Services, and I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition from constituents in my riding of Dufferin-Peel:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for quality of life, religious freedom and family time. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

I've signed this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition from about 30 people in my riding, different parts of the riding, opposed to casino gambling and the introduction of video lottery terminals.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas these proposals will enable government to unilaterally and arbitrarily restrict payments for psychotherapy; and

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

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

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw the proposal to restrict payments for psychotherapy and withdraw the proposal to allow the cabinet to make decisions with respect to the number of times patients may receive particular insured services and set maximums with respect thereto. The government of Ontario must reaffirm its commitment to the process of joint management and rational reform of the delivery of medical services in the province as specified under the OMA/government framework agreement."

I've affixed my name to this petition and agree with it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RECALL ELECTION REQUEST ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉCLENCHEMENT D'ÉLECTIONS PAR PÉTITION

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

Bill 59, An Act to provide for Petitions requiring the Premier to request the Calling of an Election / Loi exigeant que le premier ministre, sur pétition, demande que soit tenue une élection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any comments?

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Very briefly, the bill requires the Premier to request that the Lieutenant Governor call a general election if a petition asking the Premier to make such a request is filed with the Speaker. The petition must meet certain requirements, including requirements that it not have been signed within the first year following the most recent general election and that the number of persons who sign be at least equal to two thirds of the number of persons who voted in that election.

It's my belief that there's a general sentiment and a mood and certainly a willingness now for people to look at some very fundamental and significant parliamentary reform. Therein lies the intent and the genesis of this particular bill.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

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

Bill 60, An Act to amend the Election Act / Loi modifiant la Loi électorale.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): This bill will extend the proxy voting rights to elderly persons, disabled persons and persons away for personal reasons. The bill will also extend the time limit for an application to vote by proxy by allowing the person appointed as a proxy voter to present the application to vote by proxy on polling day.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

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

Bill 66, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This bill will put into effect the proposals contained in the Ontario budget of April 30, 1992. The bill will also provide legislative support for a number of administrative initiatives announced in the 1993 budget and make certain technical amendments to bring the Corporations Tax Act in line with the federal Income Tax Act.

As announced in 1992, the small business income tax rate will be reduced from 10% to 9.5%, and the income tax rate for manufacturing and processing, mining, farming, logging and fishing will be reduced from 14.5% to 13.5%. This bill will impose a temporary income tax surtax of 10% on banks for the period from May 1992 to October 1993 and increase the capital tax paid by banks from 1% to 1.12%.

This bill will also simplify corporate tax instalment requirements by bringing them more in line with those of the federal government and certain other provinces. Changes will also be made to enable the charging of proper amounts of interest for delinquent instalments.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if we could ask the Treasurer to further elaborate on the bill that he has just introduced. It is relating to a budget of two years ago, and he has given no indications of the retroactivity provisions of the bill and other significant impacts that it will have.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): That's no point of order.

Report continues in volume B.

July 6, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JURY DUTY

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

NIAGARA GUARDIAN

SENIOR CITIZENS

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ERIC NYSTEDT

CHILDREN OF DIVORCE

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAMBLING

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

ONTARIO HYDRO

SOCIAL CONTRACT

GAMBLING

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

RETAIL SALES TAX

CONDUCT OF MINISTERIAL STAFF

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

WASTE DISPOSAL

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS CONSERVATION

GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

GAMBLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

DAY CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RECALL ELECTION REQUEST ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉCLENCHEMENT D'ÉLECTIONS PAR PÉTITION

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS