The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Farmers across the province are facing one of the most difficult springs in their history. Not only are commodity prices staying at Depression levels, but the uncertainty of the GATT negotiations makes it hard for even the most optimistic farmers to plan for the future. Farmers have had to face this uncertain future with the added burden of the Minister of Agriculture and Food's warning that there would be no additional assistance because "the province's cupboard was bare."

Last week the Minister of Agriculture and Food's budget predictions came true. The ministry's total capital and operating budget was slashed by $40 million over last year, a reduction of more than 6%. There will be some new program announcements from the minister over the next few weeks, no doubt, but they will be pared down from last year's levels. The bottom line is that farmers will be getting less help this year.

But farmers are wondering why the cupboard is bare for agriculture when the budget for Management Board of Cabinet went up by $30 million. Is this increase for the extra civil servants required to cut the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's funding? Farmers are wondering why the cupboard is bare for agriculture when the Attorney General's budget went up by $42 million. Is this to pay for the extra civil servants required to file farm bankruptcies? Farmers are wondering why the cupboard is bare for agriculture when the Ministry of Housing's budget increased by $200 million. Is this to make sure there is non-profit housing available --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Brant-Haldimand, unfortunately your time has expired.

TVONTARIO

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): This is Education Week here in Ontario, and today I would like to draw the attention of this Legislature to the role played by TVOntario, our province's educational broadcaster. In particular, I would like to point out TVO's literacy programming.

I would also like to point out another aspect of TVO, that of broadcasting question period and ensuring that all Ontarians have access to TVOntario programs. I've been surprised by how many people watch question period, but these same people constantly tell me that the question period rebroadcast should be on at an earlier time. In my area, 12:30 to 1:30 in the morning is not acceptable.

TVO continues to serve our youth through new programs which encourage literacy. I know that TVO has been active in promoting literacy, and we all certainly agree with that.

This year TVOntario has produced Reading Rap for elementary school children who are reluctant readers. This program offers tips on how to choose a book, make sense of text and visualize a story. For younger children, Bookmice also celebrates the wonder of books. TVOntario has also produced Let's Read Together to help parents encourage their children to read well.

I strongly believe that TVOntario was created to bring educational programming to all of Ontario. I am just disappointed that many communities, such as Cornwall, do not receive TVOntario. If this government has money to give to the Canadian Auto Workers to teach union songs, then surely we can provide TVO with sufficient money to bring the program to areas like Cornwall.

JAMAICAN MAROONS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm very proud to welcome to our Legislature today a delegation from Jamaica's Accompong Town maroon community. They are truly remarkable people.

The maroons are the descendants of African slaves who, in the words of historian Richard Hart, "set themselves free." They were victorious in their struggle against slavery, and a historic treaty was signed in 1739. It recognized the completely independent status of the maroons, but not without hostility. The rebellious Jamaican maroons were sentenced to exile in Canada. Today the descendants of these brave individuals make up Nova Scotia's black community. The delegation has made Toronto just one of its stops across the country to share its history and culture.

Honourable members, please welcome the maroon delegates, headed by Colonel Martin Luther Wright, sitting in the east members' gallery.

I would also like to thank the Jane-Finch Concerned Citizens' Organization, a non-profit organization in my riding of Yorkview, for sponsoring the maroon delegation.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): In last Thursday's budget, a $10-million cut to the Ontario student assistance program was announced. The government now expects students receiving OSAP to make a greater contribution through summer employment.

That this government penalizes students by reducing OSAP payments is perplexing, to say the least. In the Premier's address on January 21, in the throne speech on May 6 and again in the budget, the government said that education and training are crucial as we strive to compete in an internationally challenging economy. Surely these promises must mean increased accessibility and affordability for all qualified students. That the NDP government has instead chosen to reduce accessibility to post-secondary education raises major questions about its commitment to higher education today so we can compete effectively tomorrow.

The search for summer jobs has always been a difficult one, but this year, in a time of recession, students will be competing not only with other students; they will compete with an unprecedented number of unemployed. How are these students expected to contribute more if they cannot even find jobs?

This afternoon in the standing committee on social development, members of the Legislature will have an opportunity to hear about the full impact of all these OSAP changes on students in this province.

1340

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today marks the beginning of Motorcycle Awareness Month. This year's theme is Ride Aware: Drive with Care.

In Ontario there are more than 120,000 registered motorcycle vehicles, but many car drivers still have not adjusted to sharing the road with motorcycles or mopeds. Research from the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council shows that more than 75% of motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, usually a passenger automobile. In 66% of all such cases, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle's right of way and caused the accident.

The most frequent type of accident is the car turning left in front of the motorcyclist at an intersection. How many car drivers are guilty of not seeing a motorcycle at an intersection? Better highway safety between car and motorcycle is the key. Motorcyclists and motorists need to mix in traffic without causing harm to each other. To do so, car drivers must better understand more about motorcycles and why riders do some of the things they do. For example, minor road hazards like potholes and railroad tracks are easy to overcome in cars, but a motorcycle must change lanes, sometimes suddenly, to avert a pothole.

Motorcycle Awareness Month is designed to make drivers of all vehicles realize that the road must be shared. Good driving benefits motorcycles, cars, bicycles and pedestrians. So today let's all remember this: that we are really interested in being aware. Drive with care.

LARRY O'ROURKE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Two weeks ago the city of Chatham lost a little bit of history. Alderman Larry O'Rourke, an elder statesman, died at the age of 56 after a lengthy illness. His death came just months after winning his seventh straight municipal election. Although I had occasion to disagree with Mr O'Rourke, I know that I and the rest of Chatham will remember him as a fighter.

He wasn't a partisan politician, ready to forecast doom and gloom and point the finger. Instead, he offered solutions and worked for change. Ironically, during his last election he spoke of recovery. He predicted that Chatham would rebound from the recession and become stronger than ever, but Mr O'Rourke will not be there to lend a helping hand this time around.

Although he chaired the city's finance committee for the last seven years, Mr O'Rourke's illness stopped him from taking the lead this time. Still, he did play a role in keeping municipal taxes in line, once again despite being in and out of the hospital several times since November's election.

More important, Mr O'Rourke was never one to pull punches: He told it like it was. Whether criticizing council's travel expenses or going toe to toe with the mayor, Mr O'Rourke never backed down from something he believed in. The candour and openness he brought to the council floor is something every legislative body could use an extra dose of.

On behalf of the Legislature, I wish to extend to his wife, Barbara, his four children and three grandchildren our deepest sympathy. I know the citizens of Chatham will miss Mr O'Rourke.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I rise today to congratulate the Treasurer and the Premier for gaining the applause from not only the tax fighter, Mr Harris, the member from North Bay, but also Don Mazankowski, with respect to their budgetary successes.

I might say that should be budgetary "excesses." For some strange reason, people in Ontario now believe it is acceptable government public financing policy to be running deficits of $10 billion per year. I might note that these people are spending even more, because they have, by the trickery in their numbers-fudging, presented us with the prospect of deferred payments from this year to next, of paying interest costs on the money they are not putting into the teachers' superannuation fund, of deferring the payments that were made to people who are creditors of the government from one fiscal year to the other, of making some transactions with themselves, and of course all of us remember the Cadillac Fairview players and their ultimate result.

This is a very big win for the Premier and the Treasurer in the short term. This is a nasty, nasty loss for the people of Ontario in the long term, because we again see our deficit climbing to almost double-digit deficit figures in the billions of dollars which we will ultimately have to pay off.

RED SHIELD APPEAL

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Tonight is the annual Red Shield Appeal fund-raising drive. The recession has affected everyone. The demand for help is great, but the economic difficulties of the time mean those with the ability to contribute are fewer.

The Salvation Army helps the homeless, the needy and the less fortunate in our society, both in North York and all across Canada. The Salvation Army has a very simple criterion for providing assistance, and that is need. I'm honoured and privileged to be able to serve as this year's North York chairman.

The Red Shield goal for 1992 is $45 million; of this amount, 29% needs to be raised in Metropolitan Toronto. In 1991 over 82,000 families in Metro Toronto alone benefited from emergency assistance from the army, and almost 140,000 men were accommodated in the army's hostel for men. There are 59 other services in the Metro Toronto area alone meeting needs ranging from children on the streets to senior citizens.

I wish to say thank you to all of those willing to help their communities and those less fortunate on this one night a year and to encourage anyone who can spare two hours to come out tonight and join us. Call 489-0094 for placement. For those at home, when a canvasser calls this evening, give generously. It's one way to make a difference.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): It's a great pleasure to rise today on behalf of the people of Brantford. April 24, 1992, will become known as a milestone in the history of Brantford. It was on this day that our NDP government announced an additional $1.8-million grant to Icomm, Brantford's Interactive Communications Complex, and the relocation of the computer and telecommunications services unit of the Ministry of Government Services to our very fine city. The headlines in the Expositor, Brantford's excellent daily newspaper, say it all: "Queen's Park Makes the Right Call" and "Sun Shines on Brantford."

To show our community's appreciation of these decisions, a Brantford delegation headed by our fine mayor, Bob Taylor, and including Garry Macdonald, president of the Brant and District Labour Council, Heather Bright of the chamber of commerce and Anne Westaway Palk and Jim Letwin of the citizens' committee met with the Premier to personally thank him this morning.

At this meeting, an example of the public message of thanks was unveiled. This message here will be in the malls in Brantford and the Toronto area, and since billboards are such a hot rage, this will go on a billboard in Brantford thanking our government.

I firmly believe our community will be able to use these tools given to the people of Brantford by our government to achieve the economic success we have missed out on and that is part of our community. The people of Brantford are proud to say Premier Bob Rae and our government made the right call.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all members that previous speakers have requested that members not bring displays into the chamber. Indeed this Speaker concurs in that wise decision and would certainly appreciate it if members in the future would not be so quick to bring displays into the chamber.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I think we have unanimous consent to make some statements here today by all parties. That is my understanding.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

1350

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I had asked for unanimous consent so that members of the Legislature could address what is a growing concern in Ontario and of course in Canada.

Over the weekend, as you will recall, the Premier called a special meeting with members of Toronto's black community to discuss what the Premier has characterized as "a disturbing pattern that is very troubling for people." The Premier was referring to the perception among members of the black community that the justice system in Ontario works differently depending on your race.

As you will know, Mr Speaker, the primary concern of members of the black committee the Premier met with yesterday is that the justice system does not treat them equally, that the justice system has failed them in a very profound way. It is important to note that these individuals are not looking for special treatment; all they ask for is equal treatment.

This issue is not new in Ontario. While in government, I participated on many occasions in meetings, including one which was called by the Premier of the day, Premier Peterson, to tackle some of the same concerns. Following these meetings, a number of important changes were implemented. The Police Services Act brought in employment equity plans for police and created a special investigative unit. However, much was left to be done.

We as legislators have the ability to implement change. Changes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, re-establishing the independence of the special investigations unit and following through on commitments to police retraining will help. These may be only partial solutions, but they're extremely vital.

The reason I asked for this unanimous consent today was the belief that members of Ontario's visible minority community need to know that we all stand behind change which will fight prejudice and alleviate concerns about unequal treatment before the law. Mr Premier, I welcome you and all members to join me as we send out that message today.

Mr Speaker, you will have noticed that the comments I have made were written, because there are certain points that had to be said. But there is the other emotive part of it, the feeling. I, as a black member of this society, fear. I fear in the sense of my daughter going to work or to school and having to confront the fact that in this society at times we're seeing these murders of women. Fear because of the fact too that she is black, and I don't feel that she's protected. I feel it unfair that those who are there to protect her -- that people feel they're not being protected.

This feeling is not only in this parent. It is in all the parents of the black community. The justice system has failed the black community. It has failed many other people in the community, and if it has failed the black community or any other community, it has failed society as a whole.

The chicken does come home to roost. What we saw in Los Angeles and what we saw in New York City or Atlanta or Vancouver or Halifax or Montreal are signs. I hate to use the word "fortunate," but we in Toronto see these signals. If we don't act on those signals, the consequences will be severe, and no individual Legislature can ever quell that. But we have the ability to do that; we have the ability now, before it gets out of hand in marches and people stop listening. People turn upon themselves after they are treated awfully.

The jails will reflect it, the courts will reflect it, the human rights commissions will reflect that people want their system working for them. It's a painful time. It is quite coincidental that in the audience, in the balcony, we have today the maroons from Jamaica, a successful community that has fought that kind of racism and been successful at it. I am saying this because it can be done. I know every member in this House, every one I know personally and I think I know them all, is committed to a society that is fair and where people can be treated with respect, whether they are black or not.

It is not good enough to say that the system is there and will work for you. We have to implement and enforce those things. If we scream that the special investigations unit is not working, it is not self-appointed blacks who are saying that. Thanks to those who had spoken so loudly, so emotionally about it, we had a change in that system. It takes the enforcement and the government. I know that we are committed to that kind of cause. It's painful, it hurts to feel there is no future. I know we can change that.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Once again we've been reminded that we must all live together. Violence will not solve anything. The difference between the have-nots and the haves will always exist, but we must learn to work and live together constructively.

Racism hurts everyone. The cost is great. Human dignity and pride are eroded and our development as a people is stunted. Racism affects our wellbeing and prosperity. In Ontario, a province that welcomes newcomers from every corner of the world, we have worked hard to build a harmonious society. Now it is more critical than ever. We must all stand together resolute and united in our contempt for racism. We must examine new approaches to foster greater understanding, respect and tolerance of those who are different from us.

There are underlying causes of racial tension in our society. Instead of exposing labels and pointing fingers at groups or individuals, let us examine the causes and find ways to eliminate these tensions and hurts.

Probably one of the most divisive things in our society is poverty itself. Poverty has its roots in poor education, leading to missed opportunities. I challenge the government to find new ways, through education and social services, to ensure the fullest and fairest of opportunities for all our children in this province.

Every child should have an equal opportunity to succeed. As it turns out now, one in six children in this province lives in poverty. Their families rely on food banks to survive. Children who go to school hungry often fall behind their peers. Their attention is on their empty stomach and not on their lesson.

Our leader has suggested breakfast programs as a way of involving the private sector with government. It's an opportunity to help those who have no food in their stomach to at least begin the day with a positive attitude. Our children will help to build our future. Our ideas, feelings and messages will be carried on through them. Let's give them a chance.

Children today are aware of Canada's unique role as a leader of the cultural mosaic model, yet programs designed to foster more awareness and education have been axed by the government. Through understanding we will learn about others and overcome prejudice.

The other thing is how poverty and crime go together and how both of these are the result of social and economic conditions facing the people in Ontario. These conditions must change. People of all races must be given access to all the opportunities our province has to offer.

Our police have been given the important task of keeping our neighbourhoods and communities safe. Let us, as legislators, as leaders, continue to work with our police and those who are the leaders of our communities to make sure we build on the theory and fact of love. If we care for one another as we want to be cared for, we can then continue to build a society that has respect for all.

We must have every day as a day where we give emphasis to race relations, not just at a moment like this. Every one of us has to continue to give the leadership that is expected of us.

1400

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I welcome this opportunity to speak to the House on this question, and I will do so, having listened carefully to the comments from my colleagues in the Legislature whose opinions and feelings on these matters I have learned to trust and admire a great deal.

Upon the arrival of the first Europeans on this continent, we became a multiracial society. That fact about Canada and about our life is something which I believe is central to what we are as a country. I would argue that it is perhaps clearer now than ever before, because of the nature of the changes in our society over the last half century. It is the one central fact about Canada which makes us what we are as Canadians.

I think it's also fair to say that like every multiracial society -- but let's talk particularly about our own home -- racism, the notion that one race is better than another, the notion that one group of people, by virtue of the colour of their skin or their background, are superior to other people, has also been a pernicious presence in our midst for a long time.

For a long time we have preferred not to talk about it or have tried to pretend it didn't exist. It has existed in our midst for a long time. There are generations of Canadians who, through their own lives, can tell all of us of that experience; whether it was the Irish who were told upon arriving here in the 1840s and 1850s that they need not apply for jobs; whether it was native people who were described from the earliest days as savages in need of the civilizing influence of the west; whether it was the constant and entirely pernicious conflicts over language and religion which have affected our life as a province -- and it's time we described it -- whether it was a move in our own history in this province to exclude French as a language of instruction from our school system, an act which is still deeply felt and resented in the francophone community in our own province; whether it's young Jewish medical students discovering in the 1930s and 1940s that there were quotas limiting their ability to go to medical school in this province; whether it was people of many backgrounds and colours who were refused or were rejected for a place to live or a club to join or a community to which they could belong, because they were Jewish or Catholic or francophone or whatever it may be.

This too is part of our history which we must now come to terms with and simply describe it for what it is, a pernicious idea that has no place in the multiracial society which we are and which we celebrate.

My friend Mr Curling spoke today very movingly about his concerns for his family. This troubles me as Premier, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, as much as anything, that there would be any Canadian who by virtue of his colour would feel that somehow he would be treated or reacted to differently if he was in a group or a crowd or downtown or driving his car. The idea that this would be going through his head is entirely unacceptable and should be seen as unacceptable to all of us in this Legislature.

We are a multiracial society. Our institutions, at their best, have reflected it and just as there is a story of discrimination and of racism, there is also a story of this Legislature coming together at critical points. This Legislature was ahead of the day when we brought forward the fair employment practices and the fair accommodation practices legislation under the premiership of Leslie Frost, and just as it was this Legislature which unfortunately went ahead and excluded French, it was this Legislature under the administration of the Conservative Party of this province which extended the rights of francophones, which extended the rights to court trials, which extended the rights to tolerance in this province.

No party has a monopoly on virtue in this instance. I can say, as Premier of the province and as someone who has tried his best to absorb something of the history of this province, that this Legislature and these governments at their best in this jurisdiction have overcome the mean-spirited tendencies which are there, with the spirit of generosity and with the movement to generosity which have always been the best part of the life of this province, the celebration that exists here: the introduction of the Human Rights Commission, landmark legislation for Canada, introduced by the Conservative Party; the work the Peterson government did in terms of the Police Services Act, and the other changes and amendments that were made that required leadership and courage when they were made and that had the full support of many members of the House as they went through.

I want to say to you, Mr Speaker, that I do not regard this as a partisan issue particularly, although I am prepared to take partisan knocks for things that we have done or not done as a government. But I do want to say that in speaking to the leadership in the black community -- yesterday we had a meeting which was pulled together very quickly and which now needs to be extended to a number of other discussions which I believe we need to have across the province -- I am going to need the help and support of members of the Legislature as we try to examine some of the most difficult questions about how our institutions, our education system and our justice system can be seen as more firmly fighting racism and can be seen as places which are truly welcoming to all those who have made this province their home.

I have indicated to the federal government that we are going to need its help and understanding as well with respect to some legislative matters over which it has jurisdiction. I think it is important for us to be willing to work with all the institutions and all levels of government in a positive and constructive spirit as we strive to make it very clear that this is a province which exists for everyone. This is going to require some change at every level in terms of our institutions and in terms of some of our laws.

We have to make progress, I believe, in terms of the agenda for employment equity. We have to make progress with respect to the direction and leadership we give to the anti-racism efforts of all levels of government, but we are committed to doing this; we are committed to making progress.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to respond to the comments made by my friends Mr Curling and Mr Cousens, who have spoken on this occasion with such eloquence.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing with routine proceedings, last Wednesday the member for Simcoe West, Mr Wilson, rose in the House on a question of privilege.

On April 21, in the course of placing a question and a supplementary in oral question period, the member had made certain remarks about the business practices of an individual. According to the member, the individual in question had, in succeeding days, entered into communications with various media concerning the member's remarks and had distributed an altered press release and misinformation. The member was of the view that these actions amounted to intimidation, making it difficult for him to discharge his function as a member of the House.

I have since had the opportunity to review Hansard for last Wednesday and for April 21, together with the documentation the member has submitted and paragraph 46(1)2 of the Legislative Assembly Act, but I have to say that the matter falls short of establishing a prima facie case of privilege or contempt. I do, however, want to thank the member for the helpful and very proper way in which he drew this matter to the attention of the House and the Speaker.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. It will not surprise the Premier that we want to turn to the matter of the budget presented by his government last week. It will probably not surprise the Premier, even as he points a finger at his Treasurer, that it is not my intention in raising our first questions of the day to congratulate the government on its budget. I am prepared to give them some opportunity to defend it.

I would like to take the Premier and his Treasurer, if he wishes to refer to the Treasurer, back to the budget of a year ago, last May 15, when the Treasurer told us, in defending his budget deficit numbers, that he wanted numbers that would be credible, that he wanted achievable numbers. Well, the deficit at the end of that year turned out to be $11 billion, so his numbers were neither credible nor clearly achievable.

This year the Treasurer's telling us to expect a budgetary deficit at year-end of $9.9 billion. We recall the Treasurer having told us last year that his numbers were "spot on," I believe the quotation is. We all know that the spot missed the mark. I ask the Premier, borrowing the Treasurer's own phraseology, what assurance can he provide us that at the end of the day his budget deficit for 1992-93 will be spot on?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer that question to the Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): For the year 1991-92 we worked very hard to make sure our expenditures were managed in a way that would ensure that the deficit would stay at a level which, while high, we thought would allow us at the same time to preserve those essential services which people across this province want and to which I think they have a right.

I might add to the leader of the official opposition that despite the fact we were under enormous, and I think it is generally conceded unanticipated pressures on the revenue side, we ended up the year with our expenditures being below what we had predicted they would be, by almost $500 million. I think that needs to be said loudly and clearly, because we worked extremely hard to control that aspect of the deficit over which we have a lot of control, and that is expenditures. On the revenue side we of course didn't control the amount of revenue we received.

I remind the leader of the official opposition that of all the provinces that have so far brought in their budgets, I think only one, and that was Newfoundland, ended up the year -- it looks as though it is going to end up the 1991-92 year -- with a deficit number as it predicted it would be at the beginning of the year.

Mrs McLeod: We believed last year, and said so, that last year's budget was based more on a wish and a prayer than on a realistic financial projection. As the Treasurer references the efforts made during the year to keep the budget deficit result at only $1 billion beyond what they had predicted, we recognize that much of the expenditure reduction was through deferrals and not through actual reduction in expenditures. We continue to hold similar concerns about this year's budget. We wonder whether the budget fails to accurately represent the situation of this province's finances. We believe it's entirely likely that the budget deficit should be reported as higher than the $9.9-billion figure reported last Thursday.

I think it would be worthwhile if the Treasurer could, to help us with our concerns, explain the rationale for his government's delay of a reported $564 million in payments to public sector pensions until April 1, 1993, one day after the end of the 1992-93 fiscal year. I simply want to know what possible reason, other than keeping the 1992-93 budget deficit figure below the mystical level of $10 billion, the government could possibly have for excluding $564 million in payments for pensions.

Hon Mr Laughren: First, I don't think the leader of the official opposition was suggesting that the deficit number for 1992-93 should be higher than the $9.9 billion. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I want to make sure I understood the leader of the official opposition properly.

Second, there is surely nothing unusual, whether it's through government planning or whether it's for a household, to manage the way in which you spend your money in the most prudent way. I can tell you that money that's being deferred from January 1 to April 1 from the teachers' pension is not money we are going to spend in 1992-93; that's not money that is suddenly going to appear as a bill for the province to pay in 1992-93. What's wrong with prudent money management that says we're going to pay it on April 1, the beginning of the next fiscal year? We'll be paying interest on it in the three months that has been deferred. I don't think there's any problem. We've worked it out with the Ontario Teachers' Federation. It seems to me it's simply prudent money management.

Mrs McLeod: The Treasurer's very well aware that I was not calling for a higher deficit. I was saying that it seems quite likely to us that in accurately reflecting the province's financial situation, that deficit projection should have been reported as higher. I am not playing games with this; we are concerned that enough games are already being played. I am simply looking to ask for information so we can understand the Treasurer's approach to what he has now termed prudent accounting practices.

I want to return to the question specifically about the pension plan contributions. In the Treasurer's fiscal outlook statement dated January 23, 1992, he said that teachers' pensions alone would require just over $1 billion this year to meet the requirements under the Teachers' Pension Act, but the estimates the Treasurer has released indicate that he is prepared to allocate just $469 million to teachers' pensions this year, $560 million less than the act requires.

I simply want the Treasurer to explain the inconsistencies between his government's own fiscal outlook, the Teachers' Pension Act and his 1992-93 budget. Help us to understand why we should see this as anything other than deliberate underrepresentation of the province's financial situation.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will doublecheck my information, but it's my understanding that there is no legislation that requires that teachers' pension deferral money be paid between January and April. It's an obligation on our part, but it is not our intention to pay it in those three months; we would rather wait until April 1.

In conclusion, it really is difficult to sit in my place here and get a lecture from the leader of the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Ontario, that same party that told the province about two years ago that it was having a surplus. We know what that surplus turned into, so don't talk to me about a wish and a prayer when it comes to trying to balance your books.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The Leader of the Opposition with her second question.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not making lectures, I'm simply asking questions, and I was giving the government the benefit of the doubt of taking its past statements as truth. That past statement was that the government was required to pay $210 million more to address the unfunded liability in teachers' pensions as provided for in the Teachers' Pension Act, 1989. I was not making it up.

I recognize, particularly given the government's failure to meet last year's deficit target, that its credibility is on the line with the $9.9-billion deficit projected for this budget. At the very least, the budget does appear to be an exercise in creative accounting, and others in addition to ourselves -- credit rating agencies, for example -- seem to be raising the same kinds of concerns we've raised about whether or not the budget accurately reflects Ontario's financial position.

1420

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Let me raise another of our very specific concerns and attempt to get an answer to this one. The government has submitted two claims under Ottawa's fiscal stabilization program, for a total of $1.2 billion. It has now counted those as revenue in this year's budget, yet only two other provincial governments in Canadian history have received payments under this program and they only received the money many years after submitting their claims. Can the Treasurer tell this House how he can count this money as revenue this year when Ontario has not yet had an indication that it will receive the cash within the budget year and certainly has not received the payments?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): There is no conceivable reason why we would not receive that $1.2 billion in stabilization payments from the federal government. This is a sum of money to which we are entitled under the fiscal arrangements agreement with the federal government. We are fully entitled to it and we have no reason to believe we will not receive it. I would remind the leader of the official opposition that the other two provinces which submitted claims did indeed receive the money which they had applied for in the second year of the claim. We are now in the second year of our claim, so I see no reason why we will not receive it.

Mrs McLeod: If the Treasurer has no conceivable reason not to expect it, perhaps he would then share with the rest of us the application made to the federal government so we can understand the basis on which he is so clearly assuming to have the payments received. The Treasurer has referred to "reasonable expectations," and I think he would agree that in most normal accounting you base it on the assumption that you are reasonably sure you're going to receive the income, but we have no reason to understand why the Treasurer feels he can expect the payments in this year.

I would ask the Treasurer first of all if he would share with us the application and, second, whether or not this question has been raised in meetings with the Prime Minister and the federal Finance minister and whether in those meetings the Treasurer has received specific assurances that those fiscal stabilization payments will be received, and will be received in this year. Or is it more likely that the government will not receive the payments this year and the government's year-end deficit will actually be considerably higher?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, we submitted to the federal government the stabilization claim to which the leader of the official opposition refers. There are many components of the claim and it can get quite complex, although it is not as complex as it was when it took the second year for the other claims to be realized from Alberta and British Columbia in years gone by. So we think there's less reason for a delay now than there used to be because the process is less cluttered.

Second, the federal government now is examining line by line our claim to it on the fiscal stabilization, and that is why it takes some time, because it's fairly complex. To my knowledge there's nothing secretive about it, but we can ask the federal government. They're the ones who are now working with the stabilization claim. I am not sure, to be quite frank with the leader of the official opposition, to what extent it aids the process to have the claim out floating around publicly while they're still examining it line by line, but I'll see what the general consensus on that is.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps what the Treasurer is saying is that he's not sure it would aid the credibility of the government if that application were released to the rest of us. Let me then take the Treasurer right back to the concern I began with: the question of the government's credibility on this issue, and in turn the question of public confidence in the government.

The government is selling its budget on the basis of being financially responsible with a $9.9-billion deficit. We're going to continue to raise our concerns that in his desire to put the best possible political face on this budget the Premier has given and the Treasurer has given a less than accurate picture of this government's finances. I would just ask the Treasurer whether he will give us an assurance that he will not be returning to the people of Ontario within the year, as he did last year, and say: "Sorry, we were wrong. We didn't get what we expected. The province's deficit is actually much higher than we thought it would be."

Hon Mr Laughren: I would rather come back to this Legislature and to the people of Ontario and say, "We didn't achieve the revenues we thought and therefore we're going to reduce expenditures accordingly to keep in line," than hide the truth from the people, which that party did when it was in office.

TAXATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. In the summer of 1990, I travelled around this province and told people that government spending was too high and that taxation was too high for this province to be competitive. Premier, you ran around the province behind me and agreed with me. You said to everyone who would listen, "I know your taxes are too high." But you said something different from me. You said: "Don't worry. Somebody else will pay. We can afford all this spending. We can afford a new $5-billion Agenda for People. We can afford to hike spending two and a half times the rate of inflation, because we'll make somebody pay: the rich."

Premier, after this last budget, for everyone who pays any income tax, a $20,000-a-year earner -- by most of your minister's definitions, the working poor -- you hiked their income tax $45; at $25,000 a year up $60. It's obvious that your definition of the rich, from the summer of 1990, is the hardworking men and women who make as little as $20,000 a year in this province. These people already give half or more of their income to one level of government or another in taxes. Can you explain to me how further sticking it to the working poor, to the middle class of this province, fits with your Agenda for People in your campaign of 1990?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I will refer this to the Treasurer as well.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): In the budget, in view of the fact that we were determined to accomplish a number of things, we did raise some taxes. We were determined to provide some stimulus through the creation of jobs, we were determined to preserve the essential services in health and education and we were determined to keep the deficit in check.

In order to do that, we reduced our expenditures substantially this year over what we were heading for. We made a very serious attempt at that, the lowest expenditure growth in 39 years in this province. That includes Tory governments as well, I might add. Finally, we looked at tax increases that would be the fairest of all possible tax increases to impose and we selected, I think quite appropriately, the personal income tax system, which we raised 1.5% for 1992 and two points for 1993. I know this will bother the Tory party, but we believe in a tax system in which those who have the most ability to pay, pay their fair share.

Mr Harris: It certainly wasn't your Premier who travelled this province and said, "If you make $20,000 a year you can pay more money to finance government programs."

A couple of people have called my office since the budget came out, Mr Treasurer. I want to share a couple with you today; there are thousands more.

George is an assistant chief mechanical engineer. Last year he earned $52,534. He is 58 years old and he has just been promoted. The promotion meant a little extra money to put towards the education of his three university-age children. He was feeling pretty good until last Thursday. Treasurer, when the dental bills for his kids come in, when it comes time to pay for prescriptions for George and his wife and his family and when his kids can't find a summer job, I would ask you, Treasurer, do you think you can convince George and his wife and his family that he is part of the rich and famous here in this province?

1430

Hon Mr Laughren: We worked very hard to make sure that low-income people in the province would not pay more taxes. As a matter of fact, we've altered the Ontario tax reduction plan to make sure that happens. When it comes to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: If I could be very specific, for 1993, a one-earner married couple with two children at $20,000 will pay less taxes, at $25,000 will pay less taxes, and at $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000 will not pay any more taxes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: All I would say to the Conservative Party of this province -- and I don't want to be partisan or provocative, but if we had walked away from our obligations on post-secondary education and health care and social assistance the way the federal government has, we could reduce taxes in this province as well, but that is not our intention. We are determined to preserve those essential services.

Mr Harris: I hope the Treasurer wouldn't engage this House in telling us how much more compassionate towards the low-income earners Brian Mulroney is than he is, because that's what he just gave us with the last answer. We're talking about your budget, not the federal budget that cut taxes for middle-income and low-income Ontarians. We're talking about your budget that hiked taxes. That's what we're talking about.

That is also what Bob was talking about, a retired draughtsman. He called my office. He worked for 40 years. He scrimped and he saved. He invested in RRSPs. With his savings and his pension, he had an income of $53,000 last year. He and his wife were pretty proud of their hard work. They were feeling pretty secure until last Thursday. That's when you told him that he is part of the rich and famous, that he can afford a 14% surtax, that he can afford to lose his senior's property tax rebate and that he can afford to lose his sales tax grant. The Bob who called my office doesn't feel rich. He feels that in Bob Rae's Ontario, hard work doesn't pay off.

Is there anything in your budget, anything that suggests to Bob, to George, to those who might be close to $53,000 -- a little overtime, a little extra work would get them there -- that hard work pays off in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: We continue to believe we have here in Ontario the best conceivable place to live, to work and to invest. We continue to believe that, and what we have done in this budget is reinforce that. We have put money into job creation. We've put money into training, not only training people who are not in the workplace now, but people who are already in the workplace so they are retrained as the economy changes underneath us. We have made a major commitment to maintaining the infrastructure of this province, a major commitment to maintaining essential services in this province and I think we have done it in a way that imposes taxes on the people who are best able to pay.

I have never said that anybody who earns $53,000 is either rich or famous. What I have said is that a family, one income, $60,000 a year, because of the surtax will pay $1 a week more. I don't think that's an onerous burden in order to maintain the services in this province.

Mr Harris: Are you and Brian working together? Why do you use the federal government's cuts to average all your figures you use? Is it you and Brian now? Is that how it's working in this country? Are those the finances you're talking about?

BUDGET

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is for the Treasurer. Treasurer, you found out on Friday that Ontario had been put on a rating alert. Obviously, using Martel math to come up with your deficit number, you got a failing grade with the bond rating agencies. Everyone knows our deficit is not what you told us last Thursday. Why did you fudge the numbers?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): There are no fudged numbers in the budget. Every number in that budget is completely defensible. Every number in that budget is real. I can assure the leader of the third party that we will achieve those numbers. If, as the leader of the third party is implying, we're not able to achieve some of the revenues, then we'll do next year as we did this past year: We'll make reductions in the expenditures in order to come in with our target number.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that the Treasurer is playing the same transparent political game the Liberals played when they told us they had a balanced budget. I suggest to you, Treasurer, that you are no more successful in pulling the wool over our eyes, and you are certainly not successful in pulling the wool over the bond rating agencies' eyes. Ontario is now on rating alert because you have no credibility as Treasurer. That's the initial reaction. The initial reaction was that the numbers are hocus-pocus, that they're not believable, and so they put you on alert. Now they're analysing the numbers.

Treasurer, you weren't able to meet last year's deficit numbers. What have you learned and what is in this budget that should give us any confidence that you can meet the $9.9 billion you say is this year's deficit number?

Hon Mr Laughren: To be fair, neither the federal government nor, I think, basically all the other provinces with the exception of one met the numbers they had projected for 1991-92 either, because the depth of the recession was much greater than anybody thought it was going to be. I would say to the leader of the third party as well that the rating alert we were put on is a very normal course of events for a rating agency whenever there's a new budget brought down. I don't think it's fair for the leader of the third party to imply there's anything with the numbers in the budget that's less than 100% credible.

Mr Harris: Treasurer, on January 21 you and the Premier told the transfer payment recipients to hold the line on spending increases to 1%. That's all the money that was available. You told hospitals: "You can do it. Work hard. Find a way. You have deficits, but you can do it." Yet your spending this year will be five times higher than the increase. Your spending increase for yourself is up 5%.

Treasurer, if you had held your spending to a 1% increase the same as hospitals, colleges, universities, school boards and municipalities, you would have had $2 billion more. With that $2 billion you would not have had to fudge your numbers or perhaps you could have had a $1-billion tax cut instead of a $1-billion tax hike.

Will you explain to me and will you explain to the many people calling my office, to the Bobs and the Georges of the world, to the $20,000-a-year taxpayer who just got hiked, why you couldn't practise the same 1% solution that you told all the transfer agencies they could do?

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps I could revisit that 1% number for the leader of the third party just for a moment. We did indeed transfer a 1% increase to our transfer agencies out there, but then we also put in place a 1% transition fund to help them, because there's a history in this province of double-digit transfers to the agencies and to ask them to ratchet down to 1% in one year was pretty dramatic. We know that, so we put in place another 1% as a transition fund, so really it's closer to 2%.

If you were to remove from the Ontario government increase in spending next year social assistance or statutory requirement and interest on the public debt, our increase in spending for next year is only 1.5%. I think that's something we should be commended for, not criticized for, by the leader of the third party.

1440

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer too. Pursuing the line of trying to get at how you arrived at these numbers, you are anticipating, I gather, about a 2% increase in Health expenditures this year. We see by the estimates now that this is as a result of getting about a 2% reduction in your costs to doctors in the province. A year ago, as you recall, the Premier was very pleased with the agreement signed with the Ontario Medical Association, and that agreement called for some fairly significant increases. Have you the agreement of the OMA for these numbers? What is the basis for that 2% reduction in payments to doctors?

Hon Mr Laughren: First, the Minister of Health is engaged actively in negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association. Second, we will be presenting a paper on the health care system, I think, within a week or 10 days, and perhaps that will shed some more light on the issue for the member.

Mr Phillips: To pursue along those lines, you can see why the opposition has some significant reservations about the numbers in the budget, and here's another example. There is a six-year agreement that was proudly signed by the government last year. There are assurances in that agreement. The doctors made the agreement last year saying, "Listen, we don't like it, but in this climate we will sign it."

How can you put in a budget numbers that reflect a collective agreement, and yet you have numbers in your budget that indicate you have agreement to a substantial reduction? You have an indication that you have the agreement, on the other side, on the collective bargaining process here.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's exactly what the Minister of Health is talking to the OMA about. There is an agreement with the OMA. Unless I hear the member opposite saying we should not be talking to the OMA about entrance to medical schools, graduation from medical schools, location of doctors and specialists in the province -- if the member opposite is saying we shouldn't be talking about those things in order to contain the growth in health care costs, I wish he'd stand in his place and say so, but I don't quite hear him saying that.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Although budgetary matters are very important, it's also very important that this week is Education Week in most of Ontario. Unfortunately the Minister of Education should understand that there's precious little to celebrate in the Carleton area, where high school teachers are still on strike and some 15,000 kids are entering their fifth week of no school. This date also will be marked as a work to rule for the elementary school teachers at the Carleton Board of Education. Considering that these students have been out so long, Mr Minister, and the time is getting short to the end of the year, when are you going to legislate the teachers back to work?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): As I am sure the member knows, negotiations have been going on in the Carleton secondary school strike situation over this weekend and are continuing today, and I hope the member would be the first to agree with me that given that those negotiations are continuing, the last thing I should be doing is talking here or anywhere else about legislation. The process is continuing; serious negotiations are taking place. I think there is a resolution that can be found locally, and I think the parties are working towards finding it.

Mr Sterling: This is the fifth week. There are only perhaps six weeks left to the end of school. Many of these high school students who are on the semester system have lost the equivalent of eight weeks of school. The time between now and the end of the year will never allow those students to pick up the schooling which they have lost.

Mr Minister, when are you going to take some action to put these kids back in school where they belong? Who in fact are you more interested in, the teachers, the boards or the students?

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me just say that my primary interest very clearly is the students. I've said, not only with respect to what is happening here in Ottawa but in other cases in the past, that we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that however these issues get resolved, the school year for students is protected. We will do that here, as we've attempted to do in other situations. I have every hope that a resolution to the strike can be found very quickly and also that the question of the school year will be addressed appropriately as a result of that.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. We all know our country and our province are moving towards a global economy. In the speech from the throne, we heard how important it is for us to invest in our human resources and in the people of this province. Our multicultural mosaic is an invaluable resource. Our people possess the language skills and a full understanding of other countries' cultures and laws. These are resources that lend themselves quickly to natural economic links which will in the end create prosperity and jobs here in Ontario.

The former Liberals and Tories failed to tap into this very valuable resource. My question to you, Mr Minister, is, given the multicultural fabric of Canadian society, what is your ministry doing to facilitate and promote business between Canadians and their countries of origin?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): The participation of Ontario's ethnic communities and business area represents both an opportunity and a strength to this province. My ministry, together with the ethnic business communities and the chambers of commerce, is working to promote business links within their own communities and overseas. Our goal is to bring investment, joint ventures and jobs to the province.

Our ministry's business immigration section helps to bring investment capital and business expertise to Ontario's marketplace through outreach to our ethnic communities. Small Business Ontario has opened offices in each of the ethnic community centres, and our international development corporations and foreign offices are working actively to create new joint ventures in cooperation with the business communities that exist here.

Mr Perruzza: These are all welcome initiatives, but what can the minister point to specifically in the speech from the throne which lends itself to the achievement of these kinds of goals?

Hon Mr Philip: Certainly the establishment of the investment development office, a one-stop shopping service, will be a major step towards attracting and obtaining new investment in this province. The initiative to decrease taxation for small-business manufacturers and resource companies sends a very strong signal to investors that Ontario is open for business. It encourages investment. In 1994 the tax rate on manufacturers will be almost 5% less than that of our major competitors across the border, such as New York. Those are just a few of the initiatives that stem from this budget.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to follow up with the Treasurer on the credibility issue and on the numbers that are in the budget for Health. I alert the Treasurer that we've many questions about these numbers. But specifically with the doctors, there was an agreement. It was a six-year financial agreement between the government and the doctors of this province, signed in good faith by the Premier, a guarantee for six years.

The question is this: That has certain assurances to the doctors in it. It calls for a minimum of a 3% increase in the doctors' payments. This calls for a 2% reduction. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of your deficit reduction in here. Have you assurances from the Ontario Medical Association that it is prepared to reopen the contract and entertain a $400-million or $500-million reduction in its contract? Have you had those assurances from the OMA?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The member will understand that there was a framework agreement worked out with the Ontario Medical Association, but I really don't understand why the member is approaching the issue this way. I don't think that should prevent the Minister of Health from going to the OMA and saying: "Look, we've got some problems in containing the cost of health care. Let us sit down and see if there are ways in which we can contain the increase in the growth of health care." I don't think there's anything there at this point, at least that I've heard, that says we shouldn't be doing that.

Why would the OMA not want to sit down with the Minister of Health and say, "Yes, we know we must contain the growth in the cost of health care as well"? Because everybody, including the doctors, has an enormous amount at stake in making sure that we preserve medicare in this province.

1450

Mr Phillips: Treasurer, I go back to your credibility here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking to the doctors. Clearly there's nothing wrong with sitting down and finding ways to operate more efficiently, but to claim in advance $500 million less than is included in their contract, to essentially say, "Listen, we've already put in the budget. We are going to take out hundreds of millions of dollars," surely the Treasurer will understand this is no way to conduct collective bargaining. You don't say, "We've already set the budget, now we'll negotiate with you."

Aren't you really just trying to put a gun to the heads of the doctors? Your credibility is at stake here, Treasurer. What assurances do we have that these numbers with the doctors are real? Because in the final analysis I gather you have an ironclad, six-year, contractual arrangement with these doctors.

Hon Mr Laughren: We do have a framework agreement with the medical profession, but I want to assure the member that it's not a case of putting a gun to the head of the medical profession. That is not the way this government functions.

We are simply saying that the Minister of Health -- and I don't want to inject myself into that process at this point -- is sitting down with the OMA. We've set a target, to which the member refers, and the Minister of Health now sits down with the OMA and sees how we, working together, can achieve that target. There's nothing mysterious about it or nothing threatening about it.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The budget has now come forward and of course it's quite clear that your government intends to finance itself through games of chance, with gambling casinos. I've asked this question before and quite obviously you haven't understood the question, but now you've had an opportunity to study it. My question is, precisely what feasibility studies have you and your ministry started to find out the repercussions of the government's plans to introduce casinos to the province of Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I certainly have understood the question. As always, I understood the question. I think the member has trouble understanding the answer from time to time.

Cabinet has decided there will be controlled gambling set up in this province that will be casino gambling. We will work and consult with interested communities over the next few months on the organization and the implementation in that controlled and careful way we proceed here. Certainly we will be looking at feasibility studies in the process of that consultation.

Mr Tilson: That leads to my second question. It's that very point, the fact that you quite clearly do not have any feasibility studies. You quite clearly do not intend to have them at this particular point.

On April 28 you met with the Ontario Standardbred Breeders and Owners Association, which made it quite clear it was opposing your plan with respect to gambling casinos. At that time you told this group that you would not be doing any studies until after the legislation had been passed in the House, until after you had implemented the plan to have gambling casinos. In other words, you're going to implement the gambling casinos first and then you're going to have a feasibility study to see how they have affected the horse-racing industry in this province.

Having said this, will you be more specific? I hope you've reconsidered that. Surely you don't do something first and then have a feasibility study to see how that affected the industry. Will you tell us when you intend to table your feasibility study, if you have one, in this House so we can all look at it and study it?

Hon Ms Churley: Clearly it takes some time, once a decision has been made, to implement casinos in Ontario. Clearly it takes some time to bring that into place. It will require legislation and it will also require extensive consultation with the groups that would be affected by the legislation. So, as I said, we are moving in a controlled way.

Obviously my ministry has done some studies. Obviously we have looked at information that already exists out there within Canada and the United States. Obviously we have talked to the various components of the horse-racing industry. I understand some of them are going to do feasibility studies as well. Obviously this is a very complex subject. There's a lot of work to be done on all fronts.

We will look at feasibility studies in the process of developing this in a very careful way, and of course after the fact we will also look at the implications of the running of casinos.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This weekend, in my riding of Durham East, there was considerable discussion about the dreadful situation in Los Angeles, and I have heard the all-party statement in the House today. My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. Madam Minister, can you advise the House what steps the Ontario government is taking to combat racism?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Thank you very much for the question. I know the concern that has been raised in the House today by all three parties, and we certainly all share this responsibility. As you know, last year we made a statement in the House about setting up an Anti-Racism Secretariat in Ontario, which would develop a strategy to fight racism, whether it's in our private sector or whether it's in the public sector.

We have just recently gone through an extensive process of hiring an assistant deputy minister, because we felt the situation was so critical and because we wanted to have a person who could fill the needs of all the communities. We opened the process to the hiring so that community members sat on the hiring process as well. We have a very good individual who has now taken on that responsibility.

We've also set up an advisory committee whose task is to help the government to understand racism issues in various regions of the province, because as we go across the province the issues are very different, very complicated and very diverse. There are members from all sectors and from all regions of the province as well; when I say "all sectors," I mean people who represent the community, whether it's in education, within the public sector or in business. These people are going to meet with us. It is a very complicated course that we've taken, because we do feel it is a very sensitive issue that must be addressed today. I thank the member for his question. If there is a supplementary I will expand.

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I think most people viewed last week's budget and understand that businesses and government keep different sets of books, but I believe the budget has put a new meaning on the term "sleight of hand." I would question the Treasurer's and the chairman of the treasury board's numbers and credibility in that budget.

The government has estimated it will receive $1.2 billion this year and in all future years from sales and rentals. Last year, I point out to the Treasurer, the government received only $93 million in that category, that catch-all of sales and rentals. The government expects to increase its revenues by more than 1,000% this year and each year into the future if the budget is to be believed. How can the Treasurer justify such an enormous increase in its sales and rental line? Treasurer, isn't this really just an example of your cooking of the books?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I am deeply, personally offended by that comment but I will struggle on.

To be fair, we established a program review this year. We set up 21 program reviews in government, one of which had to do with the sale of assets. We just got it started. Give us time to get this program review really under way. That's why this year, the year we've just completed, there were not many asset sales. We do not want to conduct a fire sale of government assets.

I would remind the member opposite that there are billions of dollars of assets in this province that the government owns, that the people of this province own. They're not all strategic, and we think the numbers we've put in here are very, very achievable. There's the other half of Suncor to sell, there's SkyDome to sell; the Ontario Land Corp will be selling land for us. We are talking about selling a very small proportion of this government's assets, and no strategic ones at that.

1500

Mrs Caplan: In supplementary to the Treasurer and to the chairman of the treasury board, in fact what he's just told us is that his $1.2-billion number is a mythical number. He's told us this is just an attempt by the government to keep his outrageous deficit under $10 billion in the estimates for this year. Again it is a question of credibility.

Last year this Treasurer staked his credibility on making a prediction of $9.7 billion; that was last year's budget. Now it turns out that that deficit for 1991-92 is higher than the Treasurer promised us last year; in fact, it's $10.9 billion. He was out by $1 billion last year, plus two in-year adjustments of $1.2 billion; very serious mistakes in last year's budget. Given the past history, why should anyone believe this Treasurer's predictions? Second, is he willing to take a polygraph test?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll ignore the last comment, which trivializes the importance of this debate. The member opposite complains about the outrageous deficit. I think just a few minutes ago they were complaining about how low the transfer payments were. Then, of course, every day they're on their feet complaining about how we're not funding programs adequately. Every day we get a contradictory message from the official opposition. At some point, you're going to have to stake out your turf and tell the people of the province where you stand. Do you want more taxes or do you want fewer taxes? You cannot continue to have it both ways. I would also point out to the member for Oriole that not once when they were in government did they meet their targets either.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You're not that pure to be giving lectures like that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Etobicoke West come to order.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. You would be aware of how anxious and nervous and concerned the children's aid societies across Ontario were when they anticipated budget news last week. You would be aware that virtually every children's aid society has a large deficit. In Metropolitan Toronto, where we are now, it's well in excess of $1.5 million and growing.

In light of the fact that the programs provided by children's aid societies are mandated by law for every child who is identified as needing them, these are --

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: If the member for Huron is not interested in the children's aid society, I know his own in Huron is interested in this question.

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

Mr Jackson: My question deals with the fact that foetal alcohol syndrome is on the rise, drug-dependent newborn infants are on the rise; child sexual abuse and child physical abuse are all on the increase in this province. Minister, given these facts and given your government's rhetoric, why is it you've been saying no to children's aid societies with their deficits, which are cutting services, and yet you're able to say yes with $100 million to put the private day care centres out of business in this province or with $15.2 million for the symbolic gesture of bilingual highway signs? Why can you say no to children, yet yes to those special interests?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): The member will have to ask the Minister of Transportation about bilingual traffic signs, and that's been handled in this House a number of times. I certainly agree with the member that the problems families and their children are facing are very severe and very serious, and there has been a clear recognition of that on our part. The problem for us, of course, is that we do not have additional moneys left over at the end of the year to throw at the problems the children's aid societies have had.

Quite frankly, the way in which both previous governments funded in this area was that they set a funding system that in fact was not an effective funding system. Then, at the end of the year when there were dollars left over, they threw them to the children's aid societies as a bit of a bonus. We were not in that luxurious position this year, given the problems of our budget. We have made a commitment to the children's aid societies of this province that we will take the steps long promised by previous governments to look at the funding system, to put it on a more rational basis, and to give them assistance of a much more equitable and effective way of providing the services.

I would remind the member that not all services children's aid societies provide are mandated. In fact, some of them have been services that the societies have brought about in response to community need.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: We will try to meet those needs in other ways through other prevention methods that will be announced as time goes on.

Mr Jackson: Minister, you've missed the point. In this day and age, governments, like taxpayers, cannot afford to do all things for all people. My question to you had to do with how you can invite such offensive priorities at a time when these children, nearly three million of them in this province, are relying on you, as the minister, to fight for them at the cabinet table.

All the statistics on abuse for children are up. My point to you, Minister, was that in your budget information, which we've now received, for just your civil service here at Queen's Park and around the province dealing with children's aid societies you found $5.5 million to increase their salaries and benefits, yet in here, for child and family crisis intervention, you found less than $2 million for all the children and families in this province.

Madam Minister, it was your Premier who said, and I want to quote --

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Jackson: The question is this: Your government, in its first throne speech, said that you will be saying yes to those who are vulnerable, even though it "will mean saying no to others whose claims are presented more loudly." I repeat, how can you say no to the children's aid societies and the millions of children, and say yes, whether it's the civil service who got the big bonus or bilingual highway signs or putting the private sector --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The question's been asked.

Hon Mrs Boyd: In fact we have added dollars to all services to children. The member is simply giving information in such a way that it is being put extremely unfairly.

We see the 20,000 spaces we are putting forward in terms of child care as primary prevention. We see the organization, the courage we have to retool our child care system to make it a system, in the face of the abdication of the federal government and its promise to provide a child care system, as being very much the kind of move we are making on behalf of children. There will be a number of announcements about the kinds of moves we are going to be making in terms of primary prevention for children and the integration of children's services as time goes on.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'd like to respond to a question asked last Tuesday, April 28, by the member for Mississauga North. The member raised the issue of Denison Mines and the withdrawing of funding on May 31 from the lung cancer early detection and treatment program for uranium miners in Elliot Lake.

The member, I'm sure, is aware that the funding for this program was something negotiated with Algoma Steel and Denison Mines and was not something this government was funding. The Canadian Institute for Radiation Safety, which runs the program, has indicated that it's unable to continue the program without the funds from Denison Mines.

Some of the functions carried out by the program can be continued through the physicians of the clients. There are about two tests a year currently, those they're really looking at in the program. Other mechanisms to continue the program are also being discussed. At the moment, we don't have a final decision on this.

In reference to the member's supplementary question regarding the Ministry of Labour's proposal to decrease the X-ray and pulmonary lung function testing of the chest clinics and to retain the chest clinics primarily as reading and storage facilities, this was part of the ministry review of its programs due to government-wide constraints and was accepted with the condition that consultations would be conducted with clients in the affected communities. In many communities, chest X-ray and pulmonary function services are now readily available through local clinics and hospitals and, in some cases, through employer-sponsored clinics. Accordingly, the need for ministry-sponsored full-service clinics is at this time being re-evaluated.

1510

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): With all due respect, I find it shameful that the Minister of Labour, when I first posed the question, was both unaware of what was going on at Denison Mines and was unaware as to the cutbacks that were taking place within his own ministry.

I think it's clear with respect to the response given by the Minister of Labour today that there is no question that you are going to be cutting back the services needed by those workers, primarily in northern Ontario, to make certain the mobile cancer unit will be in operation. Your statement today and your response have verified the information we received. I find it absolutely incredible, first, that you were unaware of these two very important issues to the many workers who are involved and, second, that you are today confirming that this very important service, which was available to those workers, is now going to be cut.

My question to the minister, by way of supplementary: What programs are you going to be further cutting? What are you going to be looking at in terms of the reduction of the mobile cancer checkup? Is this service, which has been provided by the occupational health and safety section of your Ministry of Labour, now at an end? That is the very least you can give in terms of information to the workers of this province. You've turned your back on them, because that's a necessary service. You've confirmed that, and what we want to know is whether you are prepared to re-evaluate this decision which will affect the workers and their families.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm not sure where the member gets his information. We have not deserted these workers; it's not our intention to desert these workers. And I was well aware of the two areas we were looking at. I can simply tell you that we intend to maintain quality control for interpretation and reporting, and retain the reading and storage facilities. The letter he referred to from Mary Tate of the ministry was simply a letter outlining some of the options and a request for consultation on how we will continue these programs. I think you should get your information straight for once.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition I'd like to present:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London; and

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings; and

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report on the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being a patently undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have one here from the area of Windsor and Essex, from approximately 300 or 400 people of Serbian descent:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"In that we are Canadians of Serbian descent, we take great offence at the racist comments made by John Sola, MPP, in his interview with The 5th Estate on Tuesday, December 3, 1991. We feel that his comments have no place in Canadian or Ontario politics, and as a result of his racist behaviour, he should be asked to resign his seat in Parliament. Our country has no place for people who hate their fellow countrymen simply as a result of their race or ethnic origin."

I have signed this and submit it.

MUSKOKA CENTRE

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition from the people of south Muskoka, and it is as follows:

"Whereas the Muskoka Centre is an institution operated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in south Muskoka; and

"Whereas the Muskoka Centre is the largest employer in south Muskoka community, having a salary allocation in 1991-92 budget of over $10 million; and

"Whereas Muskoka Centre is scheduled for closing in March of 1994 and the economic impact on south Muskoka will be severe; and

"Whereas no alternative use for the site has been determined that will alleviate the economic impact;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario recognize the severe impact on employment and the economy of south Muskoka by the closing of Muskoka Centre and introduce measures to replace these jobs lost and wages to the community."

There are over 1,000 signatures on the petition, and I too affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation of London; and

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings; and

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process, and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

CHILD CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My petition is to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government of Bob Rae is proceeding in the direction of universal, publicly funded, non-profit child care in Ontario; and

"Whereas the NDP Ministry of Community and Social Services is proceeding to eliminate, without consultation, the private sector in child care; and

"Whereas the elimination of private sector child care is fiscally irresponsible and unjustifiable and will compound existing child care funding problems; and

"Whereas such elimination takes away from Ontario parents the right to choose in day care; and

"Whereas the majority of parents in Ontario are in favour of this right to choose;

"We, the undersigned 3,000 parents, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the NDP government of Bob Rae take immediate steps to ensure the right to choice in child care in Ontario by allowing private sector child care to continue its needed services to children and parents, and for the government to cancel its plans to eliminate private sector child care in Ontario."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I present the following petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London; and

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings; and

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process, and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

1520

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have another petition of over 3,000 names from people of the Serbian community.

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Ontario Legislature to the following:

"That on December 3, 1991, John Sola, Liberal MPP for Mississauga East, told The 5th Estate, "I don't think I'd be able to live next door to a Serb";

"That John Sola was elected to office to represent all his constituents equally;

"That Mr Sola spoke these offensive and racist words as an elected member of the Ontario Legislature from his Queen's Park office and not as a private individual;

"That rather than apologize or retract his comments, he further hurt and attacked Canadians of Serbian heritage;

"That Mr Sola stands by his comments;

"That the Toronto Star, in an editorial published December 16, 1991, called for the Legislature to censure Mr Sola and the Liberal Party to expel him from its caucus and that the Ottawa Citizen published a column asking for the expulsion of John Sola from the Liberal caucus, and that to date the Legislature and the Liberal Party have been silent on the Sola affair, choosing rather to ignore this shameful and dangerous incident which if left unchecked can breed intolerance and hate in Canada."

So submitted with my name attached and over 3,000 other names.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Like a number of my other colleagues, I have a petition, which I will not read in its entirety, which is signed by several people from the London-Middlesex area, all of which group seems to be singularly unimpressed with the Brant arbitration and with the government's general policy with respect to municipal boundaries in that part of southwestern Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a number of petitions signed by 528 Ontario residents representing both the management and employees of a number of Ontario companies, and it reads:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the impact that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

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

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act,

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have, as part of now over 107,000 signatures on this petition, this one from the riding of Northumberland. There are 2,752 from the riding of Northumberland.

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act,

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million this year be revoked immediately."

As I say, that's signed from 2,752 residents of Northumberland riding and has my signature.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million this year represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have here fewer than 100 signatures.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at municipal levels; and

"Whereas the current government disputes its self-serving select committee and intends to encourage increased use of French in the courts, schools and other provincial services to ensure that the French Language Services Act is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations etc to comply not only with the written but also with the unwritten intent of the French Language Services Act; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayers are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education -- French-language school board;

"We, the undersigned, request that the French Language Services Act be repealed and its artificial structures dismantled immediately, and English be declared as the official language of Ontario in governments, its institutions and services."

Mr Murdoch: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by fewer than 50 people.

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to the Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

It is signed by me and submitted with respect.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time allotted for the presentation of petitions has expired.

1530

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to begin the debate on the budget and share with the House some comments and thoughts on the budget. As you look at the budget there are three objectives in the budget, as the Treasurer outlined for us. The first is to control the deficit, the second is to take what I think were called in the budget immediate steps to create jobs and the third was to maintain important public services. As I look at the budget, I think on all three cases the budget will fail.

Let me start with controlling the deficit. This is now the second budget the government has presented, and in terms of controlling the deficit, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, last year's anticipated deficit as we headed into the fiscal year was $9.7 billion. Now those numbers are so huge one can lose perspective on them, but as we went into the budget year it was $9.7 billion. We now learn from the Treasurer that last year's deficit didn't stay at the $9.7 billion but in fact went to about $11 billion, and we now have before us a budget that calls for a deficit of $9.9 billion.

What that will mean in two years -- two short years -- is that the entire accumulated debt of the province will go up by 50%. We add up all the debt from the time this province started until the NDP was elected. In two years, the debt has gone up 50%.

What that means for the average family of four out there is that two years ago, when the government was elected, that family owed $16,000. That family now owes $24,000. Their debt per individual is now $6,000 and for a family of four it's $24,000. So you start to think: Somebody's got to pay the interest on that every year. If people out there are watching this program now and they've got a family of four, as I say, two years ago they owed $16,000. They probably were paying about $1,600 a year on interest for the provincial government debt. They now will find that they owe about $24,000 and a family of four is paying about $2,400 in interest.

In terms of controlling the deficit and the debt, which was one of the Treasurer's three objectives, you can see, Mr Speaker, how the deficits and the debt are in serious trouble. I think even the Treasurer would acknowledge that. When you look back at the plan the Treasurer had last year at budget time, the actual deficit over the four years of this government is now with this budget going to be even higher in total than he had planned last year at this time. While the public perception out there may be that the Treasurer is better controlling this deficit, in fact if you add up four years of deficits, with this year's budget it's actually going to be higher than was anticipated a year ago.

Frankly, we have some questions about the accuracy of the deficit the Treasurer is projecting in the budget he presented last Thursday. I'll give you four specific areas where we've raised -- and we will be raising more -- questions about how accurate the deficit is. These are four of what I think may turn out to be more than four areas as we get deeper into the budget.

The first is on what's called the fiscal stabilization. If you look at the budget, I think it's page 81 in the budget, the Treasurer is anticipating receiving from the federal government, under a column that's called "Other," an additional $1.2 billion in what's called "Fiscal Stabilization Money". We have some questions about whether in fact the Treasurer is going to get that money.

Last year he put in his budget about a $585-million fiscal stabilization number in anticipation of the federal government paying that, and lo and behold, it didn't come to pass. We see this year the Treasurer is anticipating a $1.2-billion fiscal stabilization payment from the federal government. What's the likelihood of getting that? We don't know.

We've asked the Treasurer to provide us with the application so we can look at it and get some idea on what basis the application was made. As a matter of fact, the Treasurer will know that I asked for that application back in December, and I twice since then have asked treasury officials, "Give us the application so we can have some idea of how likely it is that the federal government will provide that $1.2 billion."

Certainly, as we heard on the weekend from various federal treasury officials, at the very least it's doubtful that we will get that money in this fiscal year. So our first question on the size of the deficit revolves around whether in fact these federal transfer payments that are anticipated are likely to come about.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think this is a very significant debate. In fairness to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who is debating the budget of the province of Ontario in the absence of a single member of Premier Bob Rae's cabinet and, I suggest, in the absence of a quorum, I don't think --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I'll ask the table if there is quorum.

Mrs Marland: Is the government whip a member of cabinet?

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: On the question of how accurate the numbers are, I would say to the Treasurer that our first question, as I think he already knows, revolves around the likelihood of getting the fiscal stabilization funds. The Treasurer will know that I asked him back in December for a copy of the application, to get some sense of whether the likelihood of receiving that money was significant or not. Our first question around the numbers is: How likely are we to get those moneys from the federal government?

The second big area in which we would raise concerns with the Treasurer about the $9.9-billion deficit has to do with the estimate that we will get, I think, $1.2 billion from what's called in the budget "Sales and Rentals." In the last two fiscal years, as the Treasurer would know, the revenue from those two sources, sales and rentals, was $97 million in 1991 and $93 million in 1991-92. What the Treasurer has in the budget now is $1.2-billion worth of revenue.

We heard today that the Treasurer is anticipating $150 million from SkyDome and $60 million from Suncor. That leaves us about $1 billion of revenue that is completely unaccounted for in the budget. It simply says "Sale of Assets." Furthermore, as we look ahead at future fiscal years, the Treasurer is assuming that every year we will get $1 billion from sale of assets.

I just raise a real question about, first, how accurate that could be and, second, is it the intention of the government to continue to pay for the operating deficits by selling off our assets? At some stage surely we run out of assets. I saw a comment on the weekend from one of the accountants in the province saying, "If they tried to account for handling revenue in the form the Treasurer's accounting for -- "

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Who?

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer says, "Who?" It was an accountant on the weekend in the media who said they wouldn't be allowed to do that; an accountant wouldn't be allowed to do that. That's one of the reasons why, frankly, we are going to ask the Provincial Auditor to look at several of the accounting practices the Treasurer is pursuing here to see whether in fact under normal accounting procedures and principles that will accurately reflect the budget.

1540

We've now gone through $1.2 billion in fiscal stabilization money from the federal government, and the federal officials say it is virtually an impossibility for that money to come in in this fiscal year. The numbers that are required for the application, I gather, won't be complete for many months and, as reported in the media on the weekend, the federal officials say it's virtually an impossibility. That's the second area of concern we have about managing this $9.9-billion deficit.

The third one has to do with the payment of pension money. I read the Treasurer's Ontario Fiscal Outlook very carefully when he put it out, as he will know. On page 14 it says "Teachers' Pension Fund," 1991-92, $820 million, 1992-93, $1.030 billion; the difference $210 million. On page 16 it says, "the government is required to pay $210 million more to address the unfunded liability in teachers' pensions, as provided in the Teachers' Pension Act, 1989." This fiscal outlook document says it's required to make that payment of $1.03 billion.

As we look at the expenditure estimates the Treasurer released last Thursday in their totality, what is provided for the teachers' pensions? It's not the $1 billion the Treasurer said was required under the Teachers' Pension Act. It is $469 million. I gather a similar reduction was made in the Ontario public service pension. So what we see in the budget is what is called a cash rescheduling at page 73. What it says is that we will reschedule our matching contributions "so that these are made every three months, instead of every two weeks," and we will move our payment from the first business day in January to the first business day in April of each year, and "These measures will result in cash flow savings of $564 million."

My comment is that when we had the document, Ontario Fiscal Outlook, that the Treasurer put out in January as a document that would allow all of us to become more involved in the budget process and that said the government is required to make these payments, and then when the budget came out we see payments to the teachers' pension of less than half of what was planned in the fiscal outlook, we start to ask questions about whether this budget reflects the true picture or is it what's called "Rescheduling of Cash Payments" in the budget. Treasurer, is it rescheduling of cash payments or is it an attempt to artificially reduce the deficit? Again, that would be a question we would ask the Provincial Auditor.

Hon Mr Laughren: You might.

Mr Phillips: We will ask the Provincial Auditor. The Treasurer says "You might," and we say we will for that particular reason.

A fourth area in the numbers that we would question -- as I say, we've had this document now for I guess four days, and there may be substantially more areas, but I'm kind of highlighting the ones we're raising questions about with the Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: Aren't you glad you had the weekend to study it?

Mr Phillips: Indeed I am. The Treasurer wanted to know if I'm glad I had the weekend to study it, and I am.

The fourth area is the question we raised in the House today, that is, one of the big areas where the Treasurer has indicated they will be significantly restraining expenditures in health care. I recall vividly a year ago that the Treasurer and the Minister of Health proudly had their document on restraining expenditures in health care. I can remember vividly the Premier with the OMA agreement, saying, "This is a breakthrough document" --

Hon Mr Laughren: A landmark.

Mr Phillips: A landmark document, thank you, Treasurer. I can remember him saying that perhaps this was a major breakthrough in relations between the doctors of this province and the government.

Now we see that the health care spending last year, for the fiscal year that just ended a little more than a month ago, actually went up 10%, if I'm not mistaken, I think more than the Treasurer had anticipated when he prepared his budget; and now we see that the Treasurer has built in a 2% increase in health care spending for this year.

What is the basis for that? Again, we have the benefit of the expenditure estimates that the Treasurer released last Thursday. It would appear the basis on which the health budget is being kept to 2% is by restraining the doctors' portion of it. As a matter of fact, as I look at the document it says, "Payments made for services and for care provided by physicians and practitioners will be going down by $167 million over the 1991-92 estimates."

My understanding is that the agreement with the doctors -- and it's a six-year agreement that, as I recall it, actually may even require legislative approval to change -- at the very least was signed in good faith by the doctors. It was trumpeted by the Premier as an absolute breakthrough agreement.

Today we learned the basis on which the government is planning to restrain its health spending: It is through a 2% reduction in that budget, which is an agreement that's a contractual obligation, and I believe the agreement calls for a minimum -- even with no fee increase -- of a 3.5% increase.

So the fourth area where we would raise questions about the controlling of the deficit and about the credibility of these numbers is in the health care spending area.

As we look at the first objective the Treasurer set for this budget, which is controlling the deficit, I would say that the deficit over the four years -- the four budgets it's anticipated this government will have -- is actually even higher in total than the Treasurer had predicted a year ago.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: No question of that, Treasurer; that's the case, that we will see the debt of the province double over those four years.

I think the Treasurer has said that the anticipation could be that we will be spending as much as 20% of our tax revenue just to service the debt in three to four years. If you look again, Mr Speaker, at what I found a useful chart in the budget on page 89 you can see that debt, as a percentage of our gross domestic product, is already this year, 1992-93, at an all-time high, substantially higher than it's ever been before; public debt interest as a percentage of revenue. A year ago I think the Treasurer was saying we would keep it at 10%; it's now 12.6% in your budget --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): And growing.

Mr Phillips: And growing, as my colleague would say. So in terms of the first objective the Treasurer set in his budget -- that is, controlling the deficit -- already, even with the numbers that are in here at the $9.9 billion, we would say that over the four years of this government we will see debt double. We will see a debt of about $80 billion in the province, and we have some significant questions about the accuracy of this year's deficit.

1550

We will be raising those questions as we proceed with the debate. As my leader has said, we will be asking the Provincial Auditor to provide us with the assistance to look at those numbers. I would hope we will get from the Treasurer himself the fiscal stabilization numbers.

The second objective in the budget was jobs. On page 2 of the budget, the Treasurer said, "We are creating three major funds to support new jobs." As we look at how many new jobs are actually supported or created in this budget, I say to the Treasurer that while it shows a total of 90,000 jobs created or supported, I would think he would be hard pressed to find 10,000 new jobs in this number.

Hon Mr Laughren: It doesn't say all new.

Mr Phillips: Indeed it doesn't. It says "create or support," and I am saying to the Treasurer that you talk about 90,000 jobs supported or created. The maximum number of new jobs in this budget would be 10,000. In fact, I don't think there are 10,000 new jobs.

Whereas the Treasurer on page 1 of his document says, "We are taking immediate steps to create jobs," and on the second page, "We are creating three major funds to support new jobs," the fact of the matter is, as the Treasurer has already acknowledged, I think, that there are virtually no new jobs in the budget.

The base capital spending is exactly the same as last year. That supports 67,000 jobs -- no new jobs there, none. The Jobs Ontario homes fund: 2,400 jobs. That's fewer jobs than last year.

Hon Mr Laughren: In what way?

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer asks in what way. There are fewer jobs in that area than last year.

Hon Mr Laughren: They're already existing --

Mr Phillips: Then the Treasurer doesn't understand the numbers, I'm afraid. There are fewer jobs in that area than last year.

The third area is the Jobs Ontario capital fund. There is no new spending in that area.

Hon Mr Laughren: Of course there is.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer says of course there is, but you can see that last year the Treasurer planned $3.9 billion worth of capital; this year he's planning $3.9 billion worth of capital. There are no new jobs. The only area --

Hon Mr Laughren: Do you want more?

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer asks, "Want more?" No. What I want is for the Treasurer to acknowledge that when you talk about supporting new jobs and when you say, "We are taking immediate steps to create jobs" --

Hon Mr Laughren: You're saying "new." I'm not saying "new"; you are.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer says he is not saying "new." Your budget, your words. The Treasurer's budget says, "We are creating three major funds to support new jobs." Those are not my words; they're your words.

When the Treasurer talks about new jobs, I honestly cannot find any money for new jobs in the budget. I think most economists would argue, and I don't think the Treasurer would disagree with us, that if you take a billion dollars out of the economy -- and that, as the Treasurer will acknowledge, is what they're doing on new taxes: there's a billion dollars' worth of revenue taken out of the economy for taxes.

Hon Mr Laughren: Less than $800 million.

Mr Phillips: Treasurer, I'm not sure you understand your own budget.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): He's a chatterbox today.

Mr Phillips: I just want to make sure the Treasurer does understand his budget. Revenue changes, full-year revenue changes: $1,091,000,000. What we've now got from the Treasurer is an acknowledgement that there are no new jobs in the budget, and any economist you'd talk to will say that not only are there no new jobs in here, but by taking a billion dollars out of the economy, you're losing 25,000 jobs. So on the second objective of this budget the Treasurer outlines, it fails, because you actually have taken more jobs out of the economy than you've created.

What we now have as we look at the objectives of the budget is that the deficit is not being controlled. As a matter of fact, the deficits over the four years of the government are actually substantially higher than in last year's budget, about which I think virtually everyone in the province said, "Listen, things are out of control; we cannot live with those sorts of deficits," and now we see deficits actually higher over the four years than we saw last year.

I think the Treasurer understands that I have an immense respect for him personally, but somehow the numbers we see in this budget raise significant concerns in our party about how accurate this budget is.

I've listed four of them, starting with the fiscal stabilization. As we listen to federal officials, they certainly question whether you'll get more than half of it. Then there is the whole issue of this $1 billion a year in assets sell-off. It isn't just one year, it's every year, because the Treasurer will acknowledge, I'm sure, that he has built in the same kind of revenue year after year after year. As a matter of fact, it's not only year after year: He's built about a 7% increase every single year in his revenue, so not only are you going to have to sell $1 billion worth of assets, you're probably going to have to sell $1 billion-plus worth of assets every single year. The Treasurer is shaking his head, but that's exactly what is in this budget.

We have some significant questions about the whole issue of the pension funds and how you are accounting for the pension funds. By your own admission, Treasurer, when you brought out your fiscal plan in January, you said these funds had to be paid, $1 billion had to be paid to the teacher's pension. Now we find when we get your estimates you've put in less than half that amount. It's all part of your cash management program.

The fourth area is in the whole area of health care. I hope you've had discussions with the OMA and have some assurance from the OMA that these kind of numbers, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of savings, are in fact going to be realized and have some opportunity for being realized.

On the second point, that is, on your jobs point, I think by your own admission, Treasurer, there are virtually no new jobs in this budget.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's not my admission.

Mr Phillips: Well, I took you through each of the four areas, and you would acknowledge that there are no new jobs in there; in fact, by taking about a billion dollars a year of brand-new taxes out of the economy, you're going to cost 25,000 jobs.

The third objective you had here was maintaining important public services. The Treasurer will recall that there were many of us who last year said your budget was wrong. It was a very frustrating exercise for myself and I think the members of the third party, because we spent a summer trying to have hearings across the province and saying, "We think this budget is wrong." The Treasurer will recall that he came to our committee and said, "If you wanted to do what they want to do, you'd have to close 6,000 classrooms and 5,000 hospital beds" and all those sorts of things.

What we were saying a year ago was that the budget should have mentioned the word "restraint." The budget never had the word "restraint" in the whole exercise last year. Now what we've found is that a year later the Treasurer has created an enormous problem for himself, because if he'd begun the exercise most of us were urging him to get on with a year ago, he wouldn't have had to go through the tremendous wrenching that is taking place.

1600

I fault the government for that. If I were a nurse, if I were a student in a college or a university, if I were a patient in a hospital, if I were a student in an elementary or secondary school, I'd say: "Listen. A year ago it was business as usual. You can remember, last year you said, 'We've chosen to fight the recession and we're going to spend.'" What's happened to the nurses, what's happened to the students in the schools and what's happened to the colleges and the universities is that they got one message from you a year ago and then they got a completely different message from you two months ago -- actually, in many respects, well into their year. The school system had staffed up -- many had signed two-year agreements -- and the nurses had a two-year agreement, the second year just beginning right now, in anticipation of the government continuing its policy.

I significantly fault the government, because we said you were wrong at the time, the third party said you were wrong at the time and now you are turning on a dime. For anyone who has tried to manage an affair such as that, to suddenly go from 8% to 1% -- in many respects they were well into the year. As I repeat myself, the school system had staffed the classrooms to the end of June. Probably 60% of their budget had already been committed. You said, "Tough luck; it's now 1%." I think they have a legitimate argument with the government.

There's no one in this place who doesn't recognize that we are in a recession. There's no one in this place who doesn't recognize the need for restraint. There's no one in this place who doesn't accept that our job is to get the economy going again. One way you do that is by showing you've got your finances under control.

I say to the Treasurer that last year's budget was a significant mistake. The hospitals, schools, colleges and universities are all struggling mightily to fix that mistake. Certainly, as the taxpayers right now are getting their property tax bills, I think they've a legitimate argument with the government to say that there was fiscal mismanagement over the last 12 months.

In terms of maintaining important public services, there couldn't have been a more disruptive series of financial events than there has been over the last 12 months, of saying to various institutions, "We're going to spend our way out of the recession," and then a year later coming at them and saying, "I know you're two, three or four months into your fiscal year, but we now are asking you to make dramatic reductions." Again, I don't want to be put in the position of arguing against the need for restraint -- there is absolutely no question of that -- but it's how the restraint has been implemented and how the maintaining of important public services has been implemented.

As we look at the three areas the Treasurer outlined for himself in terms of how he wants us to evaluate the budget, we will argue that the budget has failed in all three areas. We will be spending the next few weeks pointing out our concerns with it and why we don't think it will have met the objectives outlined by the Treasurer in his budget.

My colleagues will have significant opportunity over the next while to debate this.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Give us more, Gerry. I want to hear more.

Mr Stockwell: Keep going, Gerry. Give it to 'em.

Mr Phillips: I think I've covered what I wanted to cover, which is --

Mr Stockwell: Pick a few topics you don't want to cover.

Mr Phillips: I will talk a little bit about the jobs, then.

Mr Conway: I thought you were going to take that more comparative look at Laughren last year and Laughren this year.

Mr Phillips: No, I'll talk a little bit about the jobs, because as we look at job creation in the budget the Treasurer now acknowledges there's none.

Hon Mr Laughren: What?

Mr Phillips: I think the Treasurer will acknowledge that there are no new jobs in the budget -- none. In fact, the budget will count 25,000 jobs lost. How will we work our way out?

This Friday we will see our unemployment numbers come out. Right now in the province of Ontario we have unemployment of about 10.5%. In my opinion, the unemployment rate right now in the province is more like 12.5%. There's no doubt there are at least 100,000 people who have dropped out of the labour market -- just given up. So you take a 12.5% unemployment rate. The unemployment rate among young people, our 15- to 24-year age group, is closer to 25%; extremely serious numbers. Certainly as we head into the summer, the time when an awful lot of young people are leaving school, graduating from university, graduating from colleges, that number is going to rise. I know I've spoken in this House many times on youth unemployment, one of my single biggest concerns.

So as we look at the unemployment numbers, a minimum of 12.5% across the board and 25% among our young people, and this Friday the numbers will come out for the month of April, I hope finally we will see a turnaround in those numbers. If we don't, I think we are going to be really concerned because as we start into the summer months we should begin to see an upturn in the economy, and we should begin to see an upturn in the number of jobs and a downturn in the unemployment rate. Yes, the Treasurer is praying for that, and I am too, but I fear that this budget, first, did nothing really to create jobs. Second, the way we will work our way out of the unemployment situation is frankly going to be through the private sector, I think as the Treasurer himself will acknowledge, having the confidence to invest and to create jobs.

Hon Mr Laughren: And the US economy.

Mr Phillips: And the US economy, yes. My concern about the budget is that it neither creates jobs nor, most important perhaps, creates the sense of confidence out there to create jobs. So the three objectives of the budget again: to manage the deficit. It doesn't do that; as a matter of fact, we've some significant questions about whether the $9.9-billion deficit is real. Creating jobs: it doesn't do that in a direct sense, and it doesn't send the kind of signal we want to the private sector to allow it to invest to create jobs, and it doesn't send that kind of signal to the consumer. There are only two ways I'm aware of that we are going to work our way out of this: consumer confidence and investment confidence. This budget does neither; it neither creates consumer confidence nor creates investor confidence. The third thing is the maintaining of public services. As I say, in the health area we can already see hospital beds closing and a significant downsizing in our institutional care area.

By the way, in the health area we do not see a significant increase in our community-based care services here. We see the doctors' agreement, in less than a year, now under real attack, and it was heralded as a whole new era of relationships with the Ontario Medical Association.

So we have real questions about the budget and its effectiveness. We don't think it will achieve the three objectives the government set for itself.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Phillips moves that the resolution moved by the Treasurer on 30 April "that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government," be amended by deleting the words following the words "that this House" and adding thereto the following:

"recognizing that the 1992 budget will not help create new jobs in the province of Ontario and will cause additional job losses through new tax increases and the government's inability to control the spiralling deficit in government spending, and that the 1992 budget does nothing to encourage business and consumer confidence in the economy,

"Therefore believes that this government lacks the confidence of the House."

Are there any members who wish to participate on Mr Phillips's motion? There are no questions or comments. Are there any members who wish to participate in the debate on the amendment of Mr Phillips? The member for Carleton.

On motion by Mr Sterling, the debate was adjourned.

1610

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES RECOURS COLLECTIFS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 28, An Act respecting Class Proceedings / Loi concernant les recours collectifs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe, Mr Stockwell, you had the floor the last time we debated this issue.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I had the floor on this issue before I was so rudely interrupted last time by the gaggle of government members who were still stinging from the fact that a budget leak had materialized.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Did John Piper include you in his phone call?

Mr Stockwell: No, he didn't. Having said that, I seem reasonably satisfied at this time on those bills, and I yield the floor to the next speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments on Mr Stockwell's remarks?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I am disappointed, to say the least, that Mr Stockwell would choose to relinquish his position on the floor. As I recall it, last week we were just about to get a dissertation on the effect of the Attorney General's budgetary details, which had been provided to Mr Stockwell early, on the carrying-out of the obligations on the statutory voting that we're doing.

I would ask that while people look at our $9.9-billion deficit they also look at the plethora of promises and commitments to new programming the government is making and continues to make with respect not only to bills like Bill 28, where it is committing itself probably to new staff and new expenditures for administering these new schemes, but also for the scheme under Bill 29, about which we will speak a little later.

It seems to me that at every turn the public will have to know that the obligation of the Attorney General is to carry out the legislative mandate. It appears more and more that the numbers that have been presented by the Treasurer will prevent the Attorney General from carrying out the mandates that are given under Bill 28, and probably also the mandates required under Bill 29. As a result, the budgetary numbers that have been submitted to us -- the $9.9-billion deficit which is projected -- are but a puzzle for us to unravel. In fact, we will probably find out the puzzle is much larger than the pieces that we have been given to add up at this point.

I can only express my great disappointment that the member for Etobicoke West has chosen not to go into that line of dissertation, that he has chosen not to tell us the truth about the abilities of the Attorney General really to carry out the obligations of this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): No. He gets to respond.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry. Two minutes to the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I welcome the comments, I suppose, of the member for Bruce. Considering this government has brought forward what I consider to be a less than desirable budget this time -- it is playing fast and loose with the taxes, the revenues and the dollars and cents the taxpayers put into the coffers up here.

I know the government has its 1-800 NDP CHAT line, where you can phone up and get the latest political gossip from this government. I would ask that when the people who are really interested phone that 1-800 NDP CHAT line, they request a copy of the Agenda for People. This is it right here. I'll hold it up so all can see. This is the basis on which this government ran the last election, and the promises they made are in here, dozens and dozens of promises. I find it rather interesting that what they promised and what they've delivered are two completely different things.

I don't want to leave on such a low note, so I will say that the portion of the last budget I found to be most interesting was how this government was going to take land, sell it to itself and flow revenue back to reduce the deficit. This will be interesting for two reasons. First, I think it is basically almost fraudulent, but for further information, just to make it more interesting, it's going to be interesting to see exactly how they attack this. I know the SkyDome deal has fallen through, so they're going to buy it from themselves. Apparently they can't sell Suncor, so they're going to buy it from themselves. They're going to take the revenue and reduce their deficit. It's an insult to anybody who would offer a smoke-and-mirrors budget. It's not even decent smoke and mirrors. So I would like to see the Treasurer comment on that in future days, and I look forward to that.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate? Mr Hampton has moved third reading of Bill 28.

Motion agreed to.

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT (CLASS PROCEEDINGS FUNDING), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE BARREAU (FINANCEMENT DES RECOURS COLLECTIFS)

Mr Winninger, on behalf of Mr Hampton, moved third reading of Bill 29, An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings / Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Barreau aux fins de l'allocation d'une aide financière aux parties à un recours collectifs.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I believe at the time of his statement in connection with Bill 28, the Attorney General also made remarks that extend to Bill 29, so I don't propose to add anything to what the Attorney General has already said in respect of Bill 29.

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

1620

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I will address some of the comments the Attorney General made in this House last Monday, but before I commence my remarks, I do want to repeat that our party supports Bills 28 and 29, and we would have preferred that these two bills pass much sooner than they are presently doing.

The legislation we're dealing with today, Bill 29, which goes hand in hand with Bill 28 -- they're companion bills -- these two bills were first introduced in June 1990 by the then Attorney General, Ian Scott. They were reintroduced by the current Attorney General in December 1990, essentially in identical form.

I want to underline that both opposition parties would have given first, second and third reading to this legislation in December 1990. This legislation was very important to the public of Ontario and to the legal profession of Ontario. The government waited one full year to bring in second reading on November 18, 1991. We are still trying to find out why there was this significant delay, and I am going to address that again in a minute.

Last Monday, when we were finally dealing with third reading, the Attorney General made some introductory remarks which, quite frankly, took the opposition parties by surprise, because we had long been waiting for this legislation.

This legislation is very important. What it does is provide to the public of Ontario the opportunity to bring class proceedings against defendants. For example, in an incident such as the Mississauga train derailment, one or two individuals could institute action on behalf of all the public who suffered from that accident. It would give remedies to people who suffer environmental damage in a way that doesn't exist in Ontario today, in a way that's existed in Quebec for the past 10 years and in most jurisdictions in the United States for 25 years.

I want to refer to some of the reasons the Attorney General is again delaying implementation of these bills. I almost feel embarrassed to want to debate it at this point, because we do want to see them get voted. It will be voted today, but I want to take time to explain to the public of Ontario, to explain to the legal profession in Ontario, what might be happening with this Attorney General and with this ministry. But before I do that, I want to address several of the comments that were made by the Attorney General with respect to this legislation.

I will read the explanatory notes for Bill 29; they are very brief:

"The bill amends the Law Society Act to provide for the class proceedings fund and establish the class proceedings committee. The class proceedings fund is to be administered by the Law Foundation of Ontario.

"A plaintiff to a class proceeding may apply to the class proceedings committee for financial support from the class proceedings fund in respect of the plaintiff's disbursements related to the proceeding. The Bill sets out criteria for the committee to consider in deciding whether to fund a plaintiff. A defendant to a class proceeding is entitled to payment from the class proceedings fund in respect of costs awards made in the proceeding in the defendant's favour against a plaintiff who has received support from the fund.

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council is given regulation making powers relating to the class proceedings fund."

Last Monday, the Attorney General, in introducing Bill 28, addressed some comments also to Bill 29, which we have just begun to debate for third reading. He indicates, and I am quoting from Hansard of April 27, 1992:

"A number of steps must be taken before Bill 28 can be proclaimed. I should mention that there is a companion bill along with Bill 28. It is Bill 29, An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings....

"As I mentioned, a number of steps must be taken before Bill 28 and Bill 29 can be proclaimed. The first step is to design the class proceedings fund. Part and parcel of this legislation is to establish a fund for the purposes of funding class proceedings."

If I can just digress from the minister's quote from last Monday, it is my understanding that the law society has already established such a fund, that it has set aside and allocated the $500,000 contemplated by this legislation to provide the funding that's contemplated. There is no reason, no rationale, why the Attorney General last week was saying that this is the reason for delaying implementation of the fund. In effect, the fund already exists.

I will go back to the Attorney General's quote:

"Part of that step will be the need to establish an advisory committee to develop the structure, administration and procedures for the fund. Second, we need to select members for the advisory committee. We believe there should be representation from the Law Foundation of Ontario. We believe that actuarial expertise is required and would be helpful here. We want to ensure that we're able to determine how the fund can be made self-funding through the appropriate levies from damage awards and settlements. The advisory committee will have to resolve a number of issues relating to the fund before we're able to put it into place."

There's been a committee in place for years since this was introduced in 1990. Between first and second reading there was a full year for the committee to look at this type of fine-tuning of the implementation of the legislation. We do not have one good solid reason why the government didn't prepare in advance to implement this legislation in a manner that would be efficient and responsive to the legal profession and the needs of the public.

Perhaps I can continue with the Attorney General in Hansard of last week:

"Next we'll have to deal with adapting the rules of court. Under Bill 28 the rules of court do apply to class proceedings. Consideration will need to be given to whether it is necessary to amend any of the rules to accommodate class proceedings or whether forms of notice for class proceedings should be added to the rules." Again, they've had a year and a half to two years to put that together, knowing full well that these two bills, 28 and 29, would become law.

The Attorney General continued:

"After that, and this is all part and parcel of the nuts and bolts which some members may want to discuss or allude to here, we will have to of course consult with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Class proceedings raise certain ethical issues, such as the potential conflict of interest between the lawyer's duty to the representative plaintiff and to other members of the class.

"Finally, one of the issues which will be germane here will be judicial education. Class proceedings will mean a major change for the judiciary. There may be concerns about the impact of this legislation upon the judiciary. The Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform, which did the general discussion of the issue, recommended that special efforts be made to educate the judiciary about the new procedures. We need to be prepared to assist the judiciary in any judicial education programs or other measures that the judiciary initiates for its members."

I want to refer to something else at this point. Again last Monday the Attorney General was giving reasons -- I would call them excuses -- why he has no intention of proclaiming these two bills early. Among those is education of the legal profession and the judiciary.

I have in my hand a copy of the Ontario Reports of March 20, 1992. This issue, which is produced, effectively, by the Law Society of Upper Canada, has a two-page spread advertisement. This two-page spread advertisement by the Law Society of Upper Canada says, "Ontario's New Class Proceedings Act: Chair: Michael G. Cochrane, Scott and Aylen; Keynote Speaker: the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of Ontario; Tuesday, April 14, 1992."

It indicates the substance of what is in these two bills. Then it goes on: "For serious civil litigators, attendance is a must. Distinguished Faculty" -- and they list the faculty here -- "Ian Binnie QC, McCarthy Tétrault; the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of Ontario; Kenneth E. Howie QC, Thomson, Rogers; the Honourable Mr Justice R. S. Montgomery, Ontario Court of Justice (General Division); Leah Price, associate director, litigation, crown law office -- civil; Timothy D. Ray, Beament, Green (Ottawa); Ian Scott QC, Gowling, Strathy and Henderson" -- former Attorney General -- "Neal J. Smitheman, Fasken Campbell Godfrey."

On the other page -- I am not reciting or quoting the whole document, but I do want to make reference to several other points: "Are You Prepared? Keynote address: the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of Ontario; A Judicial Perspective on Class Proceedings." This presentation is by the Honourable Mr Justice R. S. Montgomery, Ontario Court of Justice (General Division).

1630

Another section here indicates, "Ethical and Other Considerations in Class Proceedings in Ontario, Kenneth E. Howie, QC, Thomson, Rogers; Ian Scott, QC, Gowling, Strathy and Henderson" -- the former Attorney General -- "and the Honourable Mr Justice R. S. Montgomery, Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)."

The reason I'm bringing this to the attention of the House is that this advertisement was printed on March 20, 1992; therefore, all the organizational and all the preliminary work for this particular type of legal education had to have been accomplished towards the end of 1991 and into early 1992.

Yet the Attorney General stood in his place last week and said we have to educate the judiciary. We have seminars already being given where the judiciary is in fact assisting in the education of the legal profession; we have the former Attorney General and the Attorney General, in an ad of March 20, 1992, participating. Yet we have last week's Hansard, whereby the Attorney General is saying to this Legislature, to the public and to the legal profession, "We need more time to pull this together." All the time it was being put together, the year that passed between first and second reading, all the time putting together these legal education courses involving the judiciary and the legal profession, it would have taken one person in the ministry drafting regulations so that they would be ready, and drafting an application form, because one of the reasons given for the delay was that they need time to draft an application to obtain funding for the costs as provided in Bill 29. The Attorney General is simply not credible when he brings in these delays.

I want to go on and refer to some additional quotes of the Attorney General last week.

"Finally, the legislation entails a number of regulations, specifically regulations that will have to deal with the class proceedings fund, and there may be some discussion here about what ought to go in some of those regulations."

With a committee in place for close to three years, with the judiciary participating in legal education seminars with the legal profession, with the former Attorney General participating in these seminars, it is inconceivable that the Attorney General could be so irresponsible that he would bring these bills forward for third reading and royal assent and not have draft regulations prepared, but I am led to believe that it is the case: The Attorney General has not even anticipated doing draft regulations for these bills when in fact he's calling the legal profession and the judiciary together to discuss these bills in detail and to learn about these bills. I think it is incompetence on the part of the Attorney General; if it's not incompetence, then perhaps there is another agenda.

I want to address for a minute or two what that other agenda might be. It is very interesting to note that the cabinet document that was leaked here last week had the cabinet minutes relating to estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General, and I want to quote from it. It says on the document, "Confidential Cabinet Document," and I can understand why perhaps the government wanted to keep it confidential for quite some time.

In the context of the Law Foundation of Ontario funding, which Bill 29 refers to, I will repeat: "The Bill amends the Law Society Act to provide for the class proceedings fund and establish the class proceedings committee. The class proceedings fund is to be administered by the Law Foundation of Ontario." The Law Foundation of Ontario provides the funding.

Now I want to refer to the confidential cabinet document that refers to law foundation revenues. The document, talking about Management Board, says: "The board did not approve...declines in revenue from the law foundation. In addition, the board directed the ministry to seek alternative revenues or expenditure reductions to manage any further declines in law foundation revenues."

Law foundation revenues fund the legal aid system. The Attorney General has told the law society that it wants the law society to take up more of the funding for legal aid certificates in the province of Ontario. The revenues for the law foundation come from interest earned on lawyers' trust accounts. Of course, as real estate practices diminish because of the recession, interest on these trust accounts diminishes and the funding available to legal aid goes down. As it's gone down, it's put pressure on the province to come up with additional funding for legal aid. We know the Attorney General has had discussions with the law society and has indicated that it must come up with more funding for legal aid certificates.

The only significant other funding that is available is the $500,000 that has been set aside by the law foundation to fund class proceedings. The law society has been saying to the Attorney General: "We don't want to eat into the funds for class proceedings, because we have separated those. We want them there, in effect, for the purpose for which we've allocated them, and that is to fund Bill 29."

There's a lot of uncertainty around the funding for the law foundation. I believe that the Attorney General, in making the statements he did last week that I read from Hansard, is trying to buy time. He's trying to buy time to put pressure on the law society to come forward with more dollars for legal aid funding.

What is absolutely significant as well when we look at the estimates the government was forced to table with the budget last week -- this is extremely significant, and I believe the law society and the legal profession in the province of Ontario should be aware of these numbers. I have in my hand a Law Society of Upper Canada legal aid bulletin dated April 1992. This bulletin basically underlines what most of the people in Ontario know, that there's been a real drain on the fund because of an increase in legal aid certificates particularly. I quote from the bulletin, "The plan estimates that the current high demand for legal aid will continue through 1992-93 with a 25% increase in applications received and certificates granted." They're projecting, in addition to a very major increase -- I think it was somewhere in the order of 28% this past year -- a further 25% increase in drawings against legal aid funding.

When we look at the estimates from the Ministry of the Attorney General that were tabled last week, we see that the budget item dealing with legal aid certificates has been increased by some $93 million. That is a 42% increase. I think that's good news for the legal profession and it's good news for the law society; on the other hand, all the time that the confidential documents were being prepared and the Attorney General had in his hip pocket a 42% increase in legal aid funding, representing over $93 million for the 1992-93 year, he was trying to do a hammer job on the law society. Part of that hammer job is dragging his feet on Bills 28 and 29.

1640

I think the actions of the Attorney General in this have been absolutely duplicitous. It is amazing what these numbers say to the members of this Legislature and to the legal profession and the public of Ontario, who (1) are concerned about what's happening to legal aid in the province, and (2) have been long awaiting Bills 28 and 29 so they would have better access to our courts and the judicial system.

I don't know what is going on in the Ministry of the Attorney General. I don't know what their agenda is. We see in secret documents $93 million more allocated to legal aid, which is somewhere over 40%; we see the law society's own projections saying it's only a 25% increase. At the same time the leaked documents indicate that the ministry should continue to do a hammer job on the law society with respect to the law foundation revenues and the law foundation fund.

I look forward to the Attorney General coming before a committee of this Legislature to deal with the estimates of his ministry, because I believe he has some very serious, fundamental questions to answer with respect to these leaked estimates documents, not the least of which is the fact -- if I can find it here -- that where there is tremendous financial pressure in support and custody orders enforcement or, as it is now called, the family support plan, the biggest problem and the biggest criticism is lack of funding, lack of personnel, to implement what most people think is an improvement in the system. The reason it is backlogged and people cannot receive service is thought to be lack of funding.

Last year's 1991-92 estimates indicate the family support plan, or SCOE, as it then was, was allocated $25,284,000. In fact, they actually spent $18.8 million. More than $7 million was available to fund the SCOE that this government wasn't efficient enough to put into the system to help people who need help. That's number one. Number two, the $25,284,000 in the estimates for 1991-92 is decreasing by close to $1 million.

I look forward to the Attorney General coming before whichever committee he will be to discuss the estimates. I think the Attorney General and this government have a lot to answer for, for not providing access to justice for all the people who could use class proceedings legislation. If this government were serious or efficient, that legislation could have been in place in November 1990 with the unanimous consent of everyone in this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Are there any questions and/or comments?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I want to compliment my colleague from Ottawa -- which riding is it?

Mr Chiarelli: West.

Mrs Caplan: From Ottawa West. There are so many ridings in the Ottawa area, to keep them all straight is sometimes a little difficult, so I do apologize to the member for Ottawa West. Not only does he represent his constituents extremely well and very effectively in this House, but his grasp of this piece of legislation and his important criticism of it has been an important part of this debate.

He points out, quite rightly, that this legislation could have been brought in by this government some 18 months ago. What I had expected, and I know he did, was that we would see that as part of the agenda during the first six months, because it made so much sense.

He also rightly points out the concerns he has about what's happening with the Ministry of the Attorney General. I think the points he makes on this piece of legislation will be part of the focus of the public during what I hope will be extensive public discussion at committee.

I want to say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the member for Ottawa West that this piece of legislation and what it is designed to achieve has been unnecessarily delayed by the Attorney General, Mr Hampton. I believe the reason for that may be because of the new Attorney General's inability to run his ministry effectively and work with the very professional civil service that's there. I know I was quite disappointed to hear about the problems he was having in his ability to communicate and work with his former Deputy Attorney General. I am hoping those problems have been resolved.

The fact that this piece of legislation has been tabled may be an example that we can start to see some very important work which has been on the books for quite some time finally dealt with. The people of the province are waiting for it. The member for Ottawa West makes a very good point.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further questions and/or comments?

Mr Winninger: In brief response to the commentary of the member for Ottawa West and the member for Oriole, I think it was made quite clear by the Attorney General in his statement on third reading why there was a necessary period of delay. The report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform, a thick document in itself, had 32 pages of recommendations in regard to the implementation of class proceedings in this province. I think it's incumbent upon the Attorney General to consider very carefully how such an innovative scheme for litigation can be properly implemented. This is a scheme of class action proceedings unlike what we've customarily dealt with in our courts of law, and it's important that it be done right.

The Attorney General has pointed out some of the reasons there's been a modest delay in implementing the legislation. He has indicated that the advisory committee had to develop the structure, the administration and the procedures for the fund, and that actuarial expertise was required to determine how the fund can be made self-funding through appropriate levies from damage awards and settlement funds. He has further indicated the need for regulations dealing with several issues, not only procedures but also limits and tariffs for payments and conditions of awards of costs. Forms have to be developed and considerable attention has to be given to the manner in which that fund can best operate.

I will conclude by saying that the delays experienced in implementing the legislation were necessary delays and certainly were unlike the kinds of delays we experienced before last Christmas through opposition tactics. If the opposition hadn't delayed our proceedings, we might have introduced this for third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Ottawa West has two minutes in reply.

Mr Chiarelli: One can only wonder what was happening in the Ministry of the Attorney General between December 17, 1990, and November 18, 1991. One can only wonder why this government wanted to send the bills to committee when no one had amendments to propose, when effectively no one wanted to come before the committee and make a submission. The Hansard of the committee will show that upon cross-examination by the critic from the Conservative Party, they went out and tried to solicit a couple of briefs before the standing committee on administration of justice in order to further delay this legislation.

If any regulations, any application forms, had to be prepared, they could have been prepared between December 1990 and third reading. Why weren't they? They still haven't answered that. I'm absolutely dumfounded that the Attorney General and his staff could participate with the Law Society of Upper Canada educational programs, which had to be in preparation a good eight to nine months ago, yet they couldn't have had one of their legislative counsel in the ministry prepare some draft regulations and a draft application form. They didn't do it, and they didn't do it for one of two reasons: They are incompetent, or they have a different agenda they're not talking about. There's no other option. With that I rest my case.

1650

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the third reading of Bill 29.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm going to be very brief today in indicating our support for Bill 29, as we indicated support for Bill 28.

I hear the concern of the Liberal Party with regard to the delay in bringing forward this bill and the necessary regulations. The only thing I would say is that I think, of all the faults which I have witnessed with regard to complicated legislation, legislation which is somewhat ground-breaking, it's perhaps more prudent to travel slowly than fast.

I was, for instance, very much upset when the past Attorney General brought very substantial court reform before this Legislature in the last Parliament. I felt their particular attitude was that they didn't require a pacing for that legislation to go through the Legislature, and as a result the former Attorney General, Mr Scott, had to amend that bill before the year was out, I believe three or four times. Therefore I don't agree with his criticism of the government, although I'm a member of the opposition, with regard to this. I would rather see the government get it right, and perhaps if it has to take a little bit longer, we'll just have to wait a little bit longer. I think the legislation is important and it's important to get it right.

We have had the exact opposite experience with regard to the Minister of Citizenship, who has brought before this Legislature Bill 74, which is the Advocacy Act. Notwithstanding differences as to how it should look, I think their whole approach on that one has been the exact opposite of their approach on these two bills. With regard to Bill 74, it's my understanding that the government will be shortly introducing 200 amendments to Bill 74, the Advocacy Act. When a government brings forward a piece of legislation and it has to amend it 200 times before we get to third reading, then there's something wrong with its process and its system.

I believe this legislation on class actions has been thought out much better than the Advocacy Act. In fact, when a government brings forward a bill like Bill 74 and says it is going to amend it 200 times, it's going to be faced with a very rough ride from our party. We will require basically the legislative process to start from step one again, because we just can't see the legislation being amended that significantly and not allowing all the interest groups, the interested parties, the citizens of Ontario, to have an opportunity to comment when there is such a radical alteration of legislation.

I want to say in summary, as I promised to be brief on this, that Bills 28 and 29 have gone through a long consultation process, but the Attorney General should be given an opportunity to do it right and we would, generally speaking in our party, prefer that there be a slow pacing of legislation, particularly within our justice system where you are creating new rights for people. Other people are having to take on new obligations. We're going through a method of funding these class actions. We are in a very, very tough recessionary time and we would not like to see the government throw additional burdens upon the taxpayers.

We look forward to the Attorney General paying some attention to this legislation and carrying it forward, but we ask him also to be cautious and bring forward something he has consulted properly on with the parties who will be using the legislation, the parties who will benefit from the legislation and the parties who will be burdened by the legislation. We're glad to offer our support and hope the Attorney General can push along as speedily as it is prudent to do so.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Chiarelli: I want to comment on the member for Carleton's comments. First of all, I would encourage him to read the Hansard of the standing committee on administration of justice of last November, when this issue was dealt with, particularly on the comments of the member for Willowdale, the Conservative critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, Mr Harnick.

I think he would concur with the comments I made at that time. I would encourage him to read in Hansard of last Monday the comments of the Conservative critic, the member for Willowdale, who basically said the identical thing I said here today and agreed with me last week. Although he had some criticism for the previous Liberal government as well, he did agree that the delays that were taken by this government were unacceptable. He was not very happy at all.

I guess the Conservative caucus is split on this particular issue, because the member for Carleton's comments are diametrically opposed not only to Mr Harnick's comments but also to the comments that were made in this House last Monday by Mr Stockwell, the member for Etobicoke West.

The member for Carleton did not address why there was no action on this bill from first reading to second reading, over the period of a year. He did not address the issue as to why the government insisted on sending it to committee and ended up filibustering its own bill.

I respect the comments of the member for Carleton. He has experience in cabinet in the justice portfolio. He is an experienced lawyer and his comments should be taken under advisement. However, his comments were applicable 18 months ago. We've been waiting for 18 months.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments.

Mrs Caplan: The member for Carleton refers to the legislative process. The point he has attempted to make is that it's important to go slowly during that process. I think it's important for the people of Ontario who are watching this debate to understand the legislative process as it exists today.

It is possible for the government to issue a green paper which is usually an options paper, a white paper which is government policy, draft legislation, and then we have first reading of a piece of legislation which usually outlines very briefly the intent of the legislation through a statement by the minister. We all know that first reading is usually, although not always, automatic in this House.

Second reading affords the opportunity for debate in principle. Following the second reading vote, the bill can then be sent to committee for full public hearings, or if it is considered a matter of housekeeping it could just proceed to committee of the whole House for some minor change and amendment.

In committee, whether it follows full public hearings or not, we know that both substantive and housekeeping amendments can be placed and that generally the legislative process is quite a long process if it does involve those kinds of committee hearings.

I would say to the member for Carleton that this legislation, Bills 28 and 29, went through that extensive discussion process and consultation in advance of the presentation of the legislation, as he referred to a report and document. I think significant amendments during the committee process often will suggest that process has been good in that the public has been heard and that the government is willing to make changes, although I would share his concern if in fact the amendments fundamentally alter the principles of the bill. I would suggest that the legislative process safeguards ensuring the public interest.

1700

Mr Winninger: I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Carleton for his thoughtful and temperate wisdom on the subject of the Class Proceedings Act. As he was a former practising barrister and solicitor and also parliamentary assistant to a former Attorney General, I know he's sensitive to the manner in which legislation is implemented. Certainly this is far-reaching legislation.

At a recent program sponsored by the Law Society of Upper Canada the former Attorney General, Ian Scott, now of Toronto's Gowling, Strathy and Henderson, struck a cautionary note and said: "The burden on the lawyer who acts for the representative plaintiff is a legal burden the likes of which we've never seen before. At our firm," said Mr Scott, "there's going to be a rule that no class action can be taken on without the permission of the management committee, because while there are all kinds of precautions built into the statute, you know that if something goes awry the representative plaintiff is going to say, 'Well, I relied on Mr Scott; he prepared the plan.' And if you make a mistake even with the court approvals that are built into the plan, there's big payola down the road for the person who discovers it."

I think not only the members of the practising bar will appreciate the caution that the Attorney General is taking in implementing this legislation, but also the consumers who stand to be protected by our cautionary approach and certainly the judiciary who have to deal with complex motions asking for status to proceed on a class proceeding basis.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. Seeing none, the honourable member for Carleton has two minutes.

Mr Sterling: I want to thank three members for commenting on my very brief comments.

I respect the member for Ottawa West with regard to his knowledge about this issue because I think he's taken a great interest in it and I listened to some of his speech last week with regard to it. I do want to say to him, though, and all members of this Legislature, that I believe a healthy parliamentary system requires that people, when they come to a debate, throw upon their own knowledge, their own views with regard to a particular matter. Talking about process, I don't think that any party has to be rock solid and in one position or another position with regard to as minor an issue as process with regard to whether a bill is going fast enough or not going fast enough.

Our party is solidly behind, as a unit, both these pieces of legislation. I disagree with some of the comments which were made by the member for Etobicoke West and by the member for Willowdale with regard to the pacing of this legislation, but so be it. I think it's good that within our party we at least allow party members to express different opinions in this Legislature. We would hope that members within this Legislature who would express different opinions than their party colleagues would not be chastised; there would not be this silly comment that your party is breaking up over a small issue like the pacing of legislation.

I look at it as a strength within our party that we can disagree with each other, we can express those in an open forum like this, but that when it's necessary we do come together, as we most certainly do on most issues, and act as a party in unison.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the third reading of Bill 29? Seeing none, could I call on the parliamentary assistant and member for London South for a wrapup?

Mr Winninger: I would suggest that we've had helpful input from all members in the House in regard to both Bill 28 and Bill 29. I think the debate has been a fulsome debate. I think it's time we proceed to conclude the implementation of Bill 29. Therefore I would ask for third reading of the bill at this time.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Hampton has moved third reading of Bill 29. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT L'ACCÈS À L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

Consideration of Bill 136, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy / Loi modifiant certaines lois concernant l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'd like to move an amendment --

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We are looking now for comments or questions on any sections of the bill, prior to the moving.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would like to know, as opposition critic for Management Board, who's carrying this for the government, and will there be a statement as we begin committee of the whole proceedings?

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable parliamentary assistant will be carrying on behalf of the minister, it is my understanding.

Mr Sutherland: Yes, Mr Chair. Could I have permission to have staff come on?

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Oxford has asked -- do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: While the parliamentary assistant to the Chairman of Management Board is preparing, I would like to just point out that this is the first time the member for Oxford will be carrying a piece of legislation in this House, and I would encourage my colleagues on this side to be gentle.

The Second Deputy Chair: I am sure that those words of wisdom will be considered quite adequately.

Section 1:

The Second Deputy Chair: We will now be dealing with section 1. It's the Chair's understanding that there are no amendments to section 1. I therefore ask: Is it the pleasure of the House that section 1 stand as part of Bill 136? Agreed?

Section 1 agreed to.

1710

Section 2:

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Sutherland moves that section 40.1 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as set out in subsection 2(1) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Non-disclosure prevails

"(4) Despite subsection 63(1), the requirements in this section that information received from the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission not be disclosed prevail over any other law."

Mr Sutherland: The proposed amendment to Bill 136 is intended to ensure that the non-disclosure provision prevails over any other law. It will remove any ambiguity created by subsection 63(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which allows for disclosure of confidential information as required by law.

Mrs Caplan: We will not be supporting this amendment because I believe it is not in the public interest. I think it also runs contrary to the principle of the public's right to know, freedom of information as well as protection of personal privacy. I recall when the original bill was tabled, I believe it was in 1986, and this is an amendment to that original freedom of information and protection of personal privacy legislation.

It's our belief that the need for individuals and for the public to be aware of hazardous information and materials is significant. I would say this amendment runs contrary to the New Democratic Party's and the NDP government's commitment to bring forward whistle-blowing legislation. Whistle-blowing legislation in fact would require the public disclosure of information that was in the public interest and would safeguard public servants who brought that information to public attention.

I'm a little concerned and distressed that the parliamentary assistant and the government are bringing forward a piece of legislation and a proposed amendment which would further hamper workers from getting the information from their employers, and further, if I understand the amendment correctly, it would hamper the rights of public servants to disclose that information even if they believed it was in the public interest to do so. So I would ask the parliamentary assistant to clarify that, and if in fact this is what that amendment does, we will not be supporting it. In fact, we are placing an amendment, as soon as this one is disposed of, which would encourage and save harmless any public servant. It would require that information be made public if it was in the public interest to do so.

The point I would make on this particular amendment before I sit down is that freedom of information legislation is about openness; it's about accountability; it's about the public interest and the override of the public interest to know and to have information. The flip side and the balance to freedom of information is protection of personal privacy, and the freedom of information and protection of personal privacy legislation is supposed to be designed to achieve that balance. There should be an override in that legislation, as I appreciate it, to make sure the public interest is the one that is always served.

The concern I have about the legislation, the amendments that have been tabled by the NDP government, is that they seem to be doing the opposite of everything that the NDP -- the New Democratic Party, the New Democratic government -- has been talking about, not only for many years but even since it has arrived in government. I'd like the parliamentary assistant to explain how the promise of whistle-blowing legislation and amendments that close down and refuse information is consistent, or if it is not consistent, how it can be supported and brought forward by the government at this time.

I'll have more to say about it, but it seems to me that in fact this runs contrary to everything the NDP said it stood for when it came to freedom of information and the public's right to know, particularly about hazardous workplace environments.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on the government amendment? The parliamentary assistant.

Mr Sutherland: In response to the remarks from the member for Oriole, the amendment is only a clarification. Currently the public cannot be aware of this information without this amendment coming forward. We cannot get the trade secret information from the federal government because of the current provisions that are now in there.

We're also a little bit surprised, because there was certainly support for this bill expressed by the opposition party, and to this process.

Mrs Caplan: I would point out that it was in fact a Liberal government that brought in the freedom of information and protection of personal privacy legislation. That's something I'm particularly proud of. I'm expressing today my concerns over the amendments that have been tabled by the New Democratic government. It's their policy and their amendments I'm expressing concern about today.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): This brings forward an interesting point. Having had a little bit of history with the freedom of information and privacy act, I want to draw the parliamentary assistant's attention particularly to subsection 11(1) of the freedom of information act. Under that section it says -- I'll paraphrase it -- that despite anything else in the freedom of information act, despite any privacy provisions, if a head of a department -- which means effectively the minister or anybody acting for the minister -- gets into his hands information which he considers it is in the public interest to reveal and "the record reveals a grave environmental, health or safety hazard to the public," he must reveal that immediately. Therefore, if he doesn't, he puts the government in legal jeopardy. Okay?

Now, no other provision in the freedom of information act requires the government to disclose information without being asked for it. The freedom of information act basically says to a minister, "If you are asked under the freedom of information act for a document, you must produce it." Subsection 11(1) is the only section within the act that does this. It's the only section within any freedom of information act I'm aware of that does it. I know that because it was at my instance that it was first put in, to my draft bill in 1984, and was carried forward by the Liberals when it was brought forward.

The question to the parliamentary assistant, of course, is, does this section exonerate the official who gets this information in his hand? I don't care from where. It doesn't matter whether it came from private industry, another government source or whatever. That's the way subsection 11(1) reads now. If you get that information and you deem it a public hazard to not disclose it and you don't disclose it, then as a citizen I can sue the government of Ontario for not disclosing it.

Does this amendment to Bill 136, that in spite of any other law there is no duty to disclose, mean that if you get information on hazardous materials from the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and you deem it is going to be hazardous to the public not to divulge that -- are you telling us by this amendment that you don't have to divulge it?

1720

Mr Sutherland: My understanding is that once you get the information you can divulge it, but only subject to the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Part of this amendment is a requirement in terms of what the federal government is demanding regarding issues around trademark protection of products coming forward. It's our understanding that they could access that information if they thought it was going to be helpful in the investigation process of a hazardous material and use it as part of their investigation, but in terms of the federal government requirement, this amendment is so we can have access to that information to carry out those opportunities.

Mr Sterling: When I was the minister responsible for this legislation over a four-year period, I heard this argument time and time again, that in order for us to get information as a government from whichever body -- another government body, a police force, a foreign police force, a citizen or whatever -- it should be excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that there shouldn't be this obligation on the government to reveal the information it had received from this other source.

Can you tell me if the last three words of this amendment, "any other law," apply to the freedom of information act? As I read it, they would. Why do you need those words if it would be subject to the freedom of information act?

Mr Sutherland: Again, I would respond that this amendment being proposed is not changing the intent of the original bill. It is to clarify what was believed to be some ambiguity.

Mr Sterling: That's fine and dandy. We have created a law in this Legislature before, and I want you to tell me straight out, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, and I'm willing to ask you as long as the day goes along, does this or does it not affect the situation I'm asking about? Because you are evading a direct answer, I assume I am correct in my assumption that a government official -- I don't care where he is, what branch of government -- will not be obligated to divulge this information if he deems it is harmful to the public to divulge it.

Mr Sutherland: It's my understanding that this will still override section 11 of the act.

Mr Sterling: So you're telling me that my worst fears are correct, is that right? If this overrides section 11 of the freedom of information act, then there is no longer an obligation on the Minister of Labour -- I would assume the other legislation comes on -- once he has this information in his hands, to divulge it to the public even if he deems it a hazard to the general welfare of the public. You're lifting him from that obligation, is that correct?

Mr Sutherland: You're talking about disclosure of information to the public. Because of the restrictions placed by the federal government currently, the problem under the act is that we're not able to access all that information now that we need to carry out investigations under the act. We don't have access to all the specifics due to the protections afforded by federal trademark legislation, and this would allow us to have a better handle on what was made up to carry out an investigation.

Mr Sterling: As this conversation progresses, I get more and more concerned about the fact that we are not protecting the public, as we tried to protect it under section 11 of the freedom of information act. Maybe I could ask the parliamentary assistant, did you approach the federal government and say: "Look, we have the freedom of information act. Do you object to a minister standing up and revealing information he may have received from the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission if in fact it's a danger to the public under section 11?" Have you asked the federal government whether it objects to that?

Mr Sutherland: Again, the federal government has asked for this amendment in terms of clarification, because it felt that as worded before, it was somewhat ambiguous.

Mr Sterling: When you start talking about two fairly complex pieces of legislation, I don't have the degree of comfort I perhaps would like to get from the parliamentary assistant that they have explored all avenues in order to allow subsection 11(1) of the freedom of information act to live on over and above the requirements I think are necessary in order to protect the public.

If an official sitting in an office in the Ministry of Labour gets information from this source and deems that it's in the interests of the public to reveal that there's a health hazard, a real safety problem with regard to what may happen if he doesn't reveal that information, I don't think the government should be let off the hook under this piece of legislation and allowed to be quiet about it, because section 11 wants the government to be responsible.

If the government discovers that there's an environment problem, if it discovers there's a health problem or a safety hazard, then there's an obligation on the government today to reveal that to the public as soon as possible. If they don't, the public can sue them for not revealing it.

I am not going to give them an amendment here today which will allow a Minister of Labour to keep his mouth shut about some health hazard he has learned about from a source of information. I don't care where that information comes from. If the minister has it, then he has to have an obligation to tell the public about that health hazard.

Mrs Caplan: This exactly goes back to the point I raised when we began this debate. I am not sure the member for Oxford, as parliamentary assistant to the Chairman of Management Board, fully comprehends perhaps what the impact of this amendment may be as far as the legislation is concerned. I have not heard a clear response to the concerns I and the member for Carleton have raised around the obligation of the government to disclose when it is in the public interest.

The whole principle of the freedom of information and protection of personal privacy legislation was to require the government to be open and inform the public when there is an overriding public interest. The public's right and need to know is guaranteed by the existing piece of legislation.

Can you stand in your place today and assure this House that this amendment does not change that obligation of the minister and the government to inform the public when there is a public interest override?

Mr Sutherland: I apologize if I haven't been clear, but no, it doesn't change that obligation; the hazardous material involved, whatever, would still be disclosed. The protection, I guess, is under the composition. The ingredients are already there and people can access that information. The trade secret stuff is the composition that goes up there. So, no, it would not change that obligation.

1730

Mrs Caplan: If the parliamentary assistant could take us through the steps of how that would happen, I would appreciate that.

Mr Sutherland: From my understanding, the ingredients are already listed on all the materials. They have to be listed by law. The federal Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is the one that deals with the question of the composition of how these ingredients are composed to make the actual product, so that is the process this amendment is coming forward to clarify. As I said, it does not change the original intent of the bill and it would not remove any obligation for disclosure, as your concern has raised and hopefully the member for Carleton's concern has raised.

Mr Sterling: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could tell me what information he receives under subsection 46(2) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.

Mr Sutherland: I'm sorry, Mr Chair, I didn't catch his question. Could he repeat it, please?

Mr Sterling: The section he has attempted to amend refers to -- I've got to get my glasses on so I can read the darn thing -- "Subject to subsection (2), all information obtained by an officer or employee of the ministry from the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission under subsection 46(2)." What do you receive under subsection 46(2)?

Mr Sutherland: You receive the composition, or what is defined as the trade secret -- the recipe for making up the product.

Mr Sterling: Do you receive any information under that section about the toxicity or what other characteristics of the compound might be?

Mr Sutherland: Generally it's how the product is made. That's what's protected under the trade secret, so that is the information they would be able to access.

Mr Sterling: Because we've got into the debate on this, unfortunately, I'd like to see a copy of subsection 46(2) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. I'll attempt to find that out in the next few moments before we vote on this, Mr Chairman.

Mrs Caplan: Pending the information by the parliamentary assistant, it would seem to me that they have proposed that this amendment is clarification of what is already existing and would therefore fall into the category, from the government's point of view, as not a significant amendment or a significant departure from the principles of the bill.

If that is the case, then I would withdraw my objections specifically, but I would like some assurance from the parliamentary assistant that the government will be accepting the amendment we'll be proposing which would clarify the right of civil servants to be protected should they disclose that which is in the public interest, and it would follow the commitment from the parliamentary assistant that in fact the obligation to disclose remains. It would give me great comfort, and I'd have more comfort supporting this amendment.

Just to tell the parliamentary assistant what we'll be moving at the appropriate time, it will be an amendment to subsection 40.1(2). We'll add a clause (c) that says:

"(c) any person or body if the officer or employee of the ministry determines that the information is of such a nature that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to be in the interest of the health and welfare of the public."

That is a friendly amendment and compatible with the legislation. It would give me comfort now if I knew you would support this. I could then withdraw my concerns about what you're proposing as a housekeeping amendment and then allow the legislation to move forward.

I think it's a reasonable request, since you've told me that your amendment would not remove the obligation. My amendment, the Liberal opposition amendment, would further clarify the legislation to ensure that the public interest would be served. If I had your assurance that this was the case, then I think we could move forward more expeditiously with this amendment.

Mr Sutherland: Part of the problem with that is that the member for Oriole has put forward an amendment about revealing information, and unfortunately we can't access that information right now. I guess I'm a little uncertain, then, in terms of what the exact intent of her amendment is. You have to be able to access information before there would be retribution for revealing that information. The purpose of our amendment is to do that. My sense would be that I'm still not quite sure what her specific intent is.

Mrs Caplan: If I could clarify for the parliamentary assistant, it follows on exactly the case I've been making and is reinforced by my colleague the member for Carleton. If a member of the civil service, by whatever means, comes into information which might be deemed private under section 11 and it is the view of that civil servant and of the government, but particularly of the person who receives that information, that there is an overriding public interest, then that civil servant could make sure the information is divulged and would not face retribution for having acted in a way which was consistent with the public interest.

Let me try to simplify that. We know that civil servants who work for the provincial ministries receive information which technically they may not be entitled to receive, as forms are filed and that sort of thing. They will receive information which they know, particularly as it relates to hazardous substances, should be divulged. If they do that, our amendment would protect them. It's a form of whistle-blowing, which I know you have said you support, and it would protect those who, if they do have that information given to them and they release it in the public interest, would be protected.

If I had your commitment to support that principle, the intent of which I think you believed in principle in the past, then it would give me comfort in supporting the amendments that have come forward.

Mr Sutherland: Again, I guess the intent of what we're trying to say here is that if someone reveals a hazardous material, that by itself is not the problem; the question is if someone reveals the actual trade secret composition. That's where the difficulty is. Revealing a hazardous material is not a problem. Therefore, I would think that by having what's there now the public interest is protected.

Mrs Caplan: Then I can assume that you are in support of the amendment we would put forward that has the test of "reasonable" attached, where it says that "disclosure could reasonably be expected to be in the interest of the health and welfare of the public."

1740

Mr Sutherland: It's my understanding that the federal commission will not give us the information unless we put in the same protections it has in place. That's what we're trying to do here with the amendment, clarifying that to do that.

Mr Sterling: One of the problems is that we didn't have notice of this amendment until we came to this debate this afternoon. When we go into it deeper and deeper we get into more and more problems. This particular amendment deals with section 2 of Bill 136, and section 2 of Bill 136 refers to subsection 46(2) of a federal government act, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. Through the kindness of legislative policy advisers, I've had an opportunity to look at subsection 46(2).

Subsection 46(2) appears to me to be wider, from my very initial reading, than just requiring or handing over the composition of the compounds. It talks about all information which has been received by the commission from suppliers, from manufacturers. I'm not comforted by what I read, in that the information they may be passing along to the government of Ontario may not only be compositions but something in addition to compositions.

I suggest to the parliamentary assistant only that perhaps it would be most prudent to rise and report and move on to another part of business so that we can have an opportunity to look at it. I'm not trying to stall at all. I'm only concerned that the situation hasn't been perhaps viewed as the member for Oriole and I are indicating.

I guess another question I have too is that even if it was only compositions, would that prevent the official from making a conclusion as to perhaps the toxicity of a certain compound, from making a statement thereafter?

I'm concerned about any law we make in here which gives any minister the opportunity to avoid subsection 11(1) of the freedom of information act. Basically this is the first time I've seen it, and that's why the alarm bells go off. With respect, I would truthfully like the opportunity to read subsection 46(2) in the federal act and understand if any additional information and compositions are being conveyed to provincial officials and whether it would block or deny a citizen the right to sue the government if something anticipated in our subsection 11(1) came up.

Mr Sutherland: It's my understanding that the member for Carleton asked about toxicity issues, those types of things. That type of information is already there and is passed on. That's not the type of information being protected. It is the specific trade secret information, the composition and maybe some of the financial information that went into developing it, that might give other competitors, if they had access to it, an advantage. So with regard to the type of concern you raised, specifically regarding toxicity, that information is made available.

Mr Sterling: Subsection 46(2) of the federal act, which I have just had the opportunity to read, is a pretty wide section. I don't have the knowledge as to what information is being conveyed. Is it strictly information as to the compounds of these? You're given the trade name plus the compound that it comes under?

I understand the reasoning for these kinds of things going on because the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is used by industries to discover what the other industries are doing: industrial espionage, or whatever you want to call it. There's a very good reason to keep that secret, in order to make certain that industries come forward before the commission and get their particular compounds approved for whatever use.

Can you answer me this, parliamentary assistant: If, for instance, the claims by the manufacturer were not accurate and that person receiving the information within the ministry determined from the compound that there was a problem, would he then be restricted from saying anything about it?

Mr Sutherland: It's my understanding that when you're talking about the claims of what is put forward or the accuracy of that, that the federal commission is the one with that responsibility and that it has already carried out some verification procedures to determine whether that information is accurate. So on your specific question, that would be the federal government's responsibility.

Mr Sterling: Is there any other legislation that avoids subsection 11(1)? Is there any other government legislation, any other act, which includes the freedom of information act, subsection 11(1), which exempts information from being used by an official of the Ontario government to warn the public of a problem?

Mr Sutherland: If there's provision already agreed upon that any of the confidentiality clauses that may be there would prevail over the act, then, yes, there would be other ones, but I don't have right here what those specific ones might be.

Mr Sterling: This issue is more than just dealing with this particular administrative problem, if you want to call it that. What you're talking about is sort of breaking the dam or whatever it is in terms of dealing with other kinds of situations which will arise from time to time where other governments and other individuals will come forward and say, "Look, we won't give you the information unless you do away with the public's right to know under the freedom of information act." That's why I asked the question. Are you breaking new ground in terms of putting the onus on the government to reveal information?

That's why I think after this debate it would be most prudent to set this matter down and bring it back another day, perhaps when you have had an opportunity to talk to our federal counterparts and ask whether they really need an exclusion of any other act, because there are significant confidentiality provisions within our freedom of information act to prevent the disclosure of commercial information. We have it protected already under the freedom of information act, so why are we breaking new ground here and saying this particular kind of information is different from any other kind of information that is contained within the provincial government?

Mr Sutherland: I think I want to reiterate, to assure the member for Carleton, that no new precedent is being set in relationship to the freedom of information act by the amendment that is being put forward here. I would also say to him again that the information or the ingredients are all still being revealed. It is their specific composition within a mixture or their percentage in that mixture that is the issue being protected under federal legislation.

I think the concerns the member for Carleton has raised have been dealt with. We're not setting any new precedent here with respect to freedom of information.

1750

Mrs Caplan: At the start of today's debate on this Bill 136, I mentioned that the member for Oxford was carrying a piece of legislation for the first time and called upon members of the opposition to be gentle. We do want to be helpful. I do want to be helpful.

I think it is important for the parliamentary assistant to understand that when we read this amendment, which we have seen for the first time today, it seems much broader in its scope than what you have described to us here in this House.

I recognize you're a new member of the Legislature and that this is the first time you've carried legislation in the House, but it is important that we be confident that the effect of this legislation is not going to run contrary to the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act wherein the government has an obligation to disclose. Nowhere in this legislation or in this amendment you're proposing do I see that kind of narrowing of the scope you have identified in your comments, and I am wondering if you have the information you could share with us, or a legal opinion from the Ministry of the Attorney General, that would suggest that this amendment is that narrow in its scope as to protect the public interest.

Mr Sutherland: I appreciate the member for Oriole representing the concerns of the public interest, and I think that's a fair comment. I think all members here want to ensure that the public interest is looked after in terms of safety.

I will reiterate to the member for Oriole that in this case, no, it is not broadening the scope; it is not an attempt to allow the government not to disclose. If it helps, I can assure the member for Oriole that there has been consultation with industry, labour and the other level of government, and there is a consensus that this amendment is fine, that it is not allowing the government to escape from its obligations to disclose.

Mr Sterling: Can I ask the parliamentary assistant if he knows whether the federal act is subject to the federal freedom of information and privacy laws?

Mr Sutherland: If I could, Mr Chair, I'll read out subsection 46(1), because it makes reference to the federal legislation. It says, "Subject to this section and the other provisions of this part and any regulation made under this part, all information obtained by the commission or an appeal board from a supplier-employer for the purposes of this part is privileged and, notwithstanding the Access to Information Act or any other act or law, no official of the commission nor a member of an appeal board shall knowingly, without the consent in writing of the person by whom the information was provided" -- and it goes on from there. So it makes reference to it.

Mr Sterling: We're getting near the end of the day, and I really would like the parliamentary assistant to go to the federal government and say, "Look, if you will not allow our freedom of information act to be in place for the revelation of this information, will you at least allow section 11 of the freedom of information act to stand?" I would like to see whether additional information other than just straight information regarding the compound formula -- information as to the effect of this compound, that kind of information -- is being given as well. I'm not satisfied that's being done here.

I would draw the parliamentary assistant's attention to the commercial exceptions under our freedom of information act, which basically allow any member of our government to refuse to give information of a commercial nature. In other words, there's no way an official of this government could release that information unless it was under section 11 of the freedom of information act.

I am very reluctant to pass this amendment without having that fuller knowledge.

Mr Sutherland: I would like to try again to reassure the member for Carleton that we have had discussions with the federal commission, with its legal advisers. To the best of my knowledge, we've attempted to deal with the concerns the member has raised. The federal government is requiring the proposed amendment to clarify for its purposes.

For example, the member brought up concerns about treatment or whatever. There is already provision in place that if he needs a specific ingredient, a medical practitioner can contact the commission and the commission would provide that information directly to him.

Mr Sterling: Because we'll probably not get to the vote on this, perhaps the parliamentary assistant will assist me with information as to who is doing the negotiations on the part of the provincial government and whether the issue of dealing with the freedom of information act was talked about, whether the issue of dealing with section 11 of the freedom of information act was talked about as being a different issue with regard to "other legislation" referred to in the amendment.

I don't think we can treat lightly the long and hard work that was done in order to bring forward significant changes in our law with regard to the rights of citizens to get information. We should not allow the government to bring forward an amendment like this unless we are absolutely assured that there is nothing that can be done in order to convince the federal government that in fact it requires us to do away with the rights of a citizen to information about something that could be hazardous to his or her health.

Mr Sutherland: The member for Carleton wants to ensure that the public can access this information, but I think it's important to remember that without this amendment the federal government indicates to us that you will not be able to access it and the public will not have it.

I understand his concern in terms of the public interest. We have certainly tried. If we could go forward and not have to make an amendment, we would be quite happy to do that, but this is what the federal commission is requesting us to do and we are trying to comply so that we can have the access to that information and will be able to protect the public interest.

Mr Sterling: Why do you need the information?

Mr Sutherland: Because we may need it for the purposes of administering the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Mr Sterling: If you are telling me you need the information to warn the public about the dangers and then you're restricting yourself with regard to telling the public, don't you have two conflicting principles involved here?

Mr Sutherland: No. The purpose is not for the sense of warning. That information is already there under provisions of the workplace hazardous materials information system in terms of the sheets that are made available to people there. It would be for the purpose of carrying out investigations by, I assume, ministry staff if they needed to get that composition information.

Mrs Caplan: I would point out that it is one minute to 6. It might be appropriate for the committee to rise and report.

On motion by Mrs Caplan, the committee of the whole reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1800.