Journal des débats 1993-juin-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This past constituency week, May 31 to June 4, was different from any other I have experienced. My constituents in Oriole were distressed about how the NDP government was changing their lives, destroying their businesses and eliminating their jobs.

Mr Roly Ridler of Shaughnessy expressed his frustration over the retroactive nature of the huge increase in personal income tax. He said, "It's both unconstitutional and a breach of parliamentary tradition."

The issues varied but the message was always the same. Here are some other quotes from upset citizens:

"What is the so-called social contract and how will it affect public services?" they asked me.

A constituent on Havenbrook said: "The NDP and Bob Rae are making a shambles of this province. The sooner he is out of office, the better we will be."

From Dallington Drive, "What's the use, the government doesn't listen to the people, it does what it wants."

"I am sick and tired of the NDP," said a voter on Sheppard Avenue.

From residents on Parkway Forest I heard, "We hope that the NDP government will be removed from power for all its broken promises."

"Another example of incompetence," someone on Parfield angrily said over the NDP tax on car insurance.

A constituent who lives on Forest Manor Road summed it up this way: "Elinor, I am sorry. I am ashamed. I voted NDP last time. Never again."

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Celebrations are taking place across Canada from June 6 to June 12 to mark National Transportation Week. This is a time to express support for all Canadians working in the transportation industry. It's also a time to reflect on the importance of transportation in our daily lives.

The theme for the 1993 National Transportation Week is "Transportation and National Prosperity," to underscore the significance of an efficient, effective and competitive transportation system to our economic prosperity.

National Transportation Week also provides an opportunity to pay tribute to those who have made outstanding contributions to transportation development. This morning I attended a ceremony to honour dedicated professionals in Ontario's transportation industry. Among those honoured was Lou Parsons, chair of GO Transit and the 1993 Ontario Transportation Person of the Year. We in Ontario are extremely fortunate to have someone of such national and international repute as the chair of GO Transit.

Our transportation system is the cornerstone of our modern industrialized nation. Efficient transportation networks for all modes of transportation are crucial as we are prepared to compete in the global economy of the 21st century.

I would remind the Minister of Transportation that Ontario's national and international reputation as a leader in the transportation field, as demonstrated most recently by India's interest in sharing technology, depends on government commitment to renewing and enhancing our transportation infrastructure.

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I rise today to congratulate the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, in particular locals 175 and 633.

About two weeks ago I received a letter from Dave Killham, who is a former constituent of mine -- I thought I'd use his name -- indicating that the United Food and Commercial Workers union would be embarking on its fourth annual Leukaemia Walkathon that would be taking place throughout all of Canada.

The United Food and Commercial Workers union, locals 175 and 633, which have members in every community in the province, raised over $275,000 last year -- it looks like I have an infinite amount of time today, Mr Speaker -- but they're working hard to do even better this year. It's throwing me off my time. There, it's starting all over again.

We have some of these members present today up there, working their way up. This walkathon was to raise money for the leukaemia research, which we all know is absolutely essential if this disease is going to be beaten. We know that, because there is infantile leukaemia, there's adult leukaemia, there's a whole host of types of leukaemia that are afflicting the population of Ontario that we need to work on to defeat.

The president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union is Michael J. Fraser, and I believe he's here. If he's not yet, he will be shortly. The secretary treasurer is Wayne Hanley and the recorder is Betty M. Pardy. Of course, I've already indicated that Dave Killham, who is my contact in all of this, is present somewhere in the building as well.

I'd like to congratulate the United Food and Commercial Workers union for the work they've done on leukaemia and to congratulate all of the unions in Ontario that work so hard to raise funds, either through the United Way or through whatever other charities they work for.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Last week I had the pleasure of visiting the city of Stratford to attend the Stratford Festival. As the Tourism critic for the Ontario Liberal Party, I would like to congratulate all those people involved in what has become one of Canada's and Ontario's most important cultural and tourist attractions.

Because of time restrictions, I was only able to see two performances: Gypsy and King John. But I can tell you that I was very proud to see those in attendance standing to give continued applause to the cast and, in so doing, honouring the director, staff, management and board of directors for a job well done.

I would encourage the government and the people of this province to show their continued support for a great organization which is providing us with important cultural events and is also helping our economy by creating jobs and bringing in tourist dollars from all over the world.

But having put in a plug for the Stratford area, I would be remiss if I didn't remind the members that there is another area in the province that also has many tourist attractions, and that is the Quinte area. If you are looking for beautiful scenery, excellent food and accommodation, also great shopping, museums and a summer music festival, antiques plus many other things too numerous to mention, I would ask you to come and visit us in Quinte after visiting the Stratford Festival.

1340

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I too would also like to congratulate those people who work so hard to try and cure cancer. I commend them for the job that they're doing.

My statement concerns the NDP government's move to repress the democratic process in Ontario by limiting public debate over the recent provincial budget.

The NDP government wasted hard-earned taxpayers' money to print and distribute propaganda that gives its version of the May 19 budget. The Premier claims the budget shows his government is committed to investing in jobs, people and services, when we all know that raising taxes and increasing the debt will only slow the economy and kill jobs.

The Premier also claims the budget is his government's fair and balanced approach to reduce the deficit. I would suggest there is nothing fair or balanced about the budget or the NDP's plan to limit debate of the government's budgetary policies.

The NDP wastes taxpayers' money to print and distribute its propaganda and refuses to listen to the people of Simcoe East and many other parts of this province who want to express their views, concerns and opinions of the May 19 budget through their democratically elected members.

Don't the people who pay the bills in the province of Ontario count with this government? I thought this was the government that was going to open Queen's Park to those who'd never had an effective voice in the corridors of power. By limiting debate of the budget, the NDP is slamming the doors in their faces. There's nothing fair or balanced about the NDP approach to government in Ontario, and this propaganda has cost billions of dollars to send out.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I recently had the pleasure of attending a backyard barbecue at the Whitby Seniors Activity Centre. Homer, a retired worker from General Motors, was flipping burgers like he worked on the line at McDonald's. The centre was packed, as members had gathered for the first celebration of Senior Citizens' Month, a month dedicated to the proposition of sharing the experience, and they do, sir.

The centre, operated by the town of Whitby, is a recreational facility that's the hub of many seniors' lives. It drives seniors who line up for hours to sign up for their programs. Some live independently, and the centre can be the social hub of their lives. Some may not drive, but they're always there. The centre offers them lessons in line dancing, crafts, arts, physical and social activities. Personally, I'm looking forward to the strawberry social later this month, and I look forward to seeing Dot and Emma again.

Whitby is a good neighbours community, as is Oshawa, the two communities I represent. They support the seniors, and seniors' centres are a vital investment in our community. Our government has gone far in passing legislation to care for the elderly, to support their dignity and wellbeing. I can think of no better investment in dignity and wellness than money spent on the seniors' centre.

PORTUGAL NATIONAL DAY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On behalf of the Ontario Liberal caucus, I rise today to recognize an important event that dates back over 400 years. It has been celebrated as Portugal National Day since 1880.

The celebration of the national day of Portugal is special and unique in the pages of history. Unlike some dates that commemorate an important political event, such as a declaration of independence or the end of a war, on this historic occasion we ask the people of Ontario to join Canadians of Portuguese heritage in the remembrance of the great, world-renowned poet and writer Luiz de Camões. Although he passed away more than 400 years ago, Camões left a living legacy of meaningful poetry of immortal beauty that has not withered with age.

We're all of course very cognizant and appreciative of the tremendous contributions that Portuguese Canadians have made to the development and growth of our province and country in the economic, spiritual and cultural fields. Yet as important as economic contributions are, the attention of Portuguese Canadians today is focused not on the prosperity and wealth that opportunities bring in Canada but on our democratic system of government, which allows the people in our multicultural society of Ontario to celebrate a national literary hero of their forefathers' original homeland as a right.

May this Portugal National Day today inspire us to pause more often to study and admire our writers and poets. Perhaps one day we might recognize that a new Luiz de Camões could be inspired as a result of paying tribute to the eternal de Camões whose remembrance we're honouring today.

[Remarks in Portuguese]

ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Baseball fans everywhere will know that Bo Jackson is making history this year. His remarkable comeback with the Chicago White Sox is amazing, given the fact that he's doing it with an artificial hip.

The orthopaedic surgery which replaced Jackson's damaged hip with an artificial one made of carbon, chrome and plastic is becoming more common every year. This year alone, almost 20,000 Canadians will get a second chance to lead a healthy, active life because of the replacement of hip and knee joints. Thanks to orthopaedic surgery, they will be released from pain and given back their freedom of movement and mobility.

The advances made in the field of orthopaedic surgery over the last decade are truly remarkable. On this coming Sunday, June 13, thousands of Canadians will be participating in a Canada-wide walk to raise funds for further research and education in joint replacement.

The walk, called "Hip, Hip, Hooray," raised over $1 million last year, and in London alone 132 walkers raised $50,000. This year's walk is expected to do even better.

The walk in London this year will again be at Springbank Park and will start at 11 am. The London organizing committee is still welcoming walkers, so anyone interested should call Barb Keim at University Hospital to get pledge forms and information.

The work we're doing in Ontario is remarkable. People around the world will gain from the research we're doing in medicine, especially in orthopaedic surgery.

NORMA HARRIS

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): It takes great courage to be a single parent, yet this is a task undertaken by more and more Canadians today, a majority of them women, who get little recognition for their valour and dedication.

Today, I want the House to know about one single parent in my constituency of Cambridge. Norma Harris has been named Canada's Single Parent of the Year for 1992-93 by the international organization, Parents Without Partners. Not only that, but her son Joseph, who is 16, has been named Canada's Youth of the Year by the same group. The two are now in the running to be named the North American Parent and Youth of 1992-93.

Norma Harris has overcome poverty and unemployment to sustain herself and her children, who were aged eight, three and eight months when she first became single 13 years ago. She needed work so she trained as a lab technician, at some point holding down two jobs as well as caring for her youngsters.

She became involved in the organization, Parents Without Partners, and is now president of the Grand Valley region of the organization. She took courses in leadership to enable her to teach parenting skills to other singles.

I invite the House to join me in saluting Norma Harris and all parents who take on the task of raising their children alone. We should also salute young Joseph who teaches children at a Cambridge community centre and has designed a logo for the Grand Valley Parents Without Partners, a logo that appears on T-shirts and on pins that have been sent all over the world.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PRESS GALLERY EVENT

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege that I hope the other members will appreciate. I want to encourage members from all political parties to attend the press gallery's spring bash which is on June 16. I especially encourage members who don't get enough abuse in the Legislature or in their constituencies, particularly in their own caucus, or from the media itself, to attend this. It's always for a very good cause and I would encourage members to attend. It's June 16.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I regret that the member does not have a point of privilege, but it is certainly a point of public information, if nothing else.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

REPORT ON RACE RELATIONS

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister Responsible for Race Relations): A year ago tomorrow, June 9, former United Nations Ambassador Stephen Lewis presented a report to the Premier with recommendations to improve race relations in the province of Ontario. The Attorney General and myself were given co-leadership roles to implement Mr Lewis's recommendations.

In the recent speech from the throne, this government made it clear that it remains committed to providing leadership in fighting discrimination in all its forms. The recommendations of the Lewis report have been the focus for much of that commitment for the past year.

Since the Lewis report was released, the government has made real progress in meeting Mr Lewis's recommendations within a very tight time frame. We have built on important steps to help Ontario achieve a vision of equity and fairness based on mutual respect and understanding of one another.

The Lewis agenda provided the government with a complex challenge. It called for bold measures in a number of key areas -- the criminal justice system, the workplace, education and training, community economic development -- and in an overall approach to anti-racism. It stressed extensive consultation and restructuring. It demanded the commitment of many different partners working together and it required the political will to make what were sometimes difficult decisions.

1350

The challenge has been met. It has been met in spite of the current economic climate, scarce government resources and restructuring, and it has been met in spite of the fact that many of the deadlines suggested by Mr Lewis proved difficult to meet, as Lewis himself acknowledged they might be. Our government made it a high priority.

Virtually every one of Mr Lewis's 24 recommendations has been implemented or is under consideration. Some initiatives, by their very nature, will never be finished, nor should they be, for this government is determined that an effective anti-racism agenda will not and cannot be a one-time approach to a problem that has haunted society for an unconscionable length of time.

Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General and myself, I am pleased to provide the following progress report. For purposes of time, I will briefly highlight some key initiatives. A complete update is available from the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat.

The Race Relations and Policing Task Force was reconstituted with Clare Lewis again taking the lead role. A number of recommendations from a report released last November are in the process of being implemented; others are under review.

A new regulation on the use of force was enacted. The first class of recruits to receive extended training in use of force and race relations graduated at the end of March.

Last September, we struck an independent inquiry into race relations and the criminal justice system. The Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System is hard at work on an interim report on correctional services for youths and adults. The commissioners have informed us that they will be releasing this report shortly.

In the spirit of the Lewis report, I'd like to mention the proposal to fund an African-Canadian specialty legal services clinic, which was announced by the Attorney General in early May. We will shortly begin our consultations with legal and community groups to plan with them for the establishment of this very important clinic.

A key recommendation in the Lewis report was employment equity, an initiative that had already begun with the appointment of the first employment equity commissioner, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, two years ago, who has held extensive consultations across Ontario. Very soon, I intend to stand in the House and proceed with the second reading of our employment equity legislation. At that time, I will also be releasing draft regulations.

The Ministry of Education and Training is developing mandatory policy directions for school boards and action plans on anti-racism and ethnocultural equity. This will be monitored closely by the minister himself.

The process of revising curriculum continues at every level of education. The Minister of Education and Training will be releasing one of several specialized resource documents on anti-racism shortly to school boards for teachers to use from kindergarten to high school.

The Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have consulted extensively with minority communities and government ministries to develop a community development plan. This complements the government's overall economic agenda.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced last weekend support for a black community credit union. This meets some of the economic concerns of the black community. This is an excellent example of community and economic development, and there are more concrete initiatives to come.

On a corporate level, we've announced the Cabinet Round Table on Anti-Racism. Fourteen members from aboriginal, minority and ethnic communities have been appointed to advise myself and a number of cabinet colleagues on anti-racism measures. Our first meeting will be held on June 15. I must point out that this is an unprecedented move by our government. For the first time, people from aboriginal, minority and ethnic communities will have direct contact with the political decision-making process. My cabinet colleagues and I look forward to working with the round table and benefiting from the counsel of its respected members.

These are only a few of the recommendations we've started, but like the issue of racism itself, which has haunted society for years, it will take time and, yes, continued dialogue to meet the problems head on. This will be ongoing with the cabinet round table. Anti-racism and eliminating all forms of discrimination are a government priority.

The Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat began the work a few years ago and continues to lead the government anti-racism strategy. They will continue to work with grass-roots communities and organizations to curb and eliminate racist activity.

I'd like to close by saying that we cannot afford to sit by idly and hope only government measures will solve all of the problems that racism engenders. We must accept that each person living in our province has a role to play if we want to see our province free of discrimination, racism and hatred.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? Responses? The official opposition, the member for Scarborough North.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I was looking forward today, when I heard that the minister was coming to give us an update on the Stephen Lewis report recommendations.

I know this minister works pretty hard, but Madam Minister, I see this statement as a statement of apology for inaction, really. All through the minister's statement, she apologized for not meeting the deadlines. To begin with, these deadlines are not met because in the beginning they were quite unrealistic. We had said that in the beginning, that these deadlines are unrealistic. As a matter of fact, it was quite rushed, anyhow, but the government didn't have the gall, the guts, to come out and say it could not meet those deadlines. But here we are now saying that we're apologizing for that.

This interim report that the minister brought forward here today was supposed to have been here from January 1. It is almost the middle of June and we're making that kind of statement today.

Again, Madam Minister, I have raised in this House at times, with you and the Minister of Labour, about legislation about employment agencies. Nothing has been done. I don't think that you have the guts, nor does the Minister of Labour, to bring that legislation through about employment agencies. That continues to discriminate in the way of employment.

The tribunal backlog in human rights: We have seen a backlog created in the tribunal area. All that we have seen is a movement of a backlog there. Madam Minister, I hope you address that. The backlog continues, as we know, in human rights, with all the effort and money that we have there, and no statements have been made to say that there is not a backlog, as how detailed we are dealing with these cases, but they are backlogged, and as I continue to say, justice delayed is justice denied. The Ontario Human Rights Commission that's supposed to be looked at is not being looked at in that detail.

I saw in your statement here about African legal aid, black legal aid: It's a joke. As a matter of fact, the black legal aid people say that this is tokenism. I can't understand how we're going to have black legal aid. Laws are made for all people of our province, not for one set or the other. I would urge this government, do not patronize in that way. It's tokenism and we should eliminate that kind of situation. Don't be caught up in that. I would strongly support you to relinquish that tokenism there.

Again, you announce in here, I think -- not you, Madam Minister, but the minister, I think, for Management Board or what his role would be -- about the internship program that was targeted to address visible minorities and women, and talk about it's not cancelled but postponed for some years or a year or so. I regard this also as a situation when the cuts started in this economic time, and who got hit harder here? Those who were trying to get through the door, programs that you had put in place, the things that Mr Lewis had talked about, that people have no access to this to play a role in our society, things that will be instituted. The first thing you cut was that program that affects visible minorities and women about the internship program. I would like you to go back and revisit that because it is a mistake. You tried to address that, that it's only postponed for a year and I think that is extremely bad.

The anti-racism strategy: Two years ago you made bold promises that you were going to bring this anti-racism strategy about and that you were going to have all ministries have in place a strategy. I don't see that happening at all. Again, empty promises will not fulfil people's visions and dreams and realize their role in society. It's not happening. Your policy about anti-racism is not done.

1400

Employment equity: My golly, we know about that. If there is one thing that people are looking forward to have access to in society, it is work and jobs and opportunity of education. You have not brought this forward. I know you've promised regulations; we've heard about this. You have now been in power three years, with the authority to do things. You haven't done it. You've come to me, and I know you're dedicated to bring this employment equity. I don't think that front row is dedicated to do that at all. Even when they try to negotiate with the union, it is pushed back. If you need me at the cabinet table, I'll come and convince the Premier --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): You had your chance.

Mr Curling: -- and I will convince the Treasurer that employment equity is needed. Somehow, he feels he cannot address that.

Madam Minister, your apology has not been accepted by the people. You could have done better than that.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): When we heard that the honourable minister was going to be making a statement today, we were looking for something on Bill 79. There was a certain amount of excitement that in fact the minister was going to have the regulations for employment equity brought forward today. That would have been an announcement that people were looking for in response to the interest that has been raised about it. I guess maybe the minister still has time to get it.

She mentions in her statement today, especially in the press release part, the second reading of the employment equity legislation and release of draft regulations during this session of Parliament. There's still some more time. We just know that's something you haven't said before, because most of what you gave us today has already been said. Some six weeks ago, the ministry came out with a press release announcing the round table on anti-racism, saying much of what the minister has said today, and today we have it again.

However, I suppose when it's a slack day and the Premier doesn't have anything to say on the social contract and the Treasurer doesn't have anything to say about the failure in coming forward with other announcements that we're all waiting for this government to do, they've gone to the minister for race relations and said, "Come up with something," and you had to fill in. To that extent, we compliment you for trying to fill in.

By the way, the government has been committed to its fight against racism. The actions that are under way and in progress are in the right direction, and I think we all appreciate that we've got to do an awful lot more to counteract what's going on in the world around us. It's not a good scene. The member for Willowdale and myself, Mr Harnick and I, attended a Yad Vashem event last night in Thornhill. Seven hundred and fifty people were there remembering some of the tragedies of 50 years ago, the tragedy of hate. It was just racism at its worst when the Holocaust took place.

We haven't rid ourselves as a society of those very problems even today. I know that earlier this week, when our leader, Mr Harris, rose in this House, much of the question he was asking of the Attorney General had to do with racism. He raised questions about Ernst Zundel, that Ernst Zundel is still allowed to perpetrate his lies and perpetrate violence and that Ontario is one of the leading places for developing hate literature, hate literature that comes out of Ontario, with nothing being done about it. Mr Harris, in his question to the Attorney General, pointed to the very issue last week that the Attorney General has failed to act on a number of situations. The law sits there for the government to do something about it, and the government hasn't done anything.

I will quote from Mr Harris. He said:

"We have had anti-hate law for 22 years, and only four charges have been laid and there have been only two successful prosecutions in that 22-year period. Some racist organizations, as we see this rise, obviously feel for some reason or other that they have been given carte blanche to spread their hatred in this province."

I'm quoting from Mike Harris, the leader of our party, who was talking in questions this week about the problems of this province and anti-hate literature.

Here we stand today in the House and look at what this government's doing, and we still haven't done anything about the hate that's coming out of Ernst Zundel's mouth and what he's doing to the Jewish people and other people in this province. It's not just an issue for blacks or whites. There's a whole spread of colours, multicultural people, where there is something that crosses all ethnic boundaries: Hate and anger and the disease of the mind that are still being perpetrated in our communities, where you have people, white supremacists -- it's not just white against black. There's still something serious within our society that we as legislators have to fight. So I say seriously, Madam Minister, do more.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Ernst Zundel still runs the printing presses. Paul Fromm still teaches school in Peel. The white Heritage Front still frequents bars and brings in members by racially slurring people. The Attorney General of this province and the Minister of Education don't have the guts to show some leadership to solve these problems. This is not worth the paper it's printed on if the government doesn't --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Yesterday, in the face of all the ongoing confusion around the social contract, you assured us that the matter is well in hand. It seems that nobody has been reassured by the comments you made yesterday, Premier. In fact, we have seen that the value of the Canadian dollar has dropped by a quarter of a cent and interest rates are under new pressure. Investment analysts are saying that the falling dollar reflects the uncertainties in the market over your government's handling or mishandling of the social contract. Quite clearly, things are not well in hand.

I would suggest that for people to have confidence in your ability to manage this issue, time and specifics are of the utmost urgency. We need some assurance that in the statement you make tomorrow, we will have clear time lines and clear specifics of your government's action plan. I understand you have now acknowledged that there is legislation in the preparation stage and I ask that you clearly outline for us today what that legislation will contain.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think that having said clearly earlier this week that I would have a statement to make later on in the week, and I indicated yesterday that I'd have a statement to make in the House, the honourable member should know that's clearly the direction we're taking. The Minister of Finance and I have stated as clearly and as categorically as we can that the money is coming out with respect to the estimates process this year and that we are determined, in response to the questions which you have asked and others have asked, to take the steps that are necessary in order to do that in the fairest possible way. I can assure the honourable member that tomorrow's statement will make that very clear.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, we are hearing, as you are, from all the transfer partners that are tremendously concerned about some of the possible scenarios, some of the ways in which you might obtain your $2 billion in expenditure reductions. It is quite clear from everyone we speak to that the worst possible scenario for implementing your $2-billion spending cuts is for you to simply impose the cuts on municipalities, on school boards, on hospitals, on colleges and universities, again without giving them the tools they need to review their total expenditures, yet apparently this is one of the three options you are still considering.

Apparently, you have told MPPs that you can cut in one of three ways, and one of the ways is by simply cutting the grants to hospitals, to cities, to municipalities, to school boards. You acknowledge that this would result in significant job loss, and that job loss would be even greater if they are forced to make those cuts, the full force of those cuts, when the budget year is half over.

Premier, I ask you to tell us, why is that option even under consideration? Why will you not simply rule out the option of dumping your cuts on to the transfer partner agencies?

1410

Hon Mr Rae: It would be unconscionable in the current circumstances, in my view and in the view of the government, to simply "dump" the cuts on to any group of people.

Having said that, I think it's important that we also recognize, in the meetings I've had, the discussions I've had, the various discussions that various line ministers have had at my request with a number of groups and individuals, that we've also heard -- and I'm sure those people are also telling her the same thing -- that they also want to have some flexibility with respect to how they manage in a difficult circumstance. They also don't want a totally centralized approach which doesn't leave them any room to move and to manoeuvre.

So finding the balance between a totally centralized approach and one in which the government simply walks away -- obviously, those are two extremes which are not acceptable to us. We are trying now to work with all of our sector partners, in discussions, in finding a solution that's fair and reasonable, given the fact that the coalition walked away from the talks last Thursday night.

Given that fact, I can say to the honourable member that we're going in a good direction. We've had some very good discussions and we've had some very good discussions with the cabinet --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Your caucus doesn't think so.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, I want to ask my caucus members: Is the member from Oriole correct when she says we're not going in the right direction?

Interjections: No.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: All right. We're going in the right direction and there's good support for what we're doing.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, that balance is exactly what we've been calling on you to find for the last two months, and there was indeed a process that could have reached that kind of balance if you hadn't been so determined to find solutions at the centralized table. I must admit, I don't envy you the caucus meeting you would have had this morning as you now try and find the solutions to get out of this absolute no-win situation.

Premier, we understand that at least some of your colleagues would like you to resolve the issue by simply implementing broad legislation that would put in place the last proposals that the government negotiators put on the table and that the unions did indeed walk away from last week.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: I ask you in all seriousness, do you not believe that approach would fail for exactly the same reason that the social contract talks failed? I'm asking, because I see that the noise may have distracted you from the question, and it's a serious question, the question as to whether or not you are likely to try and implement through legislation tomorrow, according to the request of some of your caucus at least, simply the government's last proposal. I'm asking whether you do not feel that is likely to fail for the same reason that the social contract talks failed; that the reason there was not agreement reached was because any broad-brush solution is not going to be fair and equitable and cannot be implemented across all of the sectors and all of those 9,000 individual collective agreements.

Hon Mr Rae: When I listen to the Leader of the Opposition, first of all she says she doesn't envy me our caucus meetings, and then she proceeds to say, "Don't do this, don't do that, don't do this, don't do that," and just simply criticizes; all kinds of speculation as to what might or might not happen. I haven't heard a single constructive discussion from the Leader of the Opposition with respect to what's being proposed.

I would say to her, the government has substantive decisions to make. These are decisions that are clearly being made. We are making them, we will make them and we will then discuss them with the House after we've discussed them with our various social contract partners out there, employers and employees, as well as with the caucus and the cabinet.

All I know is that whatever it is this government does, whatever option is chosen, it will be roundly criticized by the Leader of the Opposition, because that's how she keeps her very disparate caucus happy. Don't tell me they all agree on anything. I haven't heard them agree on a single thing.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: It would seem to me, in spite of the Premier's rhetoric, that as we day after day put forward what we believe are constructive and balanced alternatives to this government's chaotic response, little by little it's starting to take. I actually heard the Premier, in a very moderate response to my first supplementary, getting very close to the alternative that we've had on the table for the last --

The Speaker: Would the leader take her seat, please. Second question, the Leader of the Opposition.

INSURANCE TAX

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also for the Premier. We remain concerned, particularly about the transfer agencies' ability to implement the cuts in the social contract, because they have already faced cuts under the expenditure control plan, as you're well aware, and also because of the hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax costs that those agencies face as a result of the recent provincial budget.

Premier, you have claimed that your budget's tax measures are tough but they are fair, but we find that hospitals that have already been hit by the expenditure control cuts are now grappling with the new cost of the insurance tax on their group benefit plans and on their liability plans.

One of the downtown Toronto hospitals has told us that the new insurance tax will cost them an additional $330,000 per year. We do not yet have a clear total, but it is obvious that the budget's insurance taxes will mean millions of dollars in new costs for hospitals. I ask you, Premier, why did you choose to tax health care? Have you done any analysis on how this tax is going to affect hospitals across the province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I'm going to refer the question to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Here we go again. The leader of the official opposition doesn't want any new taxes; wants a lower deficit; doesn't want any expenditure reductions. I just wish for once that when she asked a question, she would end it with, "Why didn't you do such-and-such?" She has yet to do that.

I would simply say to the leader of the official opposition that it is never popular to introduce tax increases. She and her government know that full well. I would just say to her that I believe that the package of tax increases that were brought in, while they were unpopular, were balanced, fair and responsible.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, what we keep trying to do is say, "Look at the implications of what you've done." We get increasingly concerned that nobody over there is adding up the total cost, the total impact of what you've done, whether it is on businesses or hospitals or school boards or municipalities. Nobody's putting it all together, and that's our frustration.

I can tell you that hospitals are not the only transfer agency that is going to be affected by your new insurance tax, and I trust that you have added up the cost. The school boards have told us that the total insurance tax increases will cost them over $50 million, and again this is in addition to the expenditure control cuts and the social contract cuts that you're still looking for.

The insurance analysts have said that the insurance tax increases on group health and life plans alone will add one half of 1% to the average payroll cost. That, to us, means that based on a total $43-billion public sector wage bill, municipalities, school boards, hospitals, and colleges and universities will have to pay an additional $215 million in costs. That figure does not include liability, property or auto insurance tax increases.

I ask you, how much will your insurance tax increase totally cost the school boards, hospitals, colleges, universities and municipalities, and indeed the conservation authorities, whom we heard from this morning, who are also worried about the impact of your budget and your cuts? How do you expect people to pay for this?

Hon Mr Laughren: I simply will not allow the leader of the official opposition to get away with such a simplistic argument when it comes to dealing with the difficult financial problems we face in this province. If she thinks that she can stand in her place and --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): How are you going to pay? That was the question. Answer the question.

Hon Mr Laughren: I realize that the members of the official opposition don't like being called to account for their lack of alternatives, but I'm going to insist on doing it. The leader of the official opposition puts her question as though there would be no implications whatsoever of simply letting the deficit rise without tax increases or very, very substantial expenditure reductions out there which would affect delivery of services and jobs all across the province. So I would ask the leader of the official opposition in return: When she asks her final supplementary, would she please tell me what her alternatives are?

Mrs McLeod: No, because that's not the question. The question is to you, to the Finance minister, to the government, on the budget that you brought in. I am asking you, as you give the transfer agencies hit after hit after hit, whether you are adding up the costs and whether you are looking at the total impact on the people who are providing services to people across this province.

I would say to you that at least one third of the government's $715-million insurance tax increase is going to be paid by the public sector, and to me this is simply another downloading of millions of dollars on to school boards and municipalities and hospitals and colleges and universities.

You have said over and over again that one of the focuses of the social contract discussions was to make expenditure cuts while protecting jobs. I would ask, given the millions of dollars that just these insurance taxes will cost the transfer agencies, how many lost jobs is that going to cost us?

1420

Hon Mr Laughren: For the last two weeks, we on this side have heard from the leader of the official opposition only what we should not tax and what expenditures we should not reduce, and how the deficit should be lowered at the same time.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): How many jobs, Floyd?

Mr Mahoney: How many jobs lost?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, when the leader of the official opposition talks to us about downloading, she's not going to get a very friendly reception from this side because, when they were in government, in good times, with record revenues coming in, they wrote the book on downloading, not this government.

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Premier, I understand from, I think, some pretty informed sources that you either intend to table or are discussing tabling legislation on Monday; that at the same time as tabling that legislation indicating where $2 billion can be found, you intend to encourage the public sector to return to the bargaining table to continue negotiations for up to 90 days or the legislation will take effect. Given the increasing uncertainty among the public sector unions over their futures, can you confirm that this is in fact your plan?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): No.

Mr Harris: You have sent out many signals that you think further discussions will be productive, that they will be beneficial, that there are still solutions that may be able to be found out there. Since you didn't have a contingency plan and you're trying to come up with one as quick as possible and, as I understand, you've continued to have feelers out there with the social contract partners, both management and unions, you will recall that I told you a number of months ago that you had to signal your intention to bring in legislation or that you meant business through some methodology, as Quebec did in its talks: "Here's legislation; unless we have a negotiated settlement by September, the legislation will take effect"; that that is the only way you would allow the union leaders to seriously negotiate away things they already had in their contracts, if union leaders could go back to their membership and say: "See that legislation? See that definitive plan? We were able to get you something better than that."

All the union leaders I've talked to, and I've talked to most of them who directly or indirectly have been at the table, have told me that is exactly what they needed, that there is no way they could go to their membership without knowing what your plans were and say, "We've negotiated a breaking of the contract we got you last year." If they did, they wouldn't be union leaders any longer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader place his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: Given that, Premier, do you finally now understand the bargaining process and what the union leaders are capable of negotiating, as they have told me and I'm sure they've told your negotiators? Are you prepared to be definitive and proceed that way to get meaningful discussion, so the leaders can go back to their membership and say "I've got you something better than this proposed legislation"?

Hon Mr Rae: I must say I feel that certainly our government has helped to do two things. Yesterday we drove the leader of the third party to read excerpts from Ned Pratt's poetry, and last night he was on the phone to all the trade union leadership in the province. So I think we're making good progress.

I would say to the honourable member, if he's saying that the trade union leaders that he spoke to -- and I hope he will tell us or tell the scrums and so on which trade union leaders were advocating legislation in their conversations with him, because that's clearly the import of his question. He's saying that the trade union leaders whom he talked to were advocating strongly that the government should have brought in legislation two or three months ago. I hope you'll tell us exactly who those people are, because I think that would be a singular public service and would perhaps clarify the debate considerably.

Mr Harris: Premier, it wasn't last night; it's been over the last number of months. I haven't phoned; I've been answering the phone as they've called me.

A couple of months ago I talked about options of attrition, last week I laid out that option for you and yesterday I defined it a little more clearly for you, whereby, through attrition, at the end of three years far more than $2 billion could be cut from the public sector payroll in a logical, organized fashion. I gave you that option as one of the alternatives and I would ask you this: Have you looked at that alternative? Are you prepared to move in a more commonsense way than your trying-to-solve-all-the-problems-of-the-last-10-years-in-one-week approach? And if you are, are you prepared to move today to turn that corner, to move in a new direction and begin to permanently downsize the size and cost of government?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that obviously any suggestion he makes is taken seriously, but I would say to him that all of the work we've done shows that attrition on its own won't deal with the problem that we face. While that might seem like an attractive and relatively painless option, in fact it is not sufficient to deal with the problem.

Mr Harris: I didn't say it would deal with all the problems. There are many other things that have to be done. It goes a long way, though, and a lot further than you're getting to start solving part of the problem. You continue to ignore those solutions.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Attorney General. This spring our caucus launched our task force on crime, justice and community safety. At that point in time we released polling results that found that 65% of Ontarians believe that victims of crime are not being treated fairly by the courts. We outlined some of the parameters of the task force, we have circulated several thousand letters out there to solicit more opinions and in the next couple of weeks we begin travelling across this province and meeting with Ontarians across the province on this issue.

As you know, the standing committee on administration of justice has been studying a victims' bill of rights put forward by my colleague from Burlington South. We have heard in those hearings heart-wrenching testimony from victims and from families of victims who are pleading for government to help ensure that our justice system and our society do not victimize them a second time. Minister, will you support and enact the provisions of this bill?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I was also very pleased to testify in front of the committee and to talk about some of the things we were doing. In that testimony I indicated to the committee that it's my belief that these kinds of statements of entitlement without real programs are not very useful. We prefer to expend our energy on developing the programs, expanding those good programs that we have, changing some of our processes in terms of the way in which our courts actually operate, the kind of information that individuals who have to appear before the court as victim witnesses have.

I told the committee that I am in the process of bringing forward a very extensive package of measures that will go some distance to resolving some of the issues that some of those testifying in front of the committee identified. They won't go all the way immediately because obviously we need to build incrementally through the system, and a lot of what we need to do needs to be done in conjunction with our federal counterparts, because many of the things that we are being asked for are in fact not in our jurisdiction.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary?

1430

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The minister did present before the committee, and she's indicated in the presence of the de Villiers family and in the presence of the Mahaffy family, constituents of mine, that she feels that reforms of this nature are highly symbolic. Yet we've had an inquest into the three deaths around Jonathan Yeo, where clearly recommendation 129 states: "We, the jury, through the evidence that was presented, feel there must be a charter of rights for victims. The purpose of this charter is to stop victims from being revictimized." It goes on to set out some very practical things.

There are over 25 recommendation in this inquest that affect your ministry directly, yet we have no indication that you've read the inquest, that you have any agenda to bring in these necessary reforms. Every victim who has presented before the justice committee has reiterated that we need a victims' bill of rights, that it has substance and standing when the Attorney General's office embraces it, much in the same way that the Attorney General's office can make statements of zero tolerance for alcohol abuse and zero tolerance for assault.

When you make those statements within the law, then serious reforms and changes in our criminal justice system and victimization of our victims can be changed. It is within your power; it's clear evidence of that.

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

Mr Jackson: I'm asking you again, Minister, on behalf of our caucus and on behalf of the families that have come before the committee, will you not consider making some of the necessary reforms that are within your power to do that will save Ontarians money, reduce the amount of victimization and provide a real sense of justice in this province?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have indeed clearly committed myself to making many changes, some of them according to the recommendations of various inquest reports, not just the Yeo inquest recommendations. What I am saying is that I prefer to take those actions that are directly going to be beneficial to the victims involved rather than make pretty statements about what their rights are.

We all have rights under the Charter of Rights. That is the major set of rights that all citizens enjoy. What we need to be doing is making sure that the rights of victims are being seen to be as important as the rights of the accused. That is one of the basic issues the people have with the justice system at the present time.

There are a number of measures, as I indicated to the member, that I am prepared to take and that I will be announcing in the very near future.

Mr Jackson: Quite frankly, that response isn't good enough. The fact of the matter is that women are victimized in our court system far more than men. You're the minister responsible for women's issues. When you say you're considering reforms, there are dozens of recommendations that have been presented in this House over the course of the last three years which your ministry has chosen not to consider. These are practical reforms which will help women.

When you suggested you have to balance off the rights of the criminal versus the victim of sexual assault, I must advise you to look at your ministry to see all the imbalances. Look at the horrendous number of dollars that are going from legal aid to assist rapists and others in this province for unnecessary aspects of their court procedures. Yet your victim services program, by your own ministry's admission, is inequitable, underfunded and inaccessible to most parts of this province.

For you to stand in this House and say that you have provided reforms and you're proceeding in those areas, when the experience, according to Marina Browning, the legal counsel for Barbra Schlifer --

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

Mr Jackson: -- who participated in assisting with the drafting of this bill says, "I have seen women destroyed going through our current legal system," when are you going to bring forward these reforms and embrace even some of the elements of a victims' bill of rights, which are within your power today to bring into this House, which won't even need legislation.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I will repeat what I said earlier in this House and also in front of the committee: Yes, I am prepared to bring forward reforms. Indeed, many of the suggestions that the member has made we have already begun to put into effect in terms of streamlining the court process and ensuring that there is a better sense of justice and a better knowledge of what is going on in the courtroom.

I would say, however, that the best kind of protection we can give victims of crime is ensuring the integrity of the prosecution of those criminals. We can only do that if we follow the Charter of Rights and guarantee that those who are accused of crimes have the legal services that are guaranteed to them under the charter so that we don't lose those cases because they are not able to be prosecuted with integrity.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Mr Minister, I listen to you, the Treasurer and many members of your caucus day after day telling myself and indeed the residents of Ontario in general that you are committed to child care.

Budget 1992 promised up to 20,000 new subsidized child care spaces. To this date -- and I want you to listen very carefully -- we have but 400 of those subsidized spaces. Budget 1993, and I'm quoting from Budget 1993, stated "another 14,000." But that really is not "another," it's part of the 20,000. So we're not talking about 34,000; we're talking about up to 20,000.

Promises, promises; numbers, empty numbers. I ask you, Mr Minister, will you give the 25,000 families waiting in line with real needs in this province, not a promise but the spaces that you have pointed to and promised? How are you ensuring that the thousands of spaces, not just the 400, are flowing to those who stand and wait, wait to get off social assistance, wait to get on with their lives?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm very happy that this question has been asked, because I can tell the member opposite that in fact the actions we are taking to stabilize the child care system are having, we believe, some significant results.

The member would know that recently we announced an expansion of the criteria with respect to 8,200 of the 20,000 child care spaces, and I can tell the member that two things are happening under that expansion of those criteria. The last figures that I received were that some 3,000 of those spaces have already been implemented in a very short period of time as a result of some aggressive steps that we've taken in the ministry working with municipalities.

What we are expecting will happen, again over the very near future, is that implementation of a number of those subsidies will result in spaces that would be freed up on the waiting list being taken up. We expect that will deal with the waiting lists that are out there. I can tell the member that we are proceeding with that in a very aggressive manner and we are intent on getting those spaces out and used.

Mrs O'Neill: Those, again, I think are rather empty words. We've got 20,000, 17,000, 3,000 perhaps. Mr Minister, I bring to your attention a long-standing request that's on your desk or in your files. It's but an extension of a success story, with a waiting list of over 200 at this moment. It meets all the criteria of your government's initiatives. It meets the criteria for Jobs Ontario Capital, child care and Jobs Ontario Training. It also meets your government's preference for non-profit. This project will result in young people graduating from the social assistance lifestyle and following paths to enter the workforce.

Mr Minister, I bring to your attention but one of many projects awaiting your decision: the Woodroffe Avenue high school child care project in Ottawa-Carleton. Will you give these sole-support parents, mostly women, and their children a chance to change their lives, to follow their dreams, to reach their full potential and to become contributing members of our community? I ask you that directly, Mr Minister.

Hon Mr Silipo: The short answer would be, yes, that's exactly what we are trying to do and what we are in fact doing. We are looking right now at the capital allocations for this fiscal year, and I expect we'll be making decisions on those fairly shortly.

Again, I would just say to the member that if she thinks that the implementation of 3,000 additional child care subsidies and spaces in a matter of weeks is not some significant improvement in the system, then I'm not sure what it is that she's talking about, because we have been and will continue to be quite aggressive in our steps and in our efforts to ensure that we stabilize the child care system on the way to making some of the more significant reforms that we intend to bring about.

We're going to be proceeding with those steps, and certainly we'll look at the specific proposal that the member has outlined and any others that we know are out there as a way of continuing our efforts to improve the quality of child care in this province.

1440

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Attorney General. Last week I raised the disturbing situation of a Jewish proprietor in Kitchener who had been threatened and harassed by neo-Nazi youth. This past weekend at a nightclub in Toronto, two rock bands publicly promoted hatred against blacks and Jews in their lyrics. Youth attending the concert gave Nazi-style salutes to the band.

Each of us as legislators has a responsibility to send a clear signal that we will not tolerate in our province racist language and actions anywhere in Ontario. Many believe that your silence and your government's silence is becoming deafening: no statements, nothing in the Legislature, no actions, no statement on behalf of you or your government as to what you think of these actions. We need leadership in this province. The people of this province are crying out for leadership and for action. What have you done to provide that leadership?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm flabbergasted that the member opposite would suggest that this government has said nothing and done nothing and been silent about this kind of issue. Certainly I have spoken out on it, as has the Premier, as has the Minister of Citizenship and, frankly, I know most of our members in their own areas.

We are absolutely disgusted by the same kinds of racist statements that are distressing you. We have the same problem that you had when you were government and that the previous government had, in that the tools we have under the Criminal Code are extremely clumsy tools to enable us to deal with this issue.

The police are investigating individual incidents as they occur to see whether or not under the Criminal Code there are charges that can be laid. We provide legal advice to the police on those issues, and when there is the availability of charges, we will certainly prosecute vigorously.

There are differing opinions in the legal community about the ability that we have to use those tools. I want to assure the member that we are consistently looking at each incident on its merits and that the Solicitor General and I are as concerned as you are to find a way to show vigorous action.

Mr Harris: The minister today made a statement on implementing recommendations in the Lewis report, but there was nothing in that statement about the incidents that are taking place around the world and here in Ontario. The member from Markham and the member from Willowdale today in response to your statements expressed that concern as well, as they have expressed publicly on a number of occasions.

Minister, I want to tell you this, that as a father of two young boys myself, I am extremely concerned about the rise of racist, anti-Semitic incidents involving our youth. I share the concerns of parents in Mississauga, where Paul Fromm teaches. I share their concerns.

I share the frustration of police officers, who do not feel that you or your ministry are supporting them by laying charges when they bring you what they feel is enough evidence to lay those charges.

Minister, if this government is doing all it can, why have there been only four charges laid in the 22 years that we've had an antihate law?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Well the member might ask, since during the largest portion of that time his own government was in power. The real issue is that the law itself is not the kind of law that lends itself easily to a successful prosecution.

The member shakes his head, but you talk about a rise in these incidents. The B'nai B'rith this year --

Mr Harris: You are a disgrace. Do you want me to go back and blame Leslie Frost for this too?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the leader of the --

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- indicated that in fact there was a drop --

Mr Harris: You want me to blame Leslie Frost for this. You're pathetic, the whole lot of you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): You've got no guts. You were a bunch of big talkers when you were over here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, come to order. New question, the member for Downsview.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The recession has been very hard for small businesses and in particular for the construction industry. I've received a letter from a businessman in my community who was facing a crisis because of problems relating to finding capital. Banks, as you know, have been unwilling --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Downsview please take his seat.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: Just carry on in the same vein and let Mr Fromm just keep teaching. He's just a credit to the teaching profession, a credit to the Ministry of Education.

The Speaker: I asked the member for Willowdale to please come to order. Would the member for Downsview place his question, please.

Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's sad to see that the same courtesies we extend to them they don't extend to us.

The Speaker: Would the member please just place his question.

Mr Perruzza: Absolutely. However, as I was saying --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member for Downsview take his seat. There are occasions when it's a little difficult to maintain order in here, but it would be immensely helpful if, after order is restored, the member could simply place his question.

Mr Perruzza: As I was saying, banks have been unwilling, in large part, to make capital available to builders. As an alternative, this individual would normally approach a private investor for capital through a mortgage broker. However, new regulations have placed such onerous conditions on the smaller lending institutions that this is no longer an option.

My question to the minister is, what steps are being taken to assist small businesses and in particular small building companies to access capital and to help get Ontario back to work?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's easy: Nothing. That's an easy question.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Despite the rantings of the member from Oriole, the member asks a very good question, because there were amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act, which I don't expect the member from Oriole to understand, under the financial services review because there were problems, quite frankly. But specifically the banks, the trust companies, the credit unions and insurance companies are exempted from that change in regulations.

What is absolutely necessary is that people who invest through a mortgage broker understand very clearly the nature of the investment and the rules that apply to mortgage brokers. We think that with the change in the regulations, it will benefit legitimate construction companies and investors and consumers alike, as well as the mortgage brokers who are following the rules as they are supposed to do. So there's been no attempt to hamstring the source of capital, but rather to make the rules uniform for everyone and to make sure that people can be secure in the investments they make.

Finally, I would ask the member to look at the 1993 budget at the way in which we've structured alternative sources of financing, such as the Jobs Ontario Community Action fund, which goes around the traditional lenders, such as banks, to access money through the Jobs Ontario Community Action fund.

1450

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, who's attempting now to defect to the Tories. As he returns to his seat from an attempt to move across the floor, I want to say that today we were visited in our caucus by representatives of the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario. We are reminded, both by them and by the Premier, that there are requests at all times for some types of options to provide public services in a more effective and efficient way and in fact to find ways which will serve the public in the best way possible and save money.

I know that the minister has had a chance to meet with the representatives as well, and I would ask him today, since he is one of the proponents of eliminating the conservation land tax rebate, if he accepts the provisions of the plan put to him by the representatives of the conservation authorities of Ontario and how soon we can expect him to move on their recommendations.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): In answer to the member's question, we appreciate very much the cooperation that the conservation authorities have extended so far. We have received their proposals. We're very interested in what they have to say. After we have had a week or so to review those proposals and to perhaps match them with some of our own thinking that has been going on internally, we'll be prepared to respond.

Mr Elston: So far, the thinking internally by the Minister of Natural Resources has ended up in the elimination of the conservation land tax rebate program. In my area alone, the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority will lose some $113,000 and the Grey Sauble authority will lose some $250,000 in rebate. It may be necessary for these authorities to get rid of that land just to pay the back taxes owing.

If these people have to sell this public asset, which is now open for every person in Ontario to access, how can he tell us that he's not willing to move quite quickly into areas that are suggested for changing the way in which services are delivered to protect the public trusts of lands which have been both donated by the people to conservation authorities and purchased by conservation authorities in past years under the regimes, I might add, of both Liberal and Conservative administrations which saw the importance of protecting the integrity of a public system of land holdings?

Hon Mr Hampton: I feel compelled at this time to correct some of the impressions the member may have tried to create. Conservation authorities may not dispose of conservation land without the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. So while we appreciate that conservation authorities may have strapped budgets, just as virtually every government in North America these days has strapped budgets, there is no imminent threat to conservation lands and no imminent possibility that conservation lands will be sold.

We're quite willing to work, both in the short term and in the longer term, with conservation authorities to deal with these sensitive issues. Everyone must share in the types of financial burdens that Ontario is faced with and that Canada is faced with, and I expect that conservation authorities will do their part.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question also is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources. I would just like to say before asking the question that members of the association are present here today in the gallery and they have an extreme interest -- it's not only their interest, but a matter of time and pressure on them -- to get a solution to this problem.

They feel, that they have in fact given you a solution to the problem. But the problem is more than their program for success. The real problem is that you have to initiate a meeting of your ministry, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to bring all the parties together that are now controlling conservation in the province of Ontario.

What I'm asking you today is, would you please tell us that you are going to bring these ministries that affect the control of conservation together and come out with a policy that our leader, Mike Harris, has recommended for a number of years, the one-stop shopping where there will be one central control for all these functions? Would you do that, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, to the member from the Progressive Conservative Party, we have held more than a couple of meetings with representatives from the conservation authorities. We have met with individual conservation authorities. We have invited conservation authorities to put their collective thoughts together. We're very interested in the positions that conservation authorities have put forward.

I would only say that there are other views. For example, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists may have a slightly different view from conservation authorities. For example, municipal officials may have slightly different views. What we are trying to do is to put together a system of operation which all of these very legitimate organizations will have an interest in working with and in promoting.

Mr Jordan: At the present time, there are up to 11 different ministries and government agencies that are entangled in the provision of environmental services. You can imagine, the frustration to developers, to any person trying to do business in the province of Ontario, trying to get approval. You go to the Ministry of Natural Resources and they send you to the MOE. You go to the MOE and they send you to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It's a very frustrating procedure. I'm not saying to take the associations' answer as the only answer. I'm saying, will you bring the people involved together and make their proposal part of the solution?

Hon Mr Hampton: When we invited the conservation authorities to meet a month ago, it was for this exact purpose. I would only like to say that the existing system, which no doubt provides for long delays in terms of development approvals, which provides for all sorts of entanglement and duplication, was not a system that this government created. It was a system that was created by the Progressive Conservatives when they were the government and a system that was furthered by the Liberal Party when they were the government. All we're trying to do now is to sort out a cost-effective way of dealing with this issue that governments some time ago should have put their minds to.

RECYCLING

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is to the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. I have an article from the Picton Gazette that came out on June 1 but really is a June 2 copy because they always get it out a day ahead of time. Anyway, it says that more than 150 homes operated by the Ontario Ministry of Government Services in Prince Edward Heights are no longer going to have blue box recycling at their doorstep. This is a result of Prince Edward county's decision to stop providing that service, and indeed they've already collected the blue boxes. The claim is that it's due to funding problems, and I understand from the article that the ministry no longer will fund blue box recycling at Prince Edward Heights.

I would like to ask the minister, the Chair of Management Board, if indeed this is so, and if it's not, if something could be done to reinstate blue box recycling at these more than 150 homes at Prince Edward Heights.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings for his question. I guess his constituents would certainly be upset at being informed that they're not any longer going to have a blue box program because of some action of this government.

1500

Let me start out my answer by assuring the member that first of all the blue box program will be restored for the residents of Prince Edward Heights. In part, this problem arose because the county was confused about the tax status of the 150 homes in question, but the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does in fact pay taxes to the county for those homes. In addition to that, the Ministry of Community and Social Services had agreed to pay the special fee charge that the county wanted to continue collection of the recycling boxes.

We will get this misunderstanding sorted out with the county and ensure that the program continues.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Minister, are you aware that you are squandering millions of dollars in the form of waste in the non-profit housing program? Vacancy rates are now the highest they've ever been. In Oshawa, for instance, the vacancy rate stands at 5.8% and yet you over-allocated non-profit housing units by 180%. In general, the marketplace is vastly different than it was in the late 1980s when we had an acute shortage of housing. Today that shortage no longer exists, and in some areas in fact we have a surplus.

Your latest announcement of 20,000 units could ultimately end up costing taxpayers well over $8.4 billion over 35 years. On top of that, your ministry cannot account for the actual costs involved in building non-profit housing units. They simply cannot verify the actual costs. In short, your ministry is operating in the dark and, we suspect, getting ripped off in the process.

Minister, I ask of you, are you prepared to call for a moratorium on the construction of new units until you are able to provide the people of this province with the real answers for the questions we're asking?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I hope members of the Legislature will note that the Liberal Party has shifted its position and no longer supports the production of non-profit housing in this province. We are going to support the production of non-profit housing in this province.

There are increases in vacancy rates, and we have discussed that in this Legislature on many occasions. If the Liberal critic on Housing took note of information available from CMHC as long as a year and a half ago, he would note that the vacancies are at the upper end of the market. Is he suggesting that we leave those tens of thousands of people who are in increasing difficulty in the housing market without any hope of affordable housing when the private sector is not capable of meeting their needs?

We are going to continue our program, not only because it meets needs and creates affordable housing, not just for this year but for decades, but it also is producing thousands and thousands of much-needed construction employment in this province.

Mr Cordiano: It is very clear that this government has mismanaged this program and has used nothing but incompetence to guide itself. It's very clear, because the auditor is pointing out repeatedly, that you are wasting millions of dollars. The auditor pointed out that the cost of construction has decreased in central Ontario by 16% while over the same period the cost of constructing non-profit housing units has increased by 9.5%. In total, you're about 30% over what the market is costing out there for a non-profit housing unit.

I might say this: We are very supportive of the non-profit housing program, but we're not supportive of waste and incompetence and mismanagement. We are dead set against that. This minister and this government are guilty of that very thing: incompetence and mismanagement.

I say to the Minister, are you prepared to call for a moratorium? Because, quite frankly, the very people who supported this worthwhile program, even they are questioning what you're doing. You're incompetent, you're wasting resources --

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

Mr Cordiano: -- you're jeopardizing the non-profit housing program. We support it, but we don't support your mismanagement.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I know that the Liberal critic is new to the Housing portfolio and therefore he cannot be expected to have informed himself that the Provincial Auditor's report covered years which were mainly years of Liberal administration and that the problems we are now having in working out how to provide all the information on a development-by-development basis, which we have promised to provide to the auditor, is that under the Liberal administration the information wasn't kept. We have to go back now into the files, way back to 1986 in many cases, to try and get that information. We can't do anything about the fact that this was not administered properly during the Liberal regime.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. The minister introduced Bill 4 on April 21. He knows this is an omnibus act to change the Education Act. It's got more than 20 important amendments to the act. It affects junior kindergarten, child care in our schools and special education with special reference to hard-to-serve students. It has a retroactive clause in it that talks about young people and their parents having to pay for education, if this bill is passed, retroactive to June 2, 1992, over a year ago; a retroactive clause.

It passed second reading on June 3 and was referred to the standing committee. We had our first meeting yesterday, really, with reference to the bill. The standing committee has allowed, because of the government members on the committee, with I think the support of the minister, only three days, less than 15 hours of public hearings -- day and night, mind you -- for this bill with all of these issues.

I have a question for the minister: This party, this government talks about the importance of public input. I have to tell you that the chairperson of the special education advisory committee went before the committee yesterday and said they had never ever been consulted on this bill.

There are some choices that you have. You can either give us summer hearings --

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

Mrs Cunningham: -- you can separate out the special education part of the legislation, or you can just say that this bill is far too extensive and we cannot deal with it before the end of this sitting of the House. I think you should consider all of them. Will you consider dealing with this legislation in a way that the public can in fact be heard by this government in public hearings over a reasonable period of time extending into the summer?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): That sounded like a multiple-choice question, and we don't use multiple-choice questions in our school system any more. I think the member and the members of the Legislature should understand -- and I know the critic for the third party does -- that many of the provisions, in fact just about all of the provisions of this bill were in bills that were already before the Legislature. It's not as if any of these issues are brand-new in Bill 4; they've been before the Legislature for well over a year, if not two years, now. The member can say that they want public hearings during the summer, but the reality is that they've been holding up a lot of this legislation for a long period of time. It's absolutely essential that we get through some of these items through the Legislature.

Of course, I'm more than willing to sit down with the opposition critics -- the time lines have been negotiated with the opposition parties -- and look at their amendments. The member from the third party knows that I'm more than willing to compromise in order to get legislation through the House and to benefit the kids of this province.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Renfrew North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Environment and Energy concerning Ontario Hydro's decision, supported by the Ontario government, to offer deep discount rates to certain major industrial power users in Ontario. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from people opposed to casino gambling, the way I'm opposed to it. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the sentiments of this petition, therefore I will be signing it, affixing my signature at the bottom.

1510

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition from St Matthew's Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hanover:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further petitions? I would also like to remind members there are many private conversations going; it makes it very difficult to hear.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here signed by many people from my riding, retirees like Hester and Don Warne, students like Rob Halpin, retirees like Ambrose Ferren, and other good, hardworking people like Bing Wong, and they say:

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

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

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal in whatever way possible, whatever means possible, and petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal now, and we ask Drummond White, MPP for Durham Centre, to present this petition on our behalf to the Ontario Legislature."

CLOSING OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I am continuing on a daily basis to bring forward petitions that have been sent to me from my constituents in Timiskaming. These are addressed to Premier Rae, Treasurer Laughren, Minister Buchanan. It says:

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

I will affix my signature to this.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws;" like everyone else, "and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation; to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

That's signed by people from Minesing, Hillsdale, Phelpston and Toronto, by 14 signatures, and I've affixed mine to it.

GAMBLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition signed by 52 residents of Oxford, and this petition was forwarded to me by Rev Dave Snihur, who's the minister at the College Avenue United Church in Woodstock, and it opposes casino gambling.

BICYCLING SAFETY

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

"Whereas the Parliament of Ontario would make it mandatory for every cyclist to wear a helmet when riding on a public road; and

"Whereas the imposition of this proposed helmet law would create a nightmare from an enforcement standpoint,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the Parliament of Ontario to reject this proposed helmet bylaw."

It's signed by 47 constituents and I've also signed my name to the petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

This petition is signed by 56 people and I now affix my signature.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition that reads:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, support the voluntary use of bicycle helmets promoted as part of a comprehensive bicycle safety program; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, oppose the province's plan to mandate the use of bicycle helmets as being an excessive restriction of personal rights to choose for ourselves as guaranteed under the Constitution."

CENTRES D'EXCELLENCE ARTISTIQUE

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : J'ai une pétition adressée a l'honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario.

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition ci-incluse aux présents documents contenus aux volumes 1, 2 et 3 contenant les documents et signatures d'appui :

«Nous demandons que le maintien, la viabilité et la croissance du Centre d'excellence artistique de La Salle et que le développement d'un réseau de centres d'excellence artistique en Ontario, qui sont les composants essentiels à l'avancement socio-économique, artistique, culturel et linguistique de notre société de langue française en Ontario, soient à tout prix assurés académiquement, appuyés politiquement et encouragés financièrement.»

Quelque 6000 signatures et j'y ai apposé ma signature.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 433, employed by The Sampson House in Gananoque, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ontario government must immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it and not scapegoat the public sector workers in times of economic difficulty.

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services."

I've affixed my signature in support of this petition.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here:

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

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

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, in Toronto, to fight this trade deal with whatever means are possible, and we petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal now."

It's been signed by such notable people as Doug Harvey and Lynn Jacklin and many others, and I affix my name to this in full support.

1520

GAMBLING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by residents of Eglinton riding:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to that petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition signed by 238 students of St Patrick's high school in my riding. It reads as follows:

"We, the graduating students of the Sarnia riding, believe that accessible education is a priority. We believe that large increases in university-college tuition create an elitist education system that only the wealthy can afford.

"Therefore, we demand fiscal responsibility and monetary restraint by the New Democratic Party of Ontario in the development and funding of new programs and unnecessary legislation. Funding to such actions should be terminated and those funds should be diverted to post-secondary institutions until the economic climate proves otherwise. An investment in education is an investment in the future."

GAMBLING

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition from 66 people from Brighton township and Murray township: