Journal des débats 1993-juin-21 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

This past weekend a permanent AIDS memorial was unveiled in Cawthra Square Park in my riding. It was opened with a poem by Michael Lynch, whose idea the memorial was, engraved on the first pillar. Michael Lynch died before he could see the opening.

The central idea of the AIDS memorial is the naming of names. The devastation of the epidemic gets lost when it becomes a score sheet of anonymous body counts and statistics, but the listing of names has an irreplaceable impact in the fight against AIDS, particularly within the communities hardest hit.

I hope the memorial will be a place to celebrate as well the day when the last death ever from AIDS is listed.

I'm also wearing this red ribbon with respect to those haemophiliacs and HIV-T people who were infected by tainted blood or blood products and who participated in a demonstration on the steps of the Legislature today.

Our party has called on the government to act on the issue of compensation for these victims of a misplaced trust in the health care system. The government needs to act now. If need be, it should act, like Nova Scotia and Quebec before it, on its own to provide compensation.

That compensation should come after consultation with those individuals who have the most knowledge about how it could best be made; that is, the victims themselves.

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the House today to ask the Minister of Transportation to stop ignoring the people of Dufferin county and the town of Caledon when it comes to GO Transit.

This past week, while Palgrave and Bolton learned their GO bus service was being cut, the people in Dufferin and north Caledon had a private operator stop their commuter service to the Brampton GO Transit line. I have received many calls and faxes from people who rely on both services to get to and from their jobs and services within the greater Toronto area. In today's slowly recovering economy, people are faced with pay cuts and layoffs. For some people, these bus transit lines are the only form of transportation they can afford, and no one wants to lose their job or be saddled with an unexpected and large expense of having to purchase a vehicle in today's economically trying times. In protest of these senseless cuts, the residents have reacted with action.

Everyone who is concerned, and not in favour of the loss of GO bus services, has distributed and signed a petition to show this government we disagree with the elimination of GO bus services. I have made a commitment to present these petitions in the Legislature to encourage this government to reconsider its decision. The stark reality of the situation is that not everyone can or wants to live in Metropolitan Toronto.

People should have the right to choose how they live and where they work. To make these cuts now, when jobs are scarce and money even scarcer, is a real blow to many people in Dufferin county and the town of Caledon who have been trying to rely on buses to go to work, to go to school or to go for medical services in Toronto.

BLOOMFIELD AND AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise today before the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to talk about an organization from the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings that has been very active in promoting tourism and economic development in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. That organization is the Bloomfield and Area Business Association.

This group is exceptional because it organizes events that bring visitors not only to Bloomfield but to the entire area. Last week they hosted a very successful event called the Loyalist Parkway Flag and Flower Festival, which is held every year on a Saturday in the middle of June. This is a celebration of the United Empire Loyalist heritage of Prince Edward county.

Bloomfield, I might add, is doing a beautiful job of restoring its town hall, which serves as a municipal office and a community centre and is used by diverse local groups. This excellent facility was the object of much admiration and is truly reflective of the kind of work that is being done all along the parkway to maintain a sense of the history of our region.

As well, this Bloomfield group also organizes the Loyalist Parkway antique and classic bicycle rally, which takes place September 25-26. This event will bring cyclists to the entire length of the Loyalist Parkway, from Trenton to Kingston. There was a modest provincial grant to promote this rally, and I know this will be put to good use in drawing attention to the Loyalist Parkway as a great area for cyclists.

This is an example of how the good work of the Bloomfield and Area Business Association benefits our entire region. I am very pleased to have Dick and Doreen Piller here today from Prince Edward county, representing this group. In rural Ontario, there are many small communities like Bloomfield that rely on volunteers like Dick and Doreen for the kinds of events that take place. These events only happen because of the hard work and dedication of community members who take some initiative. I'd like to congratulate them on their hard work and thank them for visiting the Legislative Assembly today.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): In its continued attempt to shut down northern Ontario, the NDP government is dealing a death blow to the forest industry. In the May budget, Treasurer Laughren mentioned that the government will double its crown dues, its stumpage fees charged to forestry companies.

Up till this winter, the sawmill industry has been struggling to survive the past four years. Thanks to climatic events such as Hurricane Andrew and increased housing starts in the United States, lumber prices shot up this winter, but since that time have stabilized. But the NDP northern cabinet ministers figured this was a good time to hit the struggling industry with a doubling of the dues, starting on July 1.

While northerners are going to be celebrating Canada Day, they're also going to be seeing the shutting down of the small independent sawmills, and that means that sawmillers, loggers and truckers are going to be out of work, not because of declining prices or declining demand, but because the NDP government doesn't understand the fragile nature of the forest industry and, in their ignorance, have decided to tax it to death.

This is a plea from one northerner who cares about northern Ontario to the government to stop this tax increase now, immediately, before it's too late. The government should stop killing the northern jobs and allow us to work in northern Ontario and raise our families like anyone else.

1340

COMPENSATION FOR AIDS PATIENTS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Earlier this afternoon, I and my colleague Cam Jackson participated in a demonstration in which several HIV-infected haemophiliacs pleaded with the NDP government to do the right thing and provide them with injury compensation benefits.

In the gallery sit Mark and Colleen Bulbrook and Ron and Laurie Mitchell, with their sons, Nick and Josh. The only mistake that Mark and Ron made was to place their faith in the integrity of Ontario's health care system. Regrettably, their faith proved to be misplaced as each contracted HIV through the Canadian blood supply.

For many years, infected haemophiliacs have begged the Ontario government to follow the path blazed by the federal government when it announced a compensation package to haemophiliacs in 1989. In doing so, the federal government asked the provinces to do the same. Yet haemophiliacs have been systematically denied injury compensation benefits by the four previous Liberal and NDP Health ministers.

Because the government participated in a conspiracy of denial and refused my urgings for it to take a lead on this issue, it now finds itself faced with over 60 court challenges. This could result in the government being forced to pay millions of dollars in court-ordered compensation.

By neglect and delay, the government has already inflicted enough punishment on infected haemophiliacs. While the government delays, people are dying.

This is not an issue about money; it's a question of fundamental justice. If the government continues to drag its heels, it will lose in court and the cost will be even greater. To the government I say: It's still the right time to do the right thing.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): A few weeks ago in one of my community newspapers, the Port Perry Star, there appeared an editorial with the headline "Stop Whining." The editorial goes on to say that headlines "trumpeted the budget as the largest single tax grab in Canadian history and the reaction from big business to big labour to the opposition parties at Queen's Park was as predictable as the hands on a clock.

"Liberal leader Lyn McLeod shrilled that the budget will kill the fragile recovery. This begs the question of what McLeod was saying when the Liberals were in power and hiked government spending by hefty amounts for five successive years.

"Like it or not, Canadians have to face the stark facts....

"Point fingers if you will, but never forget that the massive government debt that burdens us now has given each and every one of us a standard of living since the end of World War II unmatched anywhere on earth.

"But wait a minute. Ontarians and Canadians everywhere in this country ought to take a long, hard look around and ask themselves if there's any place in the world they would rather be.

"What we have done is put off paying for it, until now. The day of reckoning had to come.

"Stop whining and thank your lucky stars you're a Canadian. There are countless millions in every corner of the globe who would gladly step into your shoes. Wake up, take a look around, count your blessings and be thankful for what you have."

Those are the words of the editor of the Port Perry Star, and I echo them.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Last week I rose in the Legislature to ask my Tory friends where they stand on Bill 48, the social contract legislation. It seems the Conservatives are still talking out of both sides of their mouths.

When the NDP began the social contract negotiations, Mike Harris clearly told Bob Rae that he could count on his party's support. By the end of April, Harris was saying, "I will support the legislation," bang, bang, bang, first, second and third reading. But by May, what were they saying?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Here comes more "Spend, spend" by the Liberals.

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

Mrs Caplan: The members of the Conservative caucus said: "This process is flawed from the beginning. It's a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants process." One week the Tories are saying, "I've supported the social contract talks," and the next their leader, Mike Harris, is saying, "We told you the social contract talks could not possibly succeed."

But now that we have Bill 48 before us, what are the Tories saying today? Monday, June 14, they said they might support the legislation in principle. On Wednesday, June 16, they said, "You have our support," and in the very next question that the leader asked, he was critical of the legislation. On Thursday, June 17, the Conservative Party critic said that they would vote in favour of the legislation on second reading and they would vote against the legislation on third reading.

Where do the Tories stand on Bill 48? I ask them, do you support the social contract legislation or not? Where are you? The public wants to know.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On May 17, the standing committee on administration of justice began public hearings to review the relationship between crime victims and the Ontario justice system, with particular consideration of a victims' bill of rights, which I first introduced in this chamber in 1989 and have since reintroduced three more times since it was blocked from becoming law by the Liberal and NDP governments.

During committee hearings, members had an opportunity to listen to how victims of crime feel our justice system has failed them and what they themselves would do to correct the problems in it. During her presentation, Priscilla de Villiers reminded us that the report of the coroner's inquest into Jonathan Yeo contained a recommendation for a victims' bill of rights in Ontario, one of only two provinces in Canada without one. As Priscilla stated:

"How have we got to the stage where the security of the vulnerable members of our society is of so little account? It is time we document the fact that there is such a person as a victim and that we delineate their rights and freedoms and their place in the process. In doing that we will establish a balance of rights again, because every person in this room, believe me, is a potential victim."

Debbie Mahaffy is in the forefront of the battle against profit through continued victimization in the form of offensive serial killer cards and violent pornography films. During her presentation, she strongly urged the adoption of my private member's bill on victims' rights, especially that section that would allow the Attorney General to seize any profits derived by convicted criminals from the sale of their recollections of their crimes, which would go to pay for crime victims' services.

On behalf of these two courageous women, as mothers, we would remind members of the Legislature of what Mrs de Villiers said, that every person is a potential victim in this province.

PETERBOROUGH GREEN-UP

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm delighted to report that the official opening of the new expanded Peterborough Green-Up took place on Thursday, June 10, at the home of Mrs Margeree Edwards, chair of Peterborough Utilities Commission.

Peterborough is proud to be one of the communities participating in this government's green communities initiative. Green-up is already an important part of our community and has done excellent work in auditing recycling efforts, developing the ecology garden and educating the public in many other ways.

Always a partnership program, green-up now has an even more impressive list of partners, including the Peterborough Committee on Sustainable Development, the Kawartha World Issues Centre, the city of Peterborough, the public utilities commission, the public and separate school boards, Sir Sandford Fleming College, Trent University, the Peterborough Chamber of Commerce, Consumers Gas, General Electric and Quaker Oats.

As part of its $3-million green communities initiative, the Ministry of Environment and Energy is contributing approximately $500,000. The key to the new green-up initiative will be the green home visit program, which has set a target of 3,000 households for the first year alone. There will be educational programs and programs targeted at business. Canada Trust is offering a special financial package. This program will help our environment, benefit our local economy and generate millions of dollars in conservation spending in Peterborough. It will create dozens of new jobs.

Thank you Clifford Maynes, Ben Wolfe, Linda Slavin, Cathy Dueck and those many others who have helped realize this project. Welcome and good wishes to Dave McLeod, manager of the new Peterborough Green-Up.

BRIAN LAND

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'd like to seek unanimous consent for representatives of each of the three parties to make some comments about the retirement of Mr Brian Land.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: It's a pleasure for me to rise today and to make some comments about Brian Land, who is the director of the legislative library, research and information services, and has been since April 1978.

As you will know, it was not too long after I arrived here myself that Brian Land was appointed, so in terms of service here, he has for me become not only one of the familiar services, but one of those who, in the process of dealing around the Legislature and especially in terms of access to information, I and most of us in this Legislature have come to rely on in one way or another in a very important process of informing ourselves about both the history of this place and the things that we're dealing with on a daily basis in the process of legislative debate.

1350

Brian Land began his career in 1953 as a reference librarian at the Windsor Public Library. He is the former dean of the faculty of library science at the University of Toronto and has a full professorship at the university.

Mr Speaker, you may know this fact; I didn't until we received some notes about his retirement. He is the 17th legislative librarian since Confederation in this Legislature. If you think about that, with us now some further way into the 35th Parliament, that's an interesting statistic. In that statistic Mr Land happens to be the second-longest-serving of those 17 legislative librarians. It's very important and a career here which he can be very proud of in terms of the service he has brought to this Legislature, to the members of this Legislature and I guess in some respects to many members of the public as well.

He has overseen many organizational changes and additional services that have been added during my time here and during his tenure in his job as director, including the research service itself, which didn't yet exist when I first arrived here. In that respect his stewardship has been a particularly fruitful one, in terms of how the library itself operates and in terms of how the members of this Legislature, the representatives of the public of the province of Ontario, have had access, in a much more unbiased or neutral way than perhaps many of our predecessors had, to good statistical and policy analysis of issues without the political bias that our own research departments very often bring to those issues that we get concerned about and to good factual information that comes from both the past and the present. It has been a change that I think has added some interesting dimensions to some of the debates here in the Legislature and helped both government and opposition parties in their struggle with how to approach a debate around a particular piece of legislation.

There are several members of Mr Land's family present in the Speaker's gallery here today: his wife, Edith, and his children, Mary and John, and their spouses. His family has reason to be proud of the service that Brian has rendered here to the members of the Legislature, to the staff of the Legislature and to the larger general public of this province. I'd like to end my comments by saying both a personal thank you and a thank you on behalf of all of the members of the government caucus.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to join the government House leader on behalf of my colleagues in paying tribute to Brian Land and welcoming his family here this afternoon. It seems incredible to me that it is 15 years since Brian Land came to become the executive director of the Ontario legislative library. It does seem a very short time ago that he came over here from the University of Toronto.

I don't know how to put this, but it's hard to describe the library that Mr Land came to take charge of in 1978. It was a very friendly place. It was a warm place, not particularly frequented, as I recall, by too many members of the Legislature, although the late Patrick Lawlor was one of the stalwarts, as I mentioned here a few weeks ago. But the legislative library in 1978 was quaint. It really did belong in a different era, perhaps even in a different century. Brian Land has, over the course of the past 15 years, revolutionized and modernized that facility in everything from its hiring practices, which were very interesting prior to 1978, through to introducing all of the information technology and developing, as the government House leader has rightly pointed out, a very substantial research capacity.

Why, just the other day, I received from our outgoing librarian three wonderful volumes that the library has produced having everything to do with the history of the Upper Canada Gazette to a very interesting essay on the various parliamentary precincts that the province of Ontario and its predecessors have enjoyed over the course of 200 years. He has been a very, very strong advocate for that part of our parliamentary institution. He has served with very considerable distinction in that role. It's well known, I think, to many in the Legislature that Brian has been honoured by a number of professional associations with awards of merit and achievement.

But I always felt that there was much more to Brian than just a librarian. It may not be known to some that he served for a year as the executive assistant to the late Walter Gordon when Mr Gordon was the Minister of Finance for Canada. Around the same time, Brian wrote a book which I would recommend to those of you who have not read it.

One of the first of its kind in Canada, perhaps the first of its kind, he authored in the early 1960s a book that looked at the election campaign in the federal constituency of Eglinton, where the redoubtable Donald Fleming was taking on the challenger, Mitchell Sharp, and published that book I think in 1965, by Peter Martin and Associates, if memory serves me correctly, a very interesting volume about politics in this city in an innocent age.

But I always felt that Brian's experiences, both as a watcher of the political debates in Eglinton, as an author of that campaign, as well as his experience -- and it must have been a very interesting experience; I hope he writes about it some day -- serving Mr Gordon in the first year of the Pearson administration in the early 1960s made Brian Land a particularly useful member of the Board of Internal Economy, where, as executive director of the library, he had a seat for 15 years and he had an opportunity to serve honourable members in their various interests. Having spent two very memorable years myself on that assignment, it seemed to me that Brian brought a very keen understanding of the aspirations and perhaps even the foibles of politicians, which understanding he gleaned in earlier times in non-library-related activities.

I just simply want to say Brian has been a very good servant of this Legislature. I consider him a very good friend. He has set a very high and professional standard in modernizing and revolutionizing our legislative library. He has been, as I say, I think a friend to all members and we wish him well. He told me the other day he's 65. It cannot be so. He looks much more youthful than that, and he will, I know, continue to maintain a keen interest in the public affairs and the libraries of this province and country. I thank him on behalf of my colleagues and I wish him well in his new activities.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): As the longest-sitting Conservative in this Legislature, it's my privilege to pay honour to Brian Land today in his retirement from the legislative library.

I don't know if Brian or his staff keep records of who utilizes what services the most, but I would think that my use of legislative information and reference and the research services branch probably would rival any member in this Legislature, as I have an interest in many areas and have utilized those services to a great degree.

One of the great attributes of some of those services is that, although there is a wealth of information that Brian has been responsible for, I have always appreciated how succinctly he has been able to captivate a particular subject or area of interest and put it in layman's language so that we can understand what in fact is happening in other jurisdictions, what people are saying about various policies across our country and what in fact I would be able to utilize during debates, during private members' bills and during other important parts that I have as a legislator.

One of the things that I think Brian has done -- and he has come through a very exciting era in terms of the explosion of information services in our world and in our province -- is that he has been able to put forward a very progressive set of tools for legislators to use, to allow us to have some leading-edge ideas to bring forward in this Legislature. He's given us all the tools and it's really up to us as legislators to use them.

1400

One of the very high standards he's been able to lead and set for the people he works for is the degree of professionalism he has been able to instil in his staff. I have never, never, even in all the uses I've had of his services, ever had any indication that any communication that I had with his services has ever been leaked or shared with anybody else without first coming and asking me if it was possible to share that information with others. I usually did share with others, because a lot of the work was very valuable.

Much has been said before by my two colleagues and I would like to associate my remarks with them as well. Brian, you set a very high standard for your successor. I know you will remember these days with a great deal of fondness. My caucus would like to congratulate you, thank you, and wish you and Edith and your family all the best in your retirement. Thank you very much.

The Speaker: Your executive director of the library, Mr Brian Land, has served with honour and distinction. He has demonstrated most ably that he is indeed a friend of Parliament. We thank you for the commitment you've given. We wish you well in your retirement, Brian.

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the fourth annual report of the Commission on Conflict of Interest, for the period April 1, 1992, to March 31, 1993.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LAND USE PLANNING

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Today, I'm pleased to tell my colleagues that I've received the final report from the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. I look forward to studying the nearly 100 recommendations in detail over the coming months.

In receiving this report, I would like to express my personal appreciation to the commissioners who spearheaded this challenging consultation and review process. They are here with us today in the gallery: Ms Toby Vigod, Mr George Penfold and commission chair Mr John Sewell. We certainly applaud their efforts.

As many of my colleagues will know, our government appointed the commission in June 1991 when strong criticisms of Ontario's land use planning processes were surfacing. It was obvious to us that the public had little confidence in the integrity of the system and so we set out to change that system.

We gave the commission a clear-cut mandate to recommend changes to the Planning Act and related policy in order to restore public confidence, to protect public interests, to protect the natural environment and generally to make the planning process more timely and more efficient.

Mr Sewell tells me that the recommendations in the report address each of these areas, and I have every confidence that they do.

I mentioned that the commission conducted an extensive public consultation process in developing its recommendations. Allow me to share some of their activities with you.

The commission conducted some 60 public forums and town hall meetings, distributed some 30,000 copies of its draft report and received more than 2,000 submissions from individuals and groups across Ontario. I understand that a full 40% of municipalities submitted their views on the proposed changes.

These numbers indicate to me that the commissioners certainly fulfilled our provision that they consult widely with all of those who have a stake in land use planning.

I understand from Mr Sewell and the commissioners that substantial changes were made to the final report, based on concerns expressed about recommendations in the draft report. I am pleased to hear this --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I hope Morley Kells didn't get to them.

Hon Mr Philip: Well, Morley Kells happens to agree with a lot of them -- particularly because I am told some of the changes address concerns raised by people living in rural Ontario. I look forward to seeing the changes because I think any time people's ideas and concerns are acted upon, the result is a more responsive and meaningful system.

Thank you again to the commissioners for a job well done and on time, I might add. Thank you so much.

I believe all the members have also received copies of the final report and I would urge you to read this important document. I look forward to studying this report in great detail.

FIRST NATIONS SOLIDARITY DAY

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I rise today to remind members of an important event now under way. It's an event of significance not only in Ontario but throughout Canada. It's an event evocative of a time that predates either of these jurisdictions and recalls cultures more tuned to the land itself than to boundaries drawn on it.

June 21 is First Nations Solidarity Day, an opportunity to reflect on the heritage unique to Canada that began before Europeans set foot on North American shores.

As legislators, we might particularly note that the traditions of government we are guided by today do not flow from the earliest political organization of present-day Ontario. We are in fact relative newcomers to the task of governing in Canada.

The history of aboriginal peoples is at the foundation of First Nations Solidarity Day. But this special occasion also celebrates optimism for the future and a united involvement in the present.

For example, this morning on Manitoulin Island in West Bay First Nation, sacred ceremonies and prayers began a week-long gathering of elders from all across the country. The elders are discussing cultural survival, self-determination and the future of aboriginal nations. The intent is that the knowledge and wisdom of the elders, with their concerns for social order and harmony, will spark the will of first nations leaders to form a sound base for self-government, which includes participation of all community members.

Many other aboriginal communities in Ontario undertook awareness gatherings, powwows and celebrations over the weekend, with yet more to come. These gatherings celebrate growing solidarity within native communities towards preservation and sharing of aboriginal cultures, languages and traditions, and to the goal of self-governance as well. Ontario has pledged its support to these goals.

In August 1991, I was honoured to sign, along with the Premier, a historic agreement between the province and the first nations in Ontario. The Statement of Political Relationship established the fundamental principle that Ontario and first nations will relate on a government-to-government basis, while recognizing that first nations have an inherent right to self-government.

Ontario is currently discussing self-government proposals and land claims issues with a number of aboriginal communities. We are also demonstrating our commitment to the Statement of Political Relationship through an approach that has involved virtually every ministry in this government.

Aboriginal health, for example, is a key issue within Ontario's aboriginal reform agenda. Government is working in partnership with aboriginal organizations to develop new and lasting solutions directed at holistic healing. We believe significant steps towards healing are essential to improved social and economic wellbeing of aboriginal people, and we are developing a comprehensive strategy to support aboriginal family healing.

The Jobs Ontario program includes training and job creation to meet the particular needs of aboriginal people. Initiatives by the Solicitor General supporting aboriginal policing and justice have demonstrated encouraging success to date. New fishing agreements between Ontario and native peoples will protect the province's fisheries while honouring aboriginal and treaty rights, and aboriginal language training, through our native-as-a-second-language school programs, is helping to preserve a core element of native culture.

This year, First Nations Day falls in the midst of the United Nations' International Year of the World's Indigenous People, hence all the more reason to turn our attention today to Ontario's best approach to the aboriginal community. Ontario's approach begins with the recognition that aboriginal people best understand their own aspirations. It is for them to define their goals in self-government.

As to the nature of those goals, a look to the past may be helpful. Iroquoian tradition offers us the wampum belt, a treaty document that uses parallel lines of beads to represent two canoes moving in the same river, in the same direction, and illustrating peaceful coexistence between equal peoples in a common land.

To me, these traditions tell us a hopeful story. They remind us of the human capacity for relationships, political or personal, less concerned with giving or taking and more concerned with sharing.

I'm proud to take this opportunity today to introduce an individual who combines the best of those traditions of his people with his own personal capabilities, and at the same time, gives back to his people, particularly the young people of his community, an individual who has overcome adversity to reach the top in his field. He is a credit to his people, a credit to the Garden River First Nation, a credit to his sport, to his hockey club and to his profession of coaching. I'm proud to introduce to the Legislature today Mr Ted Nolan, the coach of the national Junior A hockey champions in Canada, the Memorial Cup champions, the Sault Ste Marie Greyhounds.

1410

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I too would like to welcome Ted to the Legislature and join the minister in recognizing this, the First Nations Solidarity Day.

Before I go on, Mr Speaker, I might suggest that you may look for medical help for the minister responsible for native affairs. I actually think he threw his elbow out in patting himself on the back. I certainly expected a less self-serving statement.

As a member who represents a riding with some 25 first nation communities, I cannot stress the importance of this day to those communities throughout the riding of Kenora.

Let me pick up on part of the statement made by the minister which states: "Aboriginal people best understand their own aspirations. It is for them to define their goals in self-government." If I can say anything about this, I would hope that this is something this government will take seriously and appreciate and understand what this particular statement means.

In closing, I would just like to mention a very significant event happening in Kenora this week which parallels this particular day, that being the northern justice conference. It has drawn people from around the world actually to discuss the justice system among the first nations, with a focus on both family and healing. I must suggest this is only one of a great number of activities that are taking place throughout the province during this most important week. I really sincerely hope this government will listen to the recommendations that are made by this group and other first nation groups across the province.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): In response to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the John Sewell commission, you will recall that the John Sewell commission was announced in this House with great fanfare. It was supposed to become the 11th commandment of the Planning Act, but it never did.

Today, after two long years of consultation -- I must agree with the minister that a great deal of consultation went on in the province of Ontario -- and after spending $2.2 million, mind you, out of a budget of a possible $6 million, it's not too bad, but the accomplishments, the results of the report are not too impressive.

As you will recall, Mr Sewell was asked to streamline the Planning Act. This is not the first time that a government has tried to streamline the Planning Act to improve the process, but I think the government and the minister are adding another layer of bureaucracy. The final report recommends that yet another layer of bureaucracy be added to the planning process, ironically in order to streamline the process. The report recommends that regional planning review committees of interested ministries be established and that provincial approvals be delegated to ministry staff of those committees.

I think Mr Sewell tried to give municipalities more responsibilities. I realize that maybe 40% of our municipalities responded in writing to the John Sewell report, but not too many agreed with him. Not too many municipalities. Minister, you will recall that you received a number of letters from municipalities saying: "No way. We cannot approve this report."

The report says that we will protect agricultural land, we will protect wetlands, we will protect every ravine in the province of Ontario, yet only three or four short weeks ago, we dealt with the largest amalgamation the province of Ontario has ever seen, the London-Middlesex amalgamation; 75% of the land in this amalgamation was good agricultural land, yet the intention of the London-Middlesex amalgamation was to provide them with more commercial and industrial land.

What Mr Sewell is recommending and what your government and your ministries are doing are two different things. It's not going to work. I don't know what OMB will say about this. I realize that you've given the OMB more powers with intervenor funding, but you have turned it down in the past, telling it, "You will get no additional commissioners." How can you resolve the John Sewell problem?

FIRST NATIONS SOLIDARITY DAY

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I'm responding to the statement from the minister responsible for native affairs. I don't see anything in this statement that's new or different or moving us further into the 21st century, but there is a comment about the statement of political relationship. I'm happy to see that that statement of political relationship is being responded to with fishing agreements, hunting agreements, recognition of policing, many aspects.

But the one thing that really strikes me about this statement is the very first paragraph, where there is a recognition by this minister, who I might tell you is also the minister responsible for the environment. He recalls in his statement "a culture more attuned to the land itself than to boundaries drawn on it." What the minister is saying and recognizing is that the first nations of this country are the stewards of the land. They are the wisest users of the land. They are the people who understand the importance of the land.

The importance of this statement, it seems to me, is a recognition by the minister to learn from those who are the wisest, and that is the native community. I ask the minister, in his capacity as Minister of Environment and Energy, why he wants to put garbage dumps on farm land, why he wants to put garbage dumps adjacent to the Rouge? I think it's incumbent upon the minister to back up, to change his policy and to understand what those who are wisest in dealing with this problem would say about it.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. When this process all started, it was really to bring things into line so that municipalities would be streamlined, would not have to wait so long in the approval process. I'm wondering, is the government listening to what this report is saying in that regard?

The other aspect of the report in terms of the whole process is with regard to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Now it takes up to a year to get approval. The hydrogeology studies sit there for month after month. Is this process going to speed up that end of it? If it is, it's worth it.

The other aspect I'm talking about is septic systems: the septic system inspection user fee. Every five years they'll have to be inspected and it'll be paid by the owner of that property. This is a whole new aspect being put in, and it's another downloading by the province. What's going to happen to rural schools? Are they going to be able to get approvals for septic systems? The minister of the environment said it would not happen. Is that going to be part of this whole report, that they will be able to do that?

Farm severances will be non-existent; therefore, poor land will be left for no use at all.

The other process is with regard to the OMB, the intervenor funding. If we look at that whole aspect of funding, the $500 million that's in there is not much when it comes to the province of Ontario as a whole.

There are some positive recommendations in the report, but I'm looking forward to see if you're going to act on them.

1420

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I rise to address the report of my former colleague John Sewell.

I think perhaps at the outset the objectives Mr Sewell looked at were very admirable in terms of the integrity and clarity of the planning process, in terms of the timeliness of the planning process -- because we know it can take up to 13 months for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing -- and the protection of the environment.

However, I must say that there are concerns with regard to the emphasis on policy statements, policy statements that apparently would be devised through interministerial committees, apparently would have only up to three months in terms of public input. I would urge the government to allow more time for public input to the policy statements. These policy statements are very central to the planning process that Mr Sewell contemplates.

There are, in addition, concerns with regard to builders in our province, that Mr Sewell's report would essentially prohibit the building of single-family homes. There are concerns in local municipalities that they would lose authority to the upper-tier municipalities. There are concerns that the official plan amendments would become more complicated, that all alternatives would have to be investigated, that the official plan process would become about as complicated as the environmental assessment process. The intervenor funding is of concern as well. I believe these concerns should be addressed in detail by the government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of both the Premier and the Deputy Premier, I'll direct my first question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I trust that the minister has been following the statements that have been made by the Premier in relationship to the social contract negotiations that are supposed to be beginning. If he has been following them, the Premier has told us on a number of occasions that where municipalities, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities had already negotiated wage freezes or unpaid leaves, these measures would be "taken into account" -- and those are the Premier's words -- in the social contract negotiations.

The minister is certainly well aware that on Friday he released detailed information of transfer cuts to each municipality in the province under the social contract. Will you indicate to us today whether municipalities which had in fact already negotiated wage freezes or unpaid leaves had those measures "taken into account" in the transfer reductions which you are making as of July 1?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): If the honourable Leader of the Opposition will read the legislation, as I'm sure she has, she can see that flexibility is built into that, and the whole concept that we have emphasized at the social contract table is to deal with that kind of flexibility. Indeed, when I spoke to the clerks' meeting this morning in London, I emphasized that. The way in which to deal with that is to get back to the social contract table and we will deal with all of the issues they are concerned about.

Let me just remind the honourable leader of the official opposition that the Premier, I think as she well knows, is at a funeral for a long-standing friend of ours and member of the House, Mr Bud Germa, who we greatly note has passed away.

Mrs McLeod: I was indeed aware of that, which is why I'm specifically asking the question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who should be able to give us a very clear answer on the issue of the municipal transfer payments and how they are affected by the social contract negotiations.

If I've understood the minister's response to me correctly, he must be implying that there is flexibility in the transfer announcements that were given to the municipalities last week.

The Premier indicated clearly last week that any wage freezes, any unpaid leaves already in place, would clearly be taken into account. That's right, it did imply flexibility in the negotiations, and therefore flexibility in the financial targets that the municipalities and other agencies would have to meet.

We have been able to get absolutely no explanation of how this is going to be done. We've used examples: the city of Hamilton, which has already had a wage freeze and unpaid leaves ranging from 15 days to three weeks; the much smaller municipality of Atikokan, which has already shut down its offices for a day a week; and there are countless other examples.

We are asking, if you haven't taken these measures into account already, how are you going to do it, when are you going to do it, where are you going it? If the factors are going to be taken into account during the negotiations, will you adjust the cuts that you're making in transfer payments as a result, and when will municipalities know exactly what they have to work with?

Hon Mr Philip: I think that what the Premier indicated and what certainly I've indicated to municipalities, indeed to the clerks this morning, is that the flexibility is in how they reach their targets. There are no blanket exemptions for any municipality or group of municipalities.

Mrs McLeod: There are negotiations beginning, or at least you expect negotiations to begin, and nobody understands what the ground rules are. The Premier has said comprehensive solutions won't work, but you're legislating broad-brush, comprehensive solutions anyway. Then the Premier says, "No, there will not be any blanket exemptions, but special circumstances are going to be taken into account." I tell you, Minister, this is simply mass confusion.

Let me assume that the Premier's promise, his very clear statement that in some way it would be recognized where people had already made a substantial sacrifice or where they have already taken some steps, that somehow the Premier's words are going to be acted on. That means there are going to be some special cases taken into consideration somewhere or somehow. I have to ask, then, how is the government going to find its $2 billion? Will those municipalities that don't get special- case consideration have to make up the difference for those municipalities that do get special consideration if you're going to reach that municipal sector target of $285 million?

Hon Mr Philip: There certainly was no confusion among the clerks of the municipalities this morning when I talked to them; they understood. And there were representatives of AMO at that meeting this morning in London; they understood that with any concerns they had, there was a process set up by this government, the process was at the table and that they could bring those concerns to that table and we would look at ways of dealing with those concerns. I'm glad to say that they understood that, the municipalities understood that, and they're willing to cooperate.

Mrs McLeod: The minister gets a very different message than we receive, which is a very clear message from the municipalities that says: "Take out your arbitrary conditions. Let us meet your targets in our own way. Don't bring these broad-brush solutions and trap us with them."

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question would be to the Minister of Health. Minister, last week you introduced legislation to give yourself sweeping powers to determine what medical services a patient can receive and to prescribe under what conditions those services can be provided. When I asked you how you and the Ministry of Health bureaucrats would make the decisions, you said, "It's our intent, it's our desire, it's our expectation that we will continue to make those decisions in consultation with all the people involved."

But you have also indicated just as clearly that if your negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association are not successful, you will unilaterally determine what medical services will be limited. We continue to be concerned about this power and to ask how you would intend to make these decisions, as no one has any confidence in the ability of a minister or a bureaucrat to make decisions about what care a patient needs. What does this bill that you have before this House do to ensure that patients in Ontario can have confidence in their health care system?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that no minister or no bureaucrat intends to practise medicine for the province of Ontario. What we intend to do is to manage our health care system in such a way that it remains affordable, accessible and that the quality of care is not imperilled.

1430

What we have done this year is to identify savings that must be achieved within the ministry in order to enable us to in fact make some shifts to reform the process, a reform of health care that has been talked about for many years and has been begun under this government. In how in fact we reach that target, we very much want to negotiate with the OMA, and we have put on the table two specific proposals with respect to insured services which we believe can be achieved and help us to achieve our target. If there are alternatives, if there are in fact other ways of achieving those savings, we want to do that in consultation at the negotiating table, and the legislation allows us to reach that target. It does not prescribe how in fact we get there.

Mrs McLeod: I feel as though every time I ask you a question to clarify what it is you intend to do with this unprecedented legislation, I get more confused and more concerned about exactly what your intent is. You keep telling us that you have made it clear what you intend to do. All of us are looking at one another and saying, "When did Ruth Grier make it clear what she intends to do with this legislation?"

You tell us you don't intend to use the powers; you intend to negotiate; you're not going to make decisions about what is medically necessary. We keep saying, why, then, are you bringing in legislation that gives you such incredibly sweeping powers to make these kinds of medical decisions on behalf of patients?

The legislation is clear. It gives you, as the Minister of Health, the ability in law to decide what services a patient will receive and to prescribe the conditions under which the patient will receive those services.

You have not made it clear how this bill serves the purpose of limiting costs and still provides effective and essential medical care, and I ask you to tell us, then, very specifically, exactly what kind of medical services, what kind of procedures you intend to limit in implementing this legislation.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me give a straightforward answer: whatever procedures, whatever services, in consultation with the OMA, we are satisfied will enable us to reach our financial targets without putting at risk the quality of health care in this province.

Mrs McLeod: What you want to do then is withdraw your legislation, because you do not need this bill and you should not have it. Surely you understand that this legislation gives you the legal power to make medically necessary decisions on behalf of the patients of this province, and you yourself are saying you don't want and would not exercise those powers. Then don't put them into legislation.

We ask you what kind of restrictions you would ever consider putting in place under this legislation. You will not give us any specific examples, because clearly you have either not thought it through or you really don't intend to use the powers. Again, we say if you don't intend to use them, don't put those powers into legislation today.

We ask you, what is it -- tell us once again -- that you would ever consider to be medically unnecessary, and tell me too that if you should need to implement the powers under this legislation and you decide that something is not needed but the patient decides that it is needed and the patient's doctor believes it is needed, are you just going to send the patient the bill? Can the patient appeal to you? Are you now, under this law, going to become the final arbiter of what is universally accessible health care in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: This legislation has nothing to do with individual patient care or the power of a physician to practise medicine in this province. What it has to do is enable the ministry to achieve a target containing expenditures and to do it in a way that protects the medicare system but gives us the ability to manage it for the first time by consultation with the profession around services. But there are many other aspects of this legislation that enable us to manage the system in a way that we have been prevented from doing so in the past, and that has led to an escalating increase in expenditures without a commensurate increase in the quality of care.

HOUSING POLICY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. Today I received a new report by Clayton Research Associates called The Cost of a Shelter Allowance Program in Ontario.

As the minister knows, Clayton is the foremost firm on housing economics in Canada. Clayton finds that for a cost of $383 million a year, or a monthly average of $114 per household, we could provide shelter allowances for all 279,000 renter households that are in core housing need. By contrast, the average non-profit housing subsidy was $942 a month in April of this year.

We now have a creditable and up-to-date study which finds that shelter allowances are much more affordable than non-profit subsidies. Why then are you expanding the non-profit housing program and ignoring the option of a shelter allowance program for renter households that are in core housing need?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I haven't had the benefit of reading the report to which the member for Mississauga South refers, but I'm sure I'll read it with interest. I'd like her to explain how it is that such an estimate of what it would cost to provide rental subsidies for households in need can be made when the cost under social assistance, where people are in the private market, is much higher than that. We're spending $2.5 billion a year in shelter allowances currently. How much more would she like to spend?

Mrs Marland: I'm not the Minister of Housing yet, but I've done my homework. I read the Clayton report this morning. I just think it's unfortunate the minister didn't have her staff brief her.

Maybe I'll help the minister. I'll summarize some of the conclusions of the Clayton study.

First, a shelter allowance program is more affordable than non-profit housing.

Second, a shelter allowance program would help all those in the needy target group who wish to apply. Right now, unless a needy tenant receives welfare or family benefits, there is no help until a unit becomes available in one of your social housing projects.

Third, shelter allowances would allow tenants to remain in their current homes if they choose, so that they can be close to their families, to child care, to schools and to workplaces.

Fourth, shelter allowances avoid the low-income ghettos which can occur in social housing projects that do not have a mix of incomes.

For these reasons, will you cancel the non-profit housing that you have announced but have not yet built and will you establish in its place a shelter allowance program for the renters in core housing need?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'd like to comment particularly on the part of the member's question that relates to assistance for people who are not on social assistance at the moment. This is indeed a very significant problem. It affects people both who are renting in the private market and also people who are in their own homes paying a mortgage and who run into income problems.

The way to address that kind of problem is not to drop non-profit housing, which is the only source of new, affordable rental housing that will last for decades, that provides construction jobs while it gets built and that is a public asset which is a good investment for this society. The way to address that, if the member would think about it, is to look at our social assistance system and to make sure that working families that are not on social assistance rolls can get some help when they have costs that relate to the size of their family, where the number of children in the family means that the income in the household is too low. We are engaged in social assistance reform work and the member will be able to read a white paper on social assistance reform within a matter of weeks.

Mrs Marland: For a moment there, I thought she got it. She said there is a very significant problem. Then she lost it. When you talks about your solution, you're quite right: non-profit housing will last for decades, because for decades the taxpayers in this province will be paying to look after a fewer number of households compared to what they could look after outside the non-profit housing program. That's the whole point, and it's unfortunate that you really don't get it.

1440

You like to point out that the province already spends a great deal on shelter allowances. What you never admit is that shelter allowances for welfare recipients are still much cheaper than non-profit housing subsidies. The average shelter allowance for a welfare recipient is $354 a month, compared to $942 a month for non-profit housing. Shelter allowances could cost even less: an average, I just said, of $114 a month for these needy tenants who are not getting any help right now.

By April 1993, the Ontario government had built 87,000 units of non-profit housing. With another 46,000 units to be built by 1998, we could cancel the 46,000 units and save over $400 million a year.

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

Mrs Marland: My question is, based on the fact that $400 million a year is more than enough to cover the costs of a shelter allowance program for rentals in core housing need, Minister, when is your government going to look for ways to provide more services for less money, and why are you ignoring the obvious benefits of cutting back non-profit housing and setting up a shelter allowance program for these needy core rental households?

Hon Ms Gigantes: If there is somebody who doesn't get it, it's the member opposite. You can't have a program to assist people in housing need in this province that only has one wheel. Shelter allowances, rental subsidies, no matter what you call them, do not answer a need that keeps growing and will not in the least answer the question of where we're going to get new affordable rental supply. We can't simply keep pouring money into paying for housing that exists on the market now as affordable rental. The need is growing year by year, the member has to acknowledge that, and we have to keep increasing the supply.

There is no doubt about the fact that rental subsidy programming has a place in housing policy. We spend $80 million currently. But the fact is that if we want to have a new affordable supply, only the kind of financing available under a non-profit program will provide that supply.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): No wonder we're broke in the province of Ontario with an answer like that.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, when your government took office in 1990, the unemployment rate was 6%. This year the economists who came before the finance and economics committee said it will range anywhere from 10.6% to 11.8%, almost double since your government has been in office.

In the 1992 budget you said you were going to make jobs a priority, and during the year of 1992 well over 500,000 people each and every month were unemployed in the province of Ontario. My question to you, Minister, is this: Why have your plans failed for the unemployed in this province and what are you going to do to assist the private sector to create the jobs we need in the province of Ontario?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I don't think that I would agree with the assertion that the plans have failed. I think that we have a multifaceted package with respect to the economy and with respect to job development.

We can certainly look at the number of jobs, thousands of jobs, that have been created through Jobs Ontario Capital, Jobs Ontario Youth, through the housing programs under Jobs Ontario, as well as the previous housing programs, and specifically with respect to leveraged investments in areas like Ford and Chrysler, Bombardier -- the recent announcement that it's going to increase the number of jobs in Thunder Bay. It's the first time ever that in fact we've had a covenant from Bombardier with respect to employment levels in a community.

There are a number of areas in which we are moving forward which we also hope will be an investment in the future of the economy, and I can perhaps provide more detail through the supplementary, but areas like the sector partnership fund, some of the cooperative ventures that are going there. I think that our approach to the economy, a shift from picking winners and losers to a shift to supporting winning activities like innovation, like home-based activities, like investment in technology and export readiness, will pay off certainly both in the short term and, more substantially, in the long term for this province.

Mr Carr: The only shift we got is that we're in the process of laying off nurses, doctors, teachers at a time when you're pouring money into the business of this province. There will never, never be enough money in this province to subsidize all the programs. What you need to do is create a business environment that will allow the private sector to create jobs. You've got to realize that. At a time when we're talking about rolling back and laying off nurses, teachers, doctors, we need to upscale the private sector.

I want to read a quote from Mr Pat Palmer, who came in before the chamber. He said: "Never in the past half-century have business conditions in Ontario been as bad: a record number of bankruptcies, a chilling number of plant closures and layoffs. See our blood; no more taxes. Tax increases will only make the deficit position worse and subsequently put even more pressure on our social programs."

I want to be very specific to this minister, as it relates to taxes and to regulation. What are you doing about the overtaxing and the overregulating that are killing jobs in the province of Ontario?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member opposite will know that in fact our approach in this budget has been one in which, as part of our approach to the economy, we've said that we have to take steps with respect to the provincial government's fiscal situation. I think the emphasis on turning around the deficit-debt problem in this province is one that is supported, by and large, by Ontarians. I think we've taken an approach to that which is fair and equitable that does include increasing revenues at a period in time which is difficult, as it is difficult to decrease expenditures and to address the programs that we are suggesting through the social contract.

With respect to taxation in particular, I would remind the member opposite to take a look at our competitive tax situation with respect to jurisdictions most closely related to our economy: those in surrounding United States Great Lakes jurisdictions.

We will, by next year, be among the lowest in terms of tax rates to corporations in those areas. We have taken specific initiatives with respect to corporate tax rates. The corporate concentration tax is another example. We're working on problems with Ontario Hydro, like the rate and costs of energy, the costs of doing business --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): You guys just don't want to tax corporations. What's going on?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: The tremendous efforts we've been making with respect to bringing health care costs under control in this province --

Mr Sorbara: What's happened to you guys?

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- over one third of the expenditure of the Ontario government, will be a significant contributor to our competitive situation.

I point also to what's been done by the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: All of these areas with respect to the costs of doing business are areas that we are working on. They will make a tremendous contribution in the future to these companies. In the meetings that I hold with people from various business jurisdictions, they acknowledge that and recognize that.

Mr Carr: The more she works, the more the jobs get lost in the province of Ontario. I want to tell the minister that I have in my hand --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Every year you've been working on it. Get to work. Stop working on it.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sorbara: Just like that, we stop shouting.

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South with his final supplementary.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The minister might think she's doing a good job, but in my hands I have a survey done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which shows the most important problems.

It is the small businesses that are creating the jobs in the province of Ontario. My friends across the other side snicker, but at a time when you're laying off nurses, teachers and doctors, it's the private sector and the small businesses that are creating jobs that you're laughing at. They're the jobs that are being created.

They say the number one problem is the total tax burden. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association says it takes seven hours and 52 minutes to cover costs, and only in the remaining eight minutes are they able to produce the revenue needed to pay tax and to pay for your programs. If a page will come over, I'll send this over to the minister.

We have also put together in our minority report some ideas dealing with taxation, government spending, social assistance, non-profit housing, government regulations and the Workers' Compensation Board. We're attempting to put some practical, commonsense solutions together.

I would say to the minister, which of these recommendations are you going to implement and when are you going to implement them, so we can get people back to work in the province of Ontario?

Hon Ms Lankin: I just finished running through a long list of initiatives we are taking with respect to the cost structures to Ontario business. I point out to the member opposite that with the cuts in corporate income tax that were announced in the 1992 federal and provincial budgets, in fact manufacturing firms in Ontario will benefit greatly. By 1994 the combined statutory federal-provincial state corporate income tax will be significantly lower in Ontario than it will be in some of our competitive states around the Great Lakes.

1450

The member opposite seems to ignore those points that are made in response to his questions, particularly with respect to a number of the other issues I outlined in response that our government has.

He also talks about regulatory burden. We have a very well developed initiative within the ministry with respect to clearing the regulatory burden and the paperwork burden, particularly for small business.

I note that the member likes to quote leaders of various business associations. He may want to read the quote from Pat Palmer, which also applauded the work we're doing on that, in which we are going to be involving the chambers of commerce and representatives of other business associations with us in that vein.

With respect to the number of jobs being created, I think it's really important that the member give credit where credit is due. I believe our government is due credit with respect to Jobs Ontario Capital, Jobs Ontario Training, the housing programs, the community economic development programs.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: In this last month alone, I've announced loans to the Ontario Development Corp that have sustained 200 jobs and created 300 new jobs in the province of Ontario in small business. That's keeping Ontario working.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Last day I rose in the House to point out to the government, on behalf of members of the House and the people of Ontario -- this is to the Chair of Management Board -- that the government was squandering $1.4 million on polls to tell itself what it thought about the various issues of the day.

Those of us who read the weekend newspapers noticed a full-page ad that appeared in many of the major metropolitan dailies in the province of Ontario under the signature of the Premier of the province of Ontario.

Taking into context the times we're in, in light of the fact that the government is cutting back on essential services to people in this province because of the economic circumstances that the government faces, in light of the fact that you are prepared to break contracts and raid the pension funds of public sector workers in the province, in this context how can this government possibly justify the expenditure of thousands of dollars when it's trying to send out the opposite message? How can you justify that kind of expenditure on full-page ads in the various newspapers in the province to put out the government's line?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member opposite is precisely a reflection of the reason that the government is having to do what it has to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite chose in his preamble to his question to repeat a set of allegations, which are not factual, about stripping of pension plans. The kinds of allegations that have been made by some deserve a clear public response. The public of this province deserves a full, clear and factual understanding of precisely what it is this government has proposed so that it can make the appropriate judgements.

Mr Bradley: I'm almost afraid to ask another question because I'm liable to provoke another full-page ad in the newspapers of Ontario.

There is nothing in this ad that hasn't already been reported by the popular media across the province of Ontario. There's been extensive coverage of this by the media -- and I know Brian Mulroney does this and you wouldn't like that.

But my question is this: In light of the fact that the Premier of this province, in opposition in the December 14, 1983, debate in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, said the following about this kind of government advertising, "It is an abuse of power, it is an abuse of the democratic process, and governments which participate in it should be ashamed of themselves" --

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Who said that, Jim?

Mr Bradley: That was none other than the Premier of this province today, Bob Rae. Now, in view of the fact that he said this, in view of the fact that you have squandered money on polls to tell you what you think, and now full-page ads to go along with the other self-serving propaganda you put out, will you now give an undertaking to the House that in the context of these economic times, when you're asking others to make sacrifice, you will discontinue this kind of self-serving propaganda?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite asked me for some kind of a commitment. I'm going to suggest to the member opposite that perhaps he should spend some time and come over to our side and look at the calls we've had, for example, as a result of the budget publication, which we put out as an insert in all of the dailies across the province, calls which clearly indicate -- that's a different document, Jim, different document -- that the vast majority of the public across this province appreciated that modest expenditure because it was the only way they could get an accurate picture of what it was the government had proposed.

This government will continue to ensure that the public of the province of Ontario has an accurate and full and clear understanding of what its government is doing.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Cousens: I'll try not to provoke another ad. They're spending money badly in the Human Rights Commission, so let's just follow up on how the Human Rights Commission, which is now costing three times what it did in 1985, over $15 million a year -- and for this we're receiving a service that is very seriously backlogged. One of the reasons for this is the lack of a screening process to differentiate those cases that really should be proceeded with.

A case in point is the adult magazines that are being sold in corner stores. Already the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that stores can sell these adult magazines when municipal bylaws are in place. Why would your Human Rights Commission now proceed with those cases, spending money, taking additional time when there's already a serious backlog, and the fact that of the three cases that were being considered, one of them has already been thrown out? I ask you, will you throw out the other two cases that are before the Human Rights Commission so that the Human Rights Commission can deal with its backlog?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I think I have to clarify a few points for the member opposite who I think is very well versed in the Human Rights Commission proceedings, but I would like to clarify for the general public, because he has raised some very interesting comments that I think need an explanation.

First of all, the Ontario human rights commissioners sit down and decide what cases go before a board of inquiry. They then ask the minister to appoint a board of inquiry. Under the system that we have, under the Human Rights Code -- which was brought forward, by the way, by a previous government, a Conservative government -- it states very clearly that the minister must appoint a board of inquiry that the commissioners have requested. It is out of my hands to make any decisions about whether a board of inquiry is assigned or not. It's completely out of my hands whether a minister can decide to drop a case or not to drop a case once a board of inquiry has been appointed.

1500

Mr Cousens: It becomes a very serious concern when the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on an issue, and then the Ontario Human Rights Commission takes it up as an issue and crusade for it to follow through on. Three cases are before the Human Rights Commission. One of the three is thrown out. Yet the cost of these cases and the time they take continue to raise the whole issue of if the Human Rights Commission were to sort out and remove from its backlog those subjects that have been dealt with in other courts or other areas, and not take the time of the commission or the cost of those that are involved because they've been dealt with otherwise.

Therefore, why doesn't the minister deal with the real issue and get on with the backlog, an ongoing, increasing backlog, deal with that and stay out of issues that have already been dealt with by other jurisdictions and other courts?

Hon Ms Ziemba: The member opposite raises another point that I'd like to have clarified, and that is that the Human Rights Commission is a quasi-judicial system, a system that should be without political interference. I think that in this province and in this country we would have great difficulty with having any political interference with the Human Rights Commission. This must be an arm's-length relationship with no political interference. I take great offence when I think that the member opposite would even request that a political person interfere with the system in place.

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): My question is for the Minister of Health. It concerns the review of health care services in Ontario. For the sake of expediency, I think I could probably place my question and supplementary together, so there won't be any repetition.

Minister, the private labs in Ontario offer their services to everyone and are not restricted to serving only on premises. These labs have become an integral part of our society and our communities. I know that in the riding of Kitchener-Wilmot these labs make house calls to individuals who are unable to go to labs, as well as to senior citizens' complexes. There is great concern in my riding as to what will happen to private labs, in particular MDS Laboratories and by extension the people who work at them.

We must remember their contribution. Over 8,000 people are employed in private labs. They offer fast, reliable and convenient services. Many are owned by employees through profit-sharing programs. Commercial labs service over 10 million patients. They are community-based and provide specialized services for seniors. The constituents in my riding have very real concerns about the reduction or closure of these labs.

What is the status of the review of these labs and can you give any assurance that private labs will have a place in a restructured, comprehensive health care program in Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to respond and appreciate the fact that the member has said he doesn't have a supplementary. Perhaps I can take some time to explain to the House that in an effort to better manage commercial laboratory expenditures and to keep the cost at an affordable level, the ministry, in consultation with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories, instituted several policy changes over the last couple of years which resulted in savings of $25 million and $11 million respectively.

In November 1992, we initiated a laboratory services review which was to address all the major issues regarding the provision of quality laboratory services, such as the need for utilization management, the best structures to create a system and the roles of the different sectors, as well as the funding mechanisms and human resource management.

This review has been done with all of the various stakeholders and certainly in consultation with the association. The recommendations are currently being prepared, and I am assured that the review will meet its target of taking one year and that we will have the final report from that in November of this year.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. My question relates to the Ontario-Quebec trade barriers, especially in the construction industry. Madam Minister, you will know that the construction industry, especially in the Ottawa-Carleton area, is affected by what is happening in the province of Ontario. Quebec companies are winning contracts and construction workers are getting jobs in the province of Ontario while Ontarians are being shut out of the Quebec market. We think it's very unfair.

The CMIT, the committee of ministers on internal trade, met last week to decide how to break all commercial barriers between provinces. You will recall that their decision wasn't a very good one. The best timetable they could come up with was that legislation could be introduced in 1995. This is unacceptable. We need action now. We need to protect the construction industry right across the province of Ontario.

Can the minister tell this House what action she will take to resolve this dispute between Quebec and Ontario? Are you ready to meet with your Quebec counterpart by the end of this month to figure a way out of this impasse?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I've had many discussions with a number of members from the Ottawa area on all sides of the House with respect to this issue and also with members from northern Ontario, who have a similar problem with respect to, particularly, the issue of construction procurement and mobility of labour in the construction trades.

I'd like to correct one impression that the member may have inadvertently left the viewing public with, with respect to the ministers of internal trade, or interprovincial trade, meeting, which was that a new agenda has been agreed upon which would not see action until 1995.

In fact, we are pursuing an already agreed-to agenda which sees discussions continuing over the course of this summer and the development of a rolling agreement, negotiations to commence directly in the fall at a number of tables, involving various groups of ministers, whether it be with respect to agriculture, the environment or broader issues that ministers responsible for interprovincial trade will maintain the responsibility for. We expect to have conclusion to those negotiations in place by this time next year, and that would be followed on by actions implemented by provinces, as well as legislation to back it up.

Specifically with respect to the issue of Quebec and Ontario, as you know, I've taken the position to support the agreement of the interprovincial ministers of trade not to institute any new barriers and to respect the moratorium on barriers at this point in time. I do, however, agree that there is a need to enter into bilateral discussions with Quebec.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: We have given those indications. There has been agreement between Quebec and Ontario to meet, first of all, at the deputies level. Following that meeting, I would be pleased to report to the House, if it is necessary, on when I would be meeting with my direct counterpart in Quebec.

Mr Grandmaître: We need action now, not next fall. We need action now. We need to protect jobs now in the province of Ontario. People are losing their jobs every day. We need to protect these people. You rightly pointed out that the RMOC, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and la Communauté urbaine de l'Outaouais have been working very closely and have identified at least 50 existing barriers that could be resolved with possibly one or two, maybe three meetings of you and your Quebec counterpart.

1510

Madam Minister, I can't point out more. You have to meet with the Quebec people and the Ontario unions, the syndicates.

Hon Ms Lankin: I just said a meeting has been arranged.

Mr Grandmaître: Well, you're shaking your head. I think you should meet with these people and find out what their problems are. You have a letter on your desk from the Ottawa-Carleton building association telling you that last April it were backing you on negotiations, but now it's asking you to take serious steps, to put an end, to put a stop to the interprovincial barriers.

What will you be doing within the next 10 days?

Hon Ms Lankin: The reason I shake my head at the member is that I don't think he listened to the answer. In fact, I have already attended a meeting with the Quebec minister with respect to interprovincial trade in which these issues were raised, which led to an agreement that we would enter into bilateral discussions, and a meeting is being arranged for the appropriate deputies to meet on that issue.

I would ask the member opposite what action he is looking for. Should the province of Ontario erect unilateral retaliatory actions or barriers at this point in time when we are a signatory to an agreement not to create new barriers? I'm sure he would say no. Would he like us to take action irrespective of what's going on with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, which he referred to, which has said very clearly they do not favour retaliatory action being taken by the province of Ontario till they complete their negotiations and their process, which they see completing in October?

We are working on this issue. We are not pleased with the position the province of Quebec has taken. We respect the desire of all provinces to bring down trade barriers. Ontario is an open province. We are entering into bilateral discussions to try and resolve these issues and try to persuade the province of Quebec to change its practices. Those meetings have been scheduled and are taking place. We are in fact taking action.

LIBEL AND SLANDER LAWS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Attorney General. Ontario's libel and slander laws are antiquated and in desperate need of reform. Your predecessor chose not to address this problem and stated that there will be no action to reform this area as long as this government is sitting. Do you support this position?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): There are many areas of work that are going on in the ministry at the present time, and it's necessary for us to set priorities around some of those areas.

When I talk about "those areas," I'm talking about the massive job of court reform that's ongoing, the kinds of work we need to do to address the issues of victims within the court system, the efforts that must be made to bring accountability into the system, the kinds of efforts we need to do to ensure equity for all the equity-seeking groups in the province.

We have had to set priorities. This is not one of the priorities that the government has set for the current term. That does not mean we are not concerned about many of the issues the member raises, but it does mean that, as any government in a sense of working in an orderly fashion must do, we have set priorities, and at the present time this is not a priority for this particular term of office.

Mr Harnick: This is one area in which the government could do something and it wouldn't cost any money. Unfortunately, only the rich can make use of the current libel laws. Can you explain why you refuse to reform this legislation? Why will you not make this law workable for someone who finds himself involved as a defendant in a libel action?

Hon Mrs Boyd: There is no question but that this issue is very important to those who are involved in this kind of case, but anyone who watches this Legislature understands why it is difficult for this government to move forward with legislation, given the kind of obstructive tactics we see both opposition parties doing every day. If you look at the priority legislation we are attempting to get through this session, then it is very clear to us that we do not intend to be diverted from our major priorities. It would suit the opposition very well to try and divert this government from the very important legislative reform and change we must make, and we simply are not going to allow ourselves to be diverted. We are going to use the time in this Legislature to bring forward the legislation that we, as a government which has a right to govern, have decided is the priority.

LONDON OFFICIAL PLAN

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. There's been a great deal of concern regarding development proposals in the newly annexed areas of the city of London and the requirement for a new official plan for the municipality. Regulations to guide London's new official plan were promised under Bill 75. What progress has been made by the city in developing a work program for a new official plan?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'd like to commend the work and commitment of the member for Middlesex in representing the concerns of her constituents. Indeed, even early this morning she joined me in a meeting with Warden Joel Blackmore, and we had a very productive meeting in her riding. She has met with my staff on several occasions and with myself, and she has certainly forwarded the concerns of her constituents to this government.

Questions raised by her constituents about the official plan process for the city of London have been brought by that member to our attention, as well as individual development proposals. I'd like to assure her of my commitment and the commitment of this government to respond promptly to all requests for information. The city of London has commenced the process of planning review and consultation for a new official plan as mandated in the London-Middlesex Act, and the city is working closely with the provincial ministries, through the provincial advisory committee, to ensure that provincial interests are addressed.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Minister. I understand the difficulties. However, the people of London and Middlesex county would like to know when these regulations for a new official plan will be introduced.

Hon Mr Philip: The London-Middlesex Act does include provisions for the issuance of regulations concerning the development of an official plan. Staff in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs are currently reviewing the process initiated by the London council, titled Vision '96, which encompasses a broad review of strategic, social and economic planning as well as more traditional official plan elements, and I expect shortly to be able to respond further to the member's questions on the issuance of further regulations.

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. I know you are aware of the impending decision to close down your ministry's district office in Port Hope, because I spoke to you about it last week. What it seems you are not aware of are the actual costs of this decision.

In your haphazard attempts at fiscal management, you have failed to consult with the front-line workers. Had you done this, you would have found out that hundreds of thousands of dollars could have been saved without this unnecessary closure. In fact, Port Hope staff suggested to your ministry official that over half a million dollars could be saved in combining operating costs and salaries. Your officials ignored this, said it was too late for these kinds of proposals. I didn't think any minister would ignore half a million dollars in savings.

Mr Minister, consider this: The retrofit for making the field operations telecommunication system compatible with that in Bancroft would cost $700,000, while the relocation of 40 to 50 employees would cost a minimum of $1 million -- that is, if there's any place for them to go, as the 40-kilometre restriction of your government's redeployment plan would appear to exclude them. Add to this the increases in travel, meals and accommodation expenses which will be incurred with the move from Port Hope to Bancroft.

I have prepared an information package for you full of the real, actual facts. Will you consider these facts before it is too late and the district office is moved? Will you give to me and the people at Port Hope the commitment today?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I'd like the member opposite to consider this: The member will be aware that first and foremost we must address the human dimension, which is the people working at the Ministry of Transportation.

1520

Having said this, the member will also be aware that at present we have a workforce at Transportation which numbers 9,700 employees. The member should also be aware that in the next two years, because of the length of tenure, seniority at Transportation, more than 700 people will be eligible to reach factor 90.

The member knows that with the human dimension being catalytic, that I will, as a minister, make sure that on the one hand, we shall enact savings by cutting down the number of positions, yet, not so ironically, on the other hand, you will preserve the number of jobs but there will be fewer positions because people will be retiring anyway. Everything will be done to minimize the impact on people who already have a job, and everything will be done to maximize the impact on saving money for people who will not be replaced anyway.

Mrs Fawcett: The honourable minister puts me in mind of Marcel Marceau: Everything is in make believe.

Minister, you consider this: According to the growth rate figures as supplied by Statscan for the period of 1986-91, you will see that Northumberland county's growth rate was 15.5%, more than twice that of Hastings county and 50% more than the provincial average. Further, the service areas of Port Hope office, which includes most of Peterborough county, grew 18.9% to 24%, whereas those in Bancroft only grew at 2%.

These are significant differences and clearly indicate the future requirements for infrastructure development, maintenance and services that will be in the existing Port Hope district office area. It makes absolutely no sense to shut down an operation along the Highway 401 corridor that has the largest potential for growth and relocate to an area that doesn't have any potential for growth.

I know I don't sit at the same table that you and the Minister of Agriculture and Food do, but surely you wouldn't disregard all of these facts for purely political reasons.

Will you review these facts? Will you review the fact that millions of dollars will be lost to the Port Hope and Northumberland economy? And if you are really going to go through with this crazy notion, would you even consider a contingency fund, then, to assist those affected by the decision?

We do not want the move, because it is not the one to make.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member complete her question, please.

Mrs Fawcett: Move Bancroft down to us.

Hon Mr Pouliot: To be compared to Marcel Marceau is indeed an honour. If it weren't for the employees, if the focus were solely on the question, Marceau would have dismissed it, à la bagatelle, with a gesture. Marceau doesn't speak, and yet he speaks legend. The problem here is that the member doesn't listen, Marceau or no Marceau.

People's jobs are at stake. We will do everything to redeploy. We have paid meticulous attention. No stone has been left unturned when it's time to talk about training, about alternatives, about redeployment, not only in the Ministry of Transportation but in working with other ministries.

By way of conclusion, we are fortunate at Transportation that the impact will be minimal. We will achieve substantial savings and people will be able to keep working for the government of Ontario in the great majority of cases.

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition which I'd like to present today that has been given to me by many of the union members in the Quinte area. It reads:

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

"We, the following undersigned citizens of the Quinte area, 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 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."

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 192 people from North Bay, Redbridge, Owen Sound, Meaford, Callander, Sturgeon Falls, Brantford, Minden, Haliburton, Peterborough and Bobcaygeon. I've signed it too.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have here a petition signed by many, many students in my riding, many hundreds of whom have signed this petition, concerned about their future and the future of their families and their children.

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

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

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition signed by some 60 residents of my riding and of the Ottawa-Carleton area. The petition reads as follows:

"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."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm going to read into the record again a number of things that people from across the province have presented against casino gambling:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm glad to affix my signature to this petition.

1530

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I stand tall in my place to read a petition from the Stittsville United Church:

"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 citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city; and

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

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

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, members of the Stittsville United Church, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

As I have stood tall in my place, I sign this petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I didn't know the member for Carleton had reached such heights.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition signed by a full third of the residents who live in the town of Pickering.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): All of them against casinos.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): And dumps.

Mr Wiseman: And dumps.

"We, the citizens of the town of Pickering, want the government of Ontario to know that we do not endorse the indiscriminate selection of another dump in our community. Specifically, we object to a selection process which chooses prime farm land close to residential communities on sensitive aquifers as suitable sites for landfill.

"We urge the government to be more environmentally responsible and do what is morally and legally right. We expect this from our elected officials.

"We are concerned that the ultimate aim of this process is to find a Metro Toronto landfill site, and not as we are led to believe, a Durham-only site. This belief is founded on the fact that none of the 57 sites is within Metro's boundaries. Political accountability can only occur if the site is located within the municipality it serves."

I affix my signature to this petition.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

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

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

While I won't read all of the organizations supporting this petition, it is part of a petition that has gathered well over 15,000 names. It has my full support. I have attached my signature to this part of the petition.

I'd like to confirm that in fact Bruce A has received a certificate to continue operation for the following year.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's a good job you're in the back row.

Mr Arnott: I'll always be here.

"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."

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first name on the list is Doreen Quirk, councillor from Thornhill, and the other signatures were collected at Thornhill United Church -- approximately 50 signatures presented. Ï'm very pleased to affix my signature to this petition and humbly present it with the hope that it does some good on this government.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by a number of my constituents, including Eleanor Rice and Peggy Strong:

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I will sign my name. This is signed by a significant number of people who aren't in my riding.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

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

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

GAMBLING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank you very much indeed for this opportunity. I really appreciate the opportunity. I now know this really is an old boys' club.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signifying our opposition to the intent of the government to legalize casino gambling in our province.

"We concur with the reasons expressed in the letter of the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition, which was written on May 3, 1992."

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Just for the benefit of members, when comes the time to rise for a petition, the Speaker always recognizes the person who rises first. If you stand up, how can I recognize you? You have to sit, rise and I recognize you. It's not being unfair. I recognize the first person who stands up, and that is the ruling. That is 22(b), for the benefit of the members.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Paul R. Johnson from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters \ Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1542 to 1612.

The Deputy Speaker: "Pursuant to standing order 27(g), I request that the vote on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act, be deferred until after routine proceedings, June 22, 1993.

"Chief Liberal whip, Steve Mahoney."

The vote will be accordingly deferred. Are there any other committee reports?

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, do you have a point of order?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I guess not.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KIRBRYN HOLDINGS INC ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Kirbryn Holdings Inc.

PARAGON FINANCIAL CORP ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Grandmaître, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill Pr54, An Act to revive Paragon Financial Corp.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour that the bill pass will say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. The motion is lost.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I move that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act respecting Aphasia Centre -- North York, and that it be now read for the first time.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not the right document.

PHILMANSER INVESTMENTS LTD, 1993

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

Bill Pr55, An Act to revive Philmanser Investments Ltd.

VILLAGE OF MERRICKVILLE ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Village of Merrickville.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could I perhaps seek unanimous consent of the House to let the member for Ottawa East try it again?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed, but before I recognize Mr Grandmaître, I would like to bring again the bill of Mr Turnbull.

APHASIA CENTRE -- NORTH YORK ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr23, An Act respecting Aphasia Centre -- North York.

PARAGON FINANCIAL CORP ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr54, An Act to revive Paragon Financial Corp.

1620

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Essex-Kent had finished his speech and we had reached a stage of questions and comments. Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I'm delighted to participate in the debate on Bill 48, the so-called social contract legislation. The reason I call it the so-called social contract legislation is that I'm not really sure exactly what the government means by its social contract.

It seems to me that when the "social contract" term was first introduced in the 1700s, it was a term that really was all- encompassing, where everybody who was going to be affected by the particular decision got together and decided in a collegial way what the outcome was going to be.

In this situation we have what in fact is a unilateral social contract. The government has called people together and said: "This is what we are doing to you. Now you tell us what you think would be the best way for us to do it to you." It is not asking them: "Is this something that we should be doing? Do you have any other alternatives of what we should be doing?" It really is unilateral: "This is what we are doing. This is what we have to achieve. You tell us how we can do it. If you don't tell us, and if you don't come to a reasonable, in our opinion, solution, we will impose on you what it is that we think it should be."

I want to spend a bit of time talking about how we got to this point. How did we get to the situation where the government has had to take what many consider to be quite draconian means to rectify a problem that in many cases was its own doing?

I want to refer to the 1991 budget. The budget document, which was released by the Treasurer of the day, who still happens to be the Minister of Finance, is quite interesting to read when you read it in hindsight.

It starts off and says, among other things, that 1991 "is proving to be the most severe Ontario has experienced in the last 50 years. This recession is unlike economic cycles of the past. It is more serious because of the economic restructuring that is altering many traditional assumptions about the nature of growth and competition."

The government can't say, "We have suddenly been confronted with an economic situation that we didn't anticipate, that has created far more problems than we thought it was going to do and, as a result, we've had to take these somewhat stern measures."

Interestingly enough, on the same page the Treasurer says: "To support our economic strategy, we are committed to managing the public sector in ways that help meet our social and economic priorities through effective fiscal management."

That is a statement that we could have heard from this government today or in the last budget. They wanted to deal with the public sector in ways that help meet their social and economic priorities. But what actually happened? They didn't address that. They went about a totally different strategy.

I want to quote the next page. It says: "The Ontario economy has been in recession for a year. Job losses to date have already surpassed the levels in every recession since the Second World War. Since last spring, employment in Ontario has declined by about a quarter of a million jobs."

This was in 1991. Interestingly enough, and I think this statement is quite historic in its context, it says: "The unemployment rate, however, is only expected to decline to 7.8% by 1994. The jobless outlook is unacceptable to this government and we are committed to pursuing policies to fight unemployment."

What has in fact happened? In 1991, they had predicted that in 1994 they would be reduced to 7.8% unemployment, which was totally unacceptable. In the 1993 budget, it says the unemployment rate is not expected to fall below 9% until 1996. In 1991, they thought it was going to be 7.4% in 1994. Now they're saying it's not going to be below 9% until 1996. What do we have? We have an effective unemployment rate in Ontario that is close to 14%.

I now would like to talk about what they said about the deficit, and this deficit is something that has captured the attention of everybody, certainly, in Ontario and in Canada. It says on page 3 of the 1991 budget, "The Government is convinced that allowing the deficit to rise to this level this year is not only justifiable, it is the most responsible choice we could make...." In 1991 they were out, I remember vividly, at the post-budget hearings, government members defending the fact that the deficit increase was a good thing. He goes on to say, "I think it's important for people to understand that we had a choice to make this year -- to fight the deficit or fight the recession. We are proud to be fighting the recession."

There is an interesting statistic in the 1991 document. I'd like to bring all members' attention to it because I think it spells out why people do not have confidence in this government's ability to deal with this issue. I think there are very few people in Ontario who do not agree that there is a problem in the level of debt in this province and that the government has got to do something to address it.

I don't think anybody is opposed to that. I can tell you as a representative of our party that we are totally in agreement that something has to be done. Where we part and where we have a problem is that we don't think this particular piece of legislation and this government have the ability to do it. Why do I say that?

I think it's interesting to note that in a newspaper dated Thursday, June 17, which was last Thursday, there's a headline that says "Only The NDP Understands the Real World." That statement was uttered by Audrey McLaughlin, the leader of the federal NDP. That really goes to the heart of the problem.

The NDP has traditionally always felt that only it has the answer. It is only they who are in a position to decide what is right for any particular situation. The only problem we have is that the answers they had in opposition are totally opposite to the answers they have in government, yet on either side of the issue they were always right.

The real world is the real world, and the real world politically is that at the federal level the NDP is at 8%. They have one member elected in the last election in Nova Scotia. They got wiped out in Alberta. Their sole federal member in Quebec has announced that he will not be running and I predict that they will not elect another member in Quebec. In Ontario, as of May 26, the government was at 17%. If I can make a prediction, when the next poll comes out, I predict it will be lower.

What does this mean? It means that obviously they are not doing all of the things that they think are right, and on top of that they are obviously not dealing with the real world.

Let me get back to the 1991 budget. In this budget, the Treasurer projects what's going to happen over the next four years. This is in 1991. He says that the consolidated deficit, which is the operating deficit and the capital expenditure deficit, is going to be $9.7 billion. Why did he pick $9.7 billion? I will tell you very cynically, because it wasn't $10 billion. The number had no relevance to anything other than it wasn't $10 billion or higher. The idea was that for some reason there was a perception that if it went to over $10 billion they would have a problem, whereas if it was $9.7 billion it would be more acceptable and more palatable.

The government projected that its deficit would be $9.7 billion. Their projection for the next year was that the deficit would be $8.9 billion; that was for 1992-93. In 1993-94, they said it was going to be $8.4 billion. The last year for which they made a projection was 1994-95, and they said it was going to be $7.8 billion. The reason I outline those numbers is because any objective observer analysing those figures would know that we were going to be in big trouble, not because something was going to happen in the future; something had already happened.

1630

Let me give you an example of what the implications of those numbers mean. When the NDP came to power, the debt -- and just so that listeners may clarify the difference, debt is accumulated deficit and deficit is the annual shortfall. The debt in 1990, when the NDP came to power, the accumulated debt since the beginning of this province, was $42.3 billion.

In their first year, they projected, with this $9.7- billion deficit, that they would take the debt to $51.7 billion; in the second year, with their $8.9-billion deficit, they were going to take it to $60.6 billion; in the third year, with their $8.4-billion deficit, they were going to take it to $69 billion, and in the fourth year, with their $7.8-billion deficit, they were going to take it to $76.8 billion.

So in 1991, when this Treasurer and this committee were standing up and saying, "We believe in Keynesian economics; we believe that we are not prepared to fight the deficit; we're going to fight the recession," they had already made a commitment to run the debt, in four years, from $42.3 billion to $76.8 billion. Those are their figures.

If we take a look at the actual figures, because we all know that every one of Mr Laughren's spot-on predictions to date has been wrong, in year one, the deficit was $10.9 billion, which took the debt to $53.2 billion. In year two, it was $11.9 billion, which took it to $65.1 billion. Interestingly enough, the projections in the 1993 budget, including the savings that are going to be made because of this social contract, are still going to create a $9.2-billion deficit in 1993-94 and a $6.8-billion deficit in 1994-95, for a total of $81 billion.

So what do we have? We have a government which, in the four years of its projections, has taken the debt of $42.3 billion -- that's if everything works well, and given its track record, I predict that the last two numbers will not be achieved -- and is going to have an $81-billion deficit. That's a best-case scenario; that is if they can finalize the social contract and if they can in fact achieve the numbers they want to achieve.

So what does that mean? It means they are going to effectively, during their term of office in that four-year period, with these very severe cutbacks in government programs, in public service wages, and increasing taxes, take the deficit and they're going to double it.

The question is, how did we get to this situation? As a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs I try to get the attention of the Minister of Finance. One of the major problems we have is that the documents that are presented to us and the decisions that are being made on the finances of Ontario are made for political optical reasons. They are not matters of fiscal responsibility; they are matters of politics. So what we have is a number that is always just short of some invisible barrier that if we go above it, we're going to be in trouble.

So you get a $9.7-billion deficit, but how do you get that? You get that quite simply. You don't pay the teachers moneys that you should pay; you pay them interest instead. You put in as a receivable moneys from the federal government that the federal government hasn't even acknowledged it's going to pay you. You do that so you can show a $9.7-billion deficit. The following year, when you find that some of those things didn't work, well, people forget about that. It's really quite interesting the way the spin is put on this particular issue.

I remember when this government brought down its first budget of $9.7 billion. There were demonstrations in front of Queen's Park. It precipitated a committee tour of the province to listen to people who were going to comment on this government's budget. I happened to get out some of the clippings of the reporting of that particular committee. To hear the government members talk about it, it was a resounding success and group after group after group that appeared before that committee praised the government for its stand to fight the recession and not to fight the deficit. The government came out with a report saying that there was virtually unanimous consent that this was the right move to make.

Then you ask the question, if that was the right move to make in 1991 when all of the facts were in front of all of us -- we knew that the economy was not performing in a way that would generate the kind of economic activity, resources and revenues that we'd expected; we knew that things were going from bad to worse -- and this government chose to take a path of action that has led to and compounded the problem we are now facing, the question is, what could they have done about it? Well, they could have done lots of things and they still haven't done it. They are still playing around the fringes. They are saying things that, again, any objective observer looking at could only surmise make no sense.

I was reading some clippings today about the Premier and his comments. He was talking about: "We don't expect to have double jeopardy. If you've already made your cuts, we're going to acknowledge that and we won't allow you to have any more cuts. If you meet our deadline of August 1 or August 10, we'll give you another 20% discount." It's like a sale. "We'll do all of these things."

Somewhere along the line there is a bottom line: $2 billion. Does that mean that some people are going to be penalized more than others? Does it mean that it's going to be who can get to whom first and who you know in terms of what happens as a result of this particular exercise?

More importantly, is this so-called social contract going to make a difference? I have said and I have given you some figures stating that with the social contract, with the so-called savings that the government is promising, they will still find themselves with a significantly higher debt at the end of their term than they themselves had projected in 1991 without the social contract. It's still going to be about $5 billion more, and that is going on the assumption that they are going to meet their targets.

Let's talk about the targets. I have predicted every year, and you can check Hansard, that the government will not meet its targets, and I predict again that the government will not meet its targets. Why? Because the government in its wisdom uses the budget as a political document. I am cynical enough to know that every government does that, but what happens is this. In order to make the figures work -- and what I mean by working is getting those figures to a point that they think they can sell -- they have to adjust those figures. How do they adjust it? They make predictions as to the growth of the economy and what their expected revenues are going to be.

Every year they say: "Our revenues did not achieve our targets and our expenditures exceeded our targets. As a result, the numbers that we had projected last year have not been met. It's unfortunate, but that's what has happened to the economy. It's something we have no control over." I respectfully submit that they absolutely have control, not over what happens out there, because I am the first to admit that control, but they do have control on how they report it.

Now, when we were at committee, the government came in, and in its projections -- and you have to understand, when they project what the gross domestic product of the province is going to be, that impinges on the tax revenues that they expect to get. So what they do is they come in and they say, "We think that in this fiscal period the economy is going to grow by close to 4%," and they use that number to make all of their other calculations.

1640

They say: "We're going to have so much revenue, because the economy is going to grow. We're going to have people paying more tax; we're going to have more sales tax; we're going to be having more corporate tax. It's going to be a very substantial, buoyant economy, relative to what it has been in the past."

The interesting thing about that projection is that every single independent economic analyst who appeared before our committee came up with a lower number, some of them as low as half, most of them in the 3% or slightly higher than 3% range. What that means is that that number was put into the equation just so that it could make the books look better.

It's also interesting to note that even the most buoyant projections of people like the Conference Board of Canada -- and we had a lot of fun with the Conference Board of Canada during that first 1991 budget, because it was the only group that thought the NDP was on the right track, and everywhere we went, if colleagues who were on that committee with me will remember, it was always referred to as "the prestigious Conference Board of Canada projections" that this government was absolutely on the right track.

Without in any way taking away from the Conference Board, not only was the government not on the right track but everybody acknowledged that that was the wrong way to go, and even this government has acknowledged that it is the wrong way to go and it has since done a complete U-turn and is now preaching the gospel of financial restraint and downsizing and all of the other things that are going on.

The Conference Board of Canada this year in its projections, which were relatively modest, has just come out with a projection that said even its projection this year, which I had no great problem with, is too high and in fact the economy is not going to grow at the same level as it had projected. It's interesting to note that they were considerably -- not considerably, but they were certainly below the government's own projection and more in line with those people who feel the economy is not going to grow to the same extent. So where are we? We're in a situation where people are concerned.

I'd like to quote another interesting comment from the Treasurer in his 1991 budget. He talks about why he wants to do certain things. He says, "People who are paid fairly, who have a sense of economic security and who feel they are respected partners in the process of change are better able to make a contribution to that process."

Now, if there was ever a statement that speaks absolutely contrary to the environment that we are in today -- I mean, who in their wildest imagination would have ever thought that organized labour, those people who traditionally support the NDP, those people who look upon the NDP as being their party, would be out picketing in Gananoque, deciding what it is that they're going to do, claiming that there is for ever a rift between this government and the labour movement?

Yet this government in its budget put out a statement that I don't think anybody could object to. "People who are paid fairly, who have a sense of economic security and who feel they are respected partners in the process of change, are better able to make a contribution to that process." What we have now, that is not happening.

There's another statement that the Treasurer makes and again it goes to the same problem. He says, "We believe that workers will accept and support economic change if they can be sure that their statutory rights will be protected."

Again, there is a statement that should be enlarged, should be distributed and should be hung on the wall for all to see. We believe that workers will accept and support economic change if they can be sure that their statutory rights will be protected.

What do we have in this bill? We have a provision that if the targets set out in the so-called social contract are not met, the government reserves unto itself the right to make whatever changes to any statutory right of those workers it deems to be adequate to meet its target.

This, of course, goes to the heart of labour-management relationships in this province, and as a member who has been in this House for a reasonable amount of time, I can recall when the present government was in opposition and I can recall its championing of exactly the kind of things that it is now totally disregarding. That is why we have a problem.

Again, I want to make it absolutely clear and I want to make sure that everyone understands, there isn't anyone in this House -- and I can say that advisedly -- who objects to getting the cost of government under control. Nobody. We all understand that it's a problem. These are different times, these are times of constraint, these are times when we have to come up with a new order.

But what has happened is that we have a government that rather than identifying this problem in 1991, when it was there -- and they can't use the excuse, "Well, we didn't know about it," because if you take a look at this document, you will see that they knew the problem was there. If they had sat down with their partners in the private sector, the public sector, the expanded public sector and said, "We have a serious problem. Now, let's take a look at how we can resolve it, and that may mean taking some very drastic steps in the way we do business" -- everybody, if you want to have a true social contract, should have been able to participate, and then say, "You know, we've got to take a look at a totally different way of representing the people and providing government and here's how we're going to do it, so that people will be able to afford to live in dignity, to maintain their houses, to educate their children and to have a quality of life that I think most of us have taken for granted."

Instead, we have a situation where there is turmoil, there is uncertainty and there is a despair -- I use that word advisedly -- that is permeating the climate in Ontario where we don't know where we're going, we don't know what is going to happen to us. For the first time, certainly since the post-Second World War period, parents are despairing for their children. Whereas we have always had a legacy where all parents felt their children was going to have a better life than they had, we now have a situation where parents are despairing that in fact their children will not even come close to the kind of lifestyle that they have been enjoying.

1650

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I would say that this is the most troubling debate that I've participated in in this Legislature. It's one where it's very easy to lapse into partisan rhetoric, and no doubt from time to time I and other members will. But it's important to start out by reflecting on the seriousness of the situation we have in this province, a situation that has, according to the government's own budget that it brought in -- I'd like to read it in: "Excluding sovereign countries, Ontario has become the largest borrower in the world. On average we borrow more than $1 billion a month. We spend more on interest costs than we spend on our schools. About two thirds of our new borrowing comes from outside Canada" -- two thirds of the borrowing. In other words, we must have the confidence of the international community, and unfortunately we have lost that.

We know that a large amount of the bonds which this government floated early this year is still in the hands of those organizations that sell those bonds. They have no appetite for taking any further bonds, and the result of this will be that the government's ability to roll over debt as it comes due will be severely constrained.

I'd like to just go back and consider the history as to how we got into this situation. I think it would be fair to say that we should say it is not just the NDP that is the author of this bill, but rather David Peterson, Bob Nixon and Lyn McLeod, who had completely profligate spending in the years they were in office. This is the Liberal legacy.

The Liberal government, during an economic boom, increased expenditures at double the annual rate of inflation and paid for this spending binge with 33 tax hikes and a 30% increase in provincial debt; in other words, $10 billion, a pretty sobering thought. Under the Liberals, the size of the Ontario public service grew from 80,142 in March 1985 to 88,265 in March 1990, and the public service payroll cost, which was wages and benefits, jumped by 60%, from $2.7 billion to $4.4 billion during the Liberals' time in office.

No wonder we have a problem. You cannot continue to spend more than you take in. Everybody who has a household knows this fact. Everybody who runs a small business knows this fact. Governments of every political stripe have got to come to terms with this reality.

What did the Liberals do during this time? They increased the taxes 33 times, as well as increasing the revenue which was coming in because of the booming economy. Yet notwithstanding this record revenue that we had and these increases in taxes, they still added $10 billion to the debt.

This is the problem the NDP inherited, and the NDP had fought an election, according to its own paper, the Agenda for People, which recognized that there was a serious economic crisis that we were going into. I don't think, in fairness to the NDP, that anybody could have anticipated quite as serious a downturn as we have. But nevertheless, the way the government decided to fight this downturn was by trying to spend its way out of the problem, and it just simply didn't work.

The PC Party, from the very beginning, has advocated that there must be more sense of responsibility. My own leader, Mike Harris, in 1988 in a pre-budget report -- this was during the Liberals' time in office -- proposed that debt reduction and expenditure control become the primary focus of provincial fiscal policy, that the government develop a midterm fiscal plan to balance the budget, that sunset provisions be attached to all direct and tax expenditure programs and that any in-year revenue windfalls be dedicated to debt reduction.

This is something the Liberal government absolutely ignored when it was in office, because it had many windfalls. Let's just talk about one of those windfalls. The one year they managed to show a surplus that they're so proud of -- let's examine the history of that. They had budgeted a $90-million deficit. They got an unusual infusion from the federal government of unanticipated taxes because the economy was so hot and they got $888 million as an unusual transfer that year.

Let's remember that they had budgeted a 90 -- I beg your pardon; they had budgeted $550 million; I would like to correct it. They had budgeted a $550-million deficit. They got an unusual amount of $888 million given to them, yet notwithstanding that, they were only able to show a $90-million surplus. What happened to the extra money? Quite frankly, if they had not had that unusual, unanticipated amount of revenue, they would have had an even bigger deficit than that government predicted they were going to have.

Then they went to the polls in 1990, and this is where I got involved in politics because I was so disgusted with what the Liberal government was doing, and they came forward and told us they were going to have a surplus. Some surplus. The surplus turned into a $3-billion deficit, and that's what the NDP started with. So while it's very easy to dump on the NDP for what it did, and I think they certainly reacted wrongly and I think with the advantage of hindsight I don't think they would react in the same way today, nevertheless, the so-called surplus turned into a $3-billion deficit.

Our party recommended during the first budget consultations that we hold the spending to the increase in civil servants' wages to 2%. Instead, the government put through close to 6% by way of wage increases. On top of that 6%, there were merit increases and promotional increases. At the end of the year, what did we find the increase in government spending on wages? It was 14%. You cannot expect to balance the books when you know you already have a serious problem and you increase expenditures at that rate.

Those are the fundamental problems we're faced with. Now the troubling question is, what do we do about the situation that we find? There's no doubt about it, based upon the telephone calls I get from the general public. The general public says, "You must balance the budget by cutting back the amount of money you spend on government."

There isn't the capacity to raise taxes. We have seen the $2-billion tax grab that has been put through in this year's budget which, I may say, the government has only allowed two days of debate on, notwithstanding the fact that we've consulted so broadly with all the public as to what they think of the budget. We've still been silenced. But that budget does not seriously come to terms with the debt reduction we have to get going with. The government has suggested that it will bring in a deficit this year under $10 billion, and it just simply is not true.

Quite simply, if we turn, in the budget document, to the government's own numbers, we will find very quickly that in point of fact they have hidden $1.6 billion. Where have they hidden it?

First of all, there is $805 million they have taken off-book to crown corporations. That's not debt which has disappeared into the ether; it's still very much a debt that the province owes, but nevertheless they've shuffled it off the book. Maybe the electorate at large and maybe some unsophisticated investors ignore that, but I can assure you that the bond rating agencies will not ignore that $805 million, nor will they ignore the $600 million this government has changed. Instead of having transfers for education purposes to the education authorities, they are now saying that instead of giving grants, they are going to have these school boards borrow $600 million.

1700

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm surprised to see that there is not a quorum present in the House on such a very vitally important debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if we have a quorum? A quorum is not present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present.

Mr Turnbull: It's interesting to hear the Minister of Transportation coming in and saying that you have proportionately more members. Let me suggest to you, sir, that's at this time. In the future, it's very unlikely that you'll have any members in this House after the way you have run the economy of this province.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: I seem to have caught a raw note with the government. Let us return to the discourse about this bill. There can be no doubt that there is a concern among the general public --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Order.

Mr Turnbull: There can be no doubt that the general public has very little sympathy for the government which is spending at this rate of knots. We are taking the whole of the country down with the level of borrowing.

Let me just refer once again to the statement I quoted at the very beginning from the government's own budget of this year: "Excluding sovereign countries, Ontario has become the largest borrower in the world." That's an incredibly sobering statement and nobody, certainly not the Conservatives, will underestimate the seriousness of this.

We are intending to vote on second reading of this bill with the government, but we are going to put forward many amendments which we feel can address the very serious problems that we have with this bill. I'd just like to read into the record some of our concerns.

We are suggesting:

1. A three-year hiring freeze which has the potential to reduce the annual cost of the public sector compensation by over $2 billion in the third year of this legislation.

2. A public sector wage freeze which would commence on the anniversary date of all contracts and continue for the three-year period from that date.

3. Whistle-blowing provisions to protect public servants who report fraud, waste or other abuses from workplace retribution while netting substantial additional savings.

4. Provisions to discourage government departments from spending their budgets within the fiscal year, eliminating year-end burnoff, or face rollbacks.

5. Performance bonuses for public servants based on the efficiencies and productivity gains similar to private sector agreements, such as those involving the Canadian Auto Workers union.

6. Establishment of an expenditure review committee to identify non-productive government programs and prioritize existing programs.

We believe that if these amendments are accepted, the government can achieve a $3-billion-per-year saving on a permanent basis. A permanent basis is very important, because let's examine what the impact of this legislation, as it stands, would leave us with.

There seems to be a reasonable expectation among the public service that at the end of the office of this government, in March 1996, there will be a catch-up in public sector wages, so the savings would go out of the window. Additionally, the concern is the fact that those people who are considered to be essential service workers, for example, those people who work in homes for the aged, where a staffing level is mandated, will have to take their 12 days off without pay during the time they would have their regular holidays. So the effect of this will be that pay for those back days will become due and payable on March 31, 1996, just coincidentally when the next government is likely to come in; 36 days will be owing. That's about a tenth, a good tenth of the year's budget.

By far the largest component of the government's budget is wages to the broader public sector, to its own civil servants and municipalities; by far the largest component is the cost of wages. So if we have one tenth of the wage bill coming due, and we know that the wage bill in the broader public service is $43 billion, approximately $4.3 billion will become due and payable in that time when this government leaves office.

This is not untypical of the way the government has been managing the economy. We have seen that in fact the government is now selling auto licences which expire well into the next government's mandate, and there's going to be a period of approximately two years when, other than new licences for people who've never held a driver's licence before, there will be no revenue whatsoever. That's approximately $80 million a year in lost revenue.

So this government, rather than attacking the structural problems now -- and it would find that it would get great support from us if it would do this -- instead of doing that, it's pushing off these problems to a later government. What we say to you is: Do the correct thing now. Don't play a giant game that, quite frankly, if you were to play it on an orange box on a street corner would probably land you in jail. Fix the problem now. You will have the support of the Conservative Party. If you don't fix it and if you don't address our amendments to this bill, I think you will find our support will be lacking.

We're putting it very fairly to the government. We're saying, yes, the basic concept of deficit reduction is something which we applaud and which we're prepared to work with them on, but unless you're prepared to do it on a permanent and fair basis, we will not address this.

There's no doubt about it that many of the areas of the public sector are going to be adversely affected by this bill, because they're applying just one yardstick to all aspects of the public service.

I'll give you an example. If we have a hospital which has provided very good management in the last two or three years and has got a lean and efficient operation, it will be subjected to the same degree of expenditure controls as those hospitals that haven't addressed their fundamental problems. If you already have an efficient operation, you cannot squeeze them any more, but this legislation just holus-bolus takes that approach and says: "We will reduce by this percentage. It doesn't matter how efficient you are." In other words, instead of rewarding those organizations that have already done the job for us, for the taxpayer, they are penalizing them, to the benefit of those organizations that haven't concentrated on expenditure reductions.

1710

The government should really, in fairness, rename this legislation. "Social contract" is not the appropriate name for it. It should be honestly portrayed as wage rollbacks because that's what it is. If you have 12 days off without pay, then indeed that is a wage rollback. It's opening contracts, and I don't care how the government twists and turns, that is what it's doing. I'm not saying that's wrong; I'm just simply saying they're not being totally honest with the public.

The suggestions that we would further make to improve the situation of this province are to enable Ontario to attract and retain job-creating investment and to exploit new market opportunities and to build a more entrepreneurial economy.

The PC Party has called for the repeal of the NDP's job-killing labour laws; a clear statement that wealth taxes will not be imposed in Ontario; a small business exemption from the EHT, the employer health tax; a competitiveness test for all new government taxes and regulations; the implementation of an aggressive policy of privatization; reform of the workers' compensation system; and linkage between welfare and skills training systems in the form of employer subsidies.

The PC Party believes that it is essential that the government pursue policies which both upsize the private sector and downsize the public sector. In that context, Bill 48 is only a partial response to a much larger challenge.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I would take this opportunity, the time given in this debate today with regard to Bill 48, to be able to go through some of the rationale of why the government decided to take the position that it did with regard to dealing with the expenditure control plan. But in order to do that, I think we first, in all fairness, need to look back to where we were two or three years ago, with regard to 1990, with regard to provincial expenditures of the day and where the economy of Ontario found itself.

I think most fairminded people would look back to 1990, September 6 to be exact -- we were in the midst of going into one of the worst recessions this province had seen for the last 50 years. People on election day, September 6, went out and they elected a government, I think, not so much because they were voting for somebody as much as they were voting against the administration that was there at the time.

I say that without undue respect to the opposition. I just mention that because people knew that there was a recession coming on, people knew that there were some tough decisions that governments had to make, and I think what was in the minds of most voters was they were saying, "Who can best represent those views?" Basically, they decided to choose New Democrats on September 6.

Now, when we were elected, one of the things that obviously happened was that, as New Democrats, we sat down as a caucus and started to get a handle on where the provincial economy was at and where expenditures and where revenues were at with regard to the province of Ontario. You would remember that one of the big shocks that we had after being elected was that we found out there was a little bit less money in the coffers than what we were led to believe at the time.

We made a decision at the time. At the time, we said we were not going to criticize the Liberal government of the day because we didn't want to --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Did you read your campaign material?

Mr Bisson: If I can have the members in opposition just listen for one second, this is a compliment. We decided at the time, in 1990, that we weren't going to criticize the then Liberal government for that situation, because we recognized that the problems that were happening with regard to expenditures were not all the doings of the Liberal Party that happened to be government at that time.

What was happening in the economy was that their revenues were being affected because there were fewer and fewer people working, there was less tax coming in, less expenditures by private individuals. They didn't have the revenue coming in, at the same time that their expenditures were going up with regard to social assistance, with regard to the help that people needed in order to be able to weather them through that particular recession. That is why the government found itself in 1990 in a position of having to make a very difficult decision about how much of a debt we felt at the time that the province can be able to deal with any particular time.

The government made a decision. The government said in 1990 -- in 1991, actually, in the budget -- that we were going to undertake, in order to try to manage our debt, at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $9 billion to $10 billion, if you would recall, and that the long-term plan of the government would be that we would manage down that debt from about $9 billion to $10 billion over a period of years downwards, hopefully over the long term, to get back to where we were at the beginning, which was about a $2-billion deficit at any one particular time.

Why did we decide to do that? It was a very simple reason. We decided to do that, rightfully so at the time, because we believed that at a time in the middle of a recession you couldn't come in and say, "Zap, we're taking $9 billion out and we're not doing anything in order to protect people's lives and the services that they need in order to get them through the recession."

We got criticized, if you remember. We had protests out on the lawns at Queen's Park. We had our phones called in at our offices. We had fax machines around the province sending us all kinds of messages telling us that we couldn't run a debt at the time. But the government stood fast because we believed, like every responsible government before us, that you can't rule strictly by what's happening in regard to protests outside of Queen's Park, you must rule for the greater good of the people who you represent and who you're there to govern. So we decided at the time that we would run that deficit and try to manage it somewhere around the neighbourhood of $9 billion to $10 billion.

Over a two-year period, the government decided that what it would do is try to manage down its expenditures over a longer period of time in order to be able to reduce that debt, and we did so. If you take a look at the question of health care, the then Minister of Health and the now Minister of Health dealt with the question very directly in the Ministry of Health in order to reduce expenditures from what they were before. If you would remember, Mr Speaker, a mere two years ago health care costs in the province of Ontario, like every other province and like every other jurisdiction that has medicare the way we understand it, were going up 10% plus per year.

One of the reasons that was happening is, quite frankly, that there was no attempt on the part of any government in the past to really deal with the question of managing health care for very real reasons, because once you decide to try to manage a system, it means to say that you've got to start saying no to certain things and you've got to start regimenting people about how they spend the public dollars.

One thing that we all understand as politicians, and I think people understand, is that it is very difficult for governments to stop doing something that was done in the past. People react badly to that and politically it is difficult for governments to deal with. Nevertheless, as a responsible government, we said we must undertake to manage our health care costs, so we did a number of things.

Hospitals were not allowed to run deficits the way they were in the past. They had to put together expenditure or control plans in order to manage down their budgets. I know at the Timmins District Hospital in my riding, they had a fairly substantial deficit that they had to deal with. What did the hospitals do? We said to the hospitals, through the Minister of Health and the ministry directly, "We want you to involve workers and bring them to table and we want you with the people at the table to find ways that you can find reductions in expenditures within your particular hospitals."

Was it an easy solution, Mr Speaker? Of course not. Both sides struggled for a long time, the workers and management, because they were not used to working in that kind of atmosphere because that was not just the way you did things in the past. I know at the Timmins District Hospital, the management and the board at the hospital along with the workers and their unions came together and tried to find some solutions.

They didn't get everything that they wanted in the end on either side but they found some very innovative solutions about how you can better manage the whole question of health care within a hospital setting. And guess what, Mr Speaker? They met their target. They met their target because they got together and they brought solutions jointly to the table, not just from one side.

We also looked at the question of expenditure reduction from a number of other points. We looked at how ministries spent dollars at the time and we said: "Do ministries have to do as much travelling as they're doing now in order to conduct their business? Do ministries have to have the level of expenses when it comes to the amount of things that we buy to keep our ministries going as we did in the past?"

We said, as responsible government, we need to be able to manage down the cost of these ministries, so we did so. Was it difficult? Of course it was difficult. We put together joint management boards with our workers through OPSEU and other unions in order to work at that, so that we can find better ways of managing our ministries.

Was it a perfect solution? No, there is never a perfect solution. I think most people would recognize that it's fairly difficult to try to change the way we did things for hundreds of years. When you start empowering workers to become part of a solution, there are people on both sides of that argument who have a difficulty being able to adjust to it. Nevertheless, we persevered and we went forward. We did so. We found ways of reducing costs to government in such a way that included workers in the solution and we managed greatly to reduce the total amount of expenditures within the provincial government. You would know that just in the last budget alone, for every dollar that we spent, we saved $4 of new spending.

I think that people need to acknowledge the real effort that this government has had in order to be able to manage our expenditures, to manage our debt, and the way that we've done it in being able to involve workers.

1720

One of the difficulties through this whole process is that for the last two years there has been a great deal of uncertainty for the people of Ontario, as in very other jurisdiction, not because of what the government was doing or not doing; because of the sheer fact of what's happening in our economy. We have an economy that's much more mechanized than it was in the past. We need less workers. To produce the same goods that we did years ago with 100 workers, we can now do with 10, because of what was happening in regard to world trade, what was happening in regard to other jurisdictions coming on to the scene, producing things that they have never done before.

I can tell you, as the member for Cochrane South, 20 years ago we didn't have to compete with Chile when it came to mining. Today in 1993, you do, because Chile is now on the mining scene and that has affected how we do things in Canada. Competition is much more keen, and it means to say that a lot of companies don't have the dollars they used to have before. By virtue of having a lot more competition out there, it's a much smaller --

Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Brian Mulroney; thank you, Michael Wilson.

Mr Bisson: I would agree with the member opposite. It's a much more keenly competitive market out there that we need to deal with, and those companies had difficulty.

Obviously, another thing that greatly affected what happened -- I think the member says correctly that there's a whole approach in regard to the federal government, one that comes to the question of free trade, the dismantling of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the privatization of a number of crown corporations etc. We had a whole number of initiatives that came through the federal government as well that made it very difficult for provinces across Canada to be able to deal with expanding their economies and making sure they had the revenue there to pay for the services. So over a period of time, I think we've seen a number of things happen in our economy that have really put us in a very difficult situation.

Here we are today, in 1993, and the problem is not any different than it was in 1990 in the sense that we still have the same problem in regard to how much money is coming in and how much money is going out. The difference is that it has really accelerated. If you were to look at it as a slope, you would see that's what happened in regard to revenues coming into the province in a number of different ways. One of them, coming from the federal transfer payments from our federal government, we've seen diminished by almost $5 billion since I've been here. That has affected us. That's real. We can't run away from that.

I understand. This is not to totally criticize the federal government. They have their own problems to deal with. God behold the next federal government that takes over, either Liberal, New Democrat or Conservative, which has to deal with the problem that they have in Ottawa. I tell you we're going to be dealing with it in spades here in Ontario, because they have a $35-billion problem that they have to deal with, and in the end we're going to have to be able to deal with that here in Ontario as well.

Interjections

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Bisson: If we can quiet down the members on the opposite side, we might be able to get on with this debate.

Anyway, as I was saying, basically where we are now in 1993 is being able to try to find a way of dealing with the expenditure problem and the debt problem that we have within the province of Ontario.

We've seen, like I've said, an erosion of our revenue because of a cut in the transfer payments of some $5 billion in regard to our money coming in from the federal government. As well, we have to deal with the question of how much less money is coming in because less and less people are working. Because of the people who have lost their jobs in Ontario over the period of time because of the free trade agreement, we have less people paying into the provincial government.

At the same time all of that is happening, again we're having to deal with more people on social assistance, more people asking for health care coverage because of depression and different things that happen to people when they're not working.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the honourable members not to engage in interjections across the floor. The honourable member for Cochrane South has the floor, and at this point he cannot be heard. I would ask the honourable members to please contain themselves.

Mr Bisson: As I was saying, we are here, in 1993, with the same problem, except that it's much more magnified. What we're seeing now is that a lot of the people who used to be on UIC a year ago are now falling on to social assistance in greater and greater numbers. It means to say that our costs and municipal costs are going up a heck of a lot higher on that side than most people are able to deal with in regard to their capacity of what their provincial treasuries are able to deal with, or municipal treasuries, and at the same time we're still having the problem on the expenditure side in regard to how much money is going out because of the drain that's happening on our treasury.

If the government was to do absolutely nothing, we'd find ourselves next year having to deal with a deficit of possibly some $17 billion. I think most reasonable people would agree, and I don't hear anybody on the union side and I don't hear anybody on the other side saying that we don't need to deal with that very real problem. It comes down to a question of what you do. How do you deal with an economy that has lost so much money because of what's happened within the economy, with less people working at the same time as what's happened in regard to the expenditure side with people needing services?

Mr Sorbara: How about calling an election?

Mr Bisson: The Liberals called an election two and a half years into their term in order to duck this issue, Mr Sorbara. We're not going to take that approach. We have a responsibility to the people of Ontario, and we will do so.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, he shows up here from time to time. If he would be here more often, we could take him a little bit more seriously.

Where we're at is, how do you deal with it? Basically, you have a couple of choices. One of the things you can do is that you can ignore the problem and allow the deficit and the debt to go to a point that at one point hopefully we'll be able to deal with them if things should turn around. I think most fairminded people would say that is not a very likely solution. That's not very likely what people think would be the right thing to do.

The other thing that you could do as well is that the government could do what other governments have done in regard to strictly just cutting expenditures, period, without a consideration of what it's going to mean for the services of the people they represent.

Rather, this government has decided to take a fairminded approach, a difficult, I would agree, situation for people to be able to adjust to and to accept.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I'd like to say that it is not very helpful to the honourable member for Cochrane South as he's trying to do his debate. I would ask the honourable members to please not interject. I would also say to those members who are not in their seats particularly not to interject.

Mr Bisson: As I was saying, there's a number of options that the government has at this particular point. The government can say, "We'll allow the debt to just keep on climbing, not be too conscious of it and hope that if things should turn around, the problem will fix itself." That's what the federal government in Ottawa did for eight years. It hasn't worked. Their debt has just kept on climbing and climbing and climbing, to the point that we need to deal with it.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: We're not going to get into that one, what happened prior to that. We're concerned about what's happening now.

The other thing that we can decide to do is that we can decide to indiscriminately go into programs and say, "We're just going to cut by X amount or percentage and never mind what happens." Rather, we decided to take a fairminded approach. I would accept the criticism that it's difficult for people to adjust to. I think that's fair. Nobody likes to see any kind of a program being affected downwards. Nobody likes to see anything that they work for over a period of time being lost. I accept that criticism. But I think most people understand why we need to do what we've got to do.

The approach we've done is quite simple. We've done three things. The first thing, on the expenditure reduction side, is that we've said, "Let's look at all of our ministries, let's take a look at how we spend dollars and are there better ways of managing our expenditures within ministries and in light of programs or how we service those programs or how we man our departments that could give us economies within those particular ministries?"

We've done that with an eye to making sure that we don't affect services downwards in a sense that people really feel it in regard to the services they need. I would put to most people that if you take a look at the services being offered today in Ontario to where they were two or three years ago, there's not a very big difference in how those services are being offered.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, gentlemen.

Mr Bisson: I think it is quite fair to say that people are still able to access health care, people are still able to access education, people are still able to access all kinds of programs that are necessary in order to conduct their daily lives, and in a time of need, to be able to access services that they need in order to be able to sustain themselves.

On the other hand, we've also said on the question of revenue that we can't control what happens on our transfer side in regard to the federal government, but what we can do is that we can take a look at what we do in regard to revenue --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to say to the House that this is not a place for debate across the floor when the honourable member is speaking in the House. It's not fair to the honourable member for Cochrane South. If you want to discuss things, by all means adjourn to the other chambers, but in this chamber the member for Cochrane South has the floor. I'd ask the honourable member to continue.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's unfortunate. I was only going to take 10 minutes, and I'm up to 15 with all the interjections we've had up to this time.

As I was saying, the other thing we did on the second leg of the stool in terms of dealing with this problem is that we said: "We can look on the tax side. We can take a look at the revenue side." Yes, we moved on the taxation side; there's no question about that.

The debate we had within the caucus was, how do you do that in such a way that it's not just one sector of our economy that pays? We felt the most fairminded way of dealing with taxes is through the income tax. If we moved on retail sales tax or on traditional sin taxes, if we moved on some of those others, it would be much more difficult to deal with, but if you do it on the personal income tax side, at least it is a fairer way of approaching it.

1730

We also moved on the question of introducing for the first time in the province of Ontario a minimum corporate tax, maybe not as far as people wanted to go -- or maybe too far, depending what side of the argument you are on -- but basically saying that those who have the dollars should be paying their fair share of taxes. Also, on the surtax, we said if you make more money than the average person, you should be paying a little more.

But that wasn't enough to deal with the situation. If we wanted to keep our debt numbers at somewhere around $9 billion to $10 billion a year, which is still a substantial debt at the end of the day, we also had to look at the whole question of our wage bill in the province of Ontario. This brings us to this bill. If you take a look at the total expenditures of the province of Ontario, our total budget is some $50 billion.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: Of the $50 billion we spend, $44 billion goes to wages. That is paid either by us directly as the government to the Ontario public service or to the public sector through hospitals or municipalities or school boards or through government agencies.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the honourable member for York Centre to please come to order.

Mr Bisson: Some $44 billion of our total bill is wages. A lot of people in this Legislature have served on school boards. We know, for an example, that some 85% of the total bill of education goes to paying salaries. How much room do you have on the expenditure side if you start trimming the cost of programs but don't really affect people's wages? There's no magical way of doing this.

So we said we have a couple of choices. We can do what the Liberal government in Newfoundland did, which is basically to say, "I'll go to war with my civil service and I'll play politics during an election," to be quite blunt, and to say, "We're going to roll back your wages 5%" or 6% or 8%, whatever the decision was, "in order to get the savings," period. That was one way to deal with it. We could have done that, and maybe politically it would be a lot easier to do it that way, but we don't believe that as New Democrats.

We believe the best thing we can do is to try to get the players at the table, to try to get the partners at the table, to ask, "Is there a way to engage in a discussion to look at the how we pay our workers in the province of Ontario and how we can find savings?" rather than (a) laying people off or (b) just unilaterally rolling back wages.

No matter how you do this, it's going to be difficult. It's going to be difficult for all sides, because there are no magical solutions. I hear the Tory party across the floor and the Liberal Party across the floor, and even some media, with all kinds of simple solutions. Well, they know better. They were in government before and they know that this is a very difficult question to deal with. But I understand. That's the role of opposition, and we would do the same thing, to be quite blunt. I don't run away from that. No? Well, some of our members are saying no.

We asked, how can we do that by bringing people to the table? We proposed a social contract and we brought the stakeholders to the table and said to the unions, "For years in the trade union movement we've been saying that if you empower workers with the ability to help make decisions, they will be able to rise to the challenge and be able to come to the table and to help us to be able to solve problems that are very difficult in nature."

The unions took up that challenge and came to the table. They found it difficult. There was a number of reasons it was very difficult for them to deal with during negotiations, because there isn't a culture in Ontario that has ever allowed that to happen before. So obviously some of the unions and some of the associations dealt badly with the proposal. There's no question about that. I don't think we in government believed that this would go smoothly and that there wouldn't be any problems along the way, because it's a very difficult question for people to deal with.

But they came to the table none the less and they did make some proposals. The body of those proposals can be found in government documents, in terms of what was being actually proposed, in the legislation we have before us today, which is the following: that rather than laying off workers indiscriminately, as is done in the private sector when it has a financial problem -- normally the way it works in the private sector. I know; I've been affected. I've worked at Pamour mines. I remember in 1982, when the --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Centre will come to order.

Mr Bisson: -- recession was going on and the revenue of my company went down to such an extent that it didn't have the money to pay the wage bill. My employer said: "The only way I know how to deal with this is to lay off X amount of workers who equal X amount of dollars. It doesn't matter. It's just the way we're going to do it."

I, as a union member, proposed to my company that we look at job sharing. We said: "Is it possible, if workers were to give up a day a week or a day a month or a day every two weeks, that we'd be able to pool those dollars together to save the jobs of some of our brothers and sisters? Are we able to look at some of the benefits we have in terms of holidays, floating holidays or whatever, that maybe we can put on hold for the time being until the price of gold turns around and we are in a better position to pay those things?"

We looked at those questions. In the end, unfortunately for me, my company chose not to do that. In a conversation I had with one of my personnel people at the time, they said, "Gilles, it is much easier to manage a layoff than it is to manage a social contract," for lack of terms, because once you do a layoff, that's the end of it, it's finished; the political damage is done. But if you try to negotiate a solution that empowers workers, you have to manage that problem of how you get people at the table and how you come to some of these solutions over the long term.

In other workplaces we've seen that approach happen. We've seen it in a number of workplaces within the Canadian Auto Workers. I know a number of plants within CAW have dealt with this question in the past, where workers have come to the table and said: "Rather than having layoffs, maybe we can take a look at job-sharing. Maybe we can look at some of our benefits etc." Workers chose to do that in order to save the jobs of some of their brothers and sisters.

I know in my organization, the Steelworkers, it's been done, and I know it's been done in other unions across the province, across the country, for that matter. Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie recently reduced its wages by some 20%, basically, in order to save the jobs and to save that company from going under. Was it easy for them to do? Was it easy for Steelworker locals in Sault Ste Marie who worked for years to get those benefits and to get those wages for their members? Was it easy for them to deal with? Of course not. It was very difficult.

None the less, the workers came to the table and dealt with the challenge. With great difficulty, they came to a solution. In the end, they found a solution that was not totally palatable to everybody, neither to the company nor to the workers. None the less, it was a solution that, without the cooperation of the workers, could never have been found. I think we should salute the people in Sault Ste Marie and in Kapuskasing and in Thunder Bay and in other places across the province who have adopted those solutions.

Interjection: It saved jobs.

Mr Bisson: Exactly. It saved jobs.

What we're attempting to do within the civil service of Ontario and within the broader public sector in the province is that we're saying: Can we embody those principles in a social contract? Rather than dealing with the question of trying to manage our debt strictly by laying off workers, can we look at the question about days off, voluntary or legislated or whatever it might be? Can we take a look at the question of what happens in regard to merit increases? Can we take a look at what happens, quite frankly, in regard to pension contributions? Some of the unions are ready to deal with that and some of them are not.

Mr Sorbara: Name one union that supports this bill.

Mr Bisson: I will not engage in negotiations across the way with the member from wherever.

One of the big difficulties we have in this whole debate is the agitation with regard to misinformation going on out there by some of the members opposite.

Was it difficult for them to deal with? Of course it is. It's extremely difficult for trade unionists to deal with this question. Nevertheless, some of the workers are coming to the table, through their unions, and trying to find solutions.

It brings us to where we are now. At the end of the process of social contract negotiations, we couldn't come to a unanimous agreement. We had part of the way, part of the solutions, but we didn't have it all. So the difficulty we had as a government was, what do we do? We can decide to say, "The heck with it," just drop the whole thing by the way and hope to heck we could manage the layoffs with the least amount of pain possible in the least difficult way.

We decided, no, that's not quite fair, because we know that some municipalities and some school boards and some hospitals and some agencies will not be able to deal with this quite well enough and a lot of people may end up losing their jobs with lack of leadership from the provincial government.

So we decided we would take the principles that we negotiated within the social contract and put them into legislation and then say to the workers out there and to the unions quite directly, "We encourage you to negotiate with your employers a solution that is mutually acceptable for both parties, but in the end, if you cannot get a solution, if you're not able to come to a decision between the two parties, here at least is something that will protect the greatest amount of workers possible."

Yes, it will reduce the amount of days that people are paid within a year. It'll reduce it by a maximum of 12 days. Yes, it will deal with other questions, of making sure that if I lose my job within, let's say, a hospital in Timmins and there's an opening in South Porcupine, I can at least get a job in that other hospital down the way, or in Iroquois Falls or in Matheson. If I end up losing a job altogether, I will get 95% of my wages for one year.

Is it difficult to deal with? Yes, it is, but I think workers will rise to the challenge, along with their unions, and will come to finding a solution to this very difficult problem.

I would say, just before closing, that much has been said about this whole debate, and one of the things that's to the advantage of the opposition parties is to see this whole process fail. I say directly to the members of the opposition, shame on you, not so much for criticizing, but for not accepting your role as opposition members of coming forward and trying to find ways of bringing workers to the table with their unions. You understand as well as I how difficult it is to get them there.

1740

I think one of the things that the former Minister of Labour especially could help us with is to try to find a way of keeping the debate on this thing focused on the issue, which is, how do we manage the cost of the public sector within Ontario and how can we get people to come to the table so that we can find some innovative solutions that I think the people of Ontario have charged us with: being able to find solutions that will least affect negatively the people within Ontario in regard to services or jobs?

I say shame on the opposition for stirring up the cauldron, and I'll say it very directly, in regard to trying to put as much confusion around this question as possible so that people are not able to deal with the facts of the issue.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the honourable member for York Centre to please come to order.

Mr Bisson: I've had in the past three or four weeks a number of calls from constituents within the riding of Cochrane South who are quite concerned around this question. The one thing that strikes me is that once you talk to people and you explain to them what's being proposed, they're saying: "Well, that's not what I understood. That's not what I've been told. That's not what I heard Lyn McLeod saying. That's not what I heard Mike Harris saying. That's not what I heard" -- in some cases -- "my own union leader saying."

I think one of the things we're all responsible for in this Legislature is trying to get the information out to the people. Let's play politics with another issue, not this one. This is a very difficult one for workers to deal with, and I urge members to be able to help us in working through this whole process so that, in the end, workers will not have to revert to this particular bill but rather come up with negotiations in regard to finding a solution to this very difficult problem.

With that, I would end my particular session and my particular turn in debate and invite any comments.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I'm going to be speaking shortly on this bill, but I simply note that my friend from Cochrane South preached a sermon which sounded like this bill is the great saviour of workers in the province of Ontario.

I defy him, I ask him in his response to put into the record of this House the name of one trade union leader in Ontario, simply one leader who supports and advocates passage of this bill, just one -- I don't need five; I don't need six; I don't need 10 -- the president of a local union, any member of the broader public sector or the private sector union leaders who advocates that this bill ought to be passed. I'd like him to do that.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I thought it would be a cold day in Hades when we'd sit in this House listening to ex-union brothers and sisters such as the one who just spoke and started lecturing us across the floor about not being responsible opposition parties because an NDP-socialist, labour union-oriented government decided to institute a piece of legislation that reopens 8,000 contracts and rolls back wages. I mean, have the tables turned?

This seems to me you could rationalize anything. It matters not what it is as a government or what principle you believe in. You just stood for half an hour and rationalized the most fundamental belief that you ever had in your life, and then you blamed us. You blamed us because you decided to rationalize away 8,000 collective agreements and a million contracts.

I think it would have been far better for this member, rather than standing up and making a complete fool of himself and everything he has ever stood for, to quietly sit idly by and vote and accept his paycheque, because that's the payoff he got to support the legislation of Bill 48.

I'll tell you point-blank that I challenge this member to go out to the people in this province --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: This is a member from London who's doing the exact same thing, reopening 8,000 contracts and rolling back wages. You stood for everything that was separate --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Wentworth North will come to order.

Mr Stockwell: -- and different from that. London Centre.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): London South.

Mr Stockwell: London South.

If you want to stand in this House and rationalize away your every basic principle that ran through every fibre of your body, be my guest, but don't blame me because you sold out. I would never sell out my constituents in that fashion, and this caucus would never sell our constituents out like that. I say shame on you and stop lecturing me.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): First of all, I'd like to commend the member for Cochrane South for his refined remarks in dealing with a very sensitive subject area.

Listening to the member and then listening to some of the members who've responded, primarily the member for Etobicoke West, you wouldn't be able to tell that the member for Etobicoke West has essentially said, and I know for a fact that several of the members in this caucus have said that they're going to be supporting this legislation.

It makes you wonder where that kind of interest is coming from. I can only say that the role of opposition is sometimes to play the role of the opposition and to simply undermine, but I suspect that when it comes down to putting the chips down and laying down the bet, they'll be on the side of the government because they believe and they quite frankly feel that this legislation is appropriate, it's accurate, it's appropriate for the time and it deals, as the member for Cochrane South suggested, with a financial situation in the province of Ontario in a very serious and a very pragmatic way.

For members of the opposition to stand and essentially try to fearmonger and quite frankly distort the facts and try to distort the information, that's not appropriate. They'll take the example from the member for Cochrane South and present the facts as they are and try to debate them in an intelligent, articulate way as opposed to just simply standing in their place and playing the role of the opposition.

Mr Runciman: I want to join my colleague from Etobicoke West in questioning the member for Cochrane South in respect to some of his comments.

I too have a great deal of difficulty with some of the positions being taken by the current NDP government, given the history of its stands in the past and certainly the strong connection with organized labour in this province. Many of the members on the government side certainly either worked within organized labour or held very senior positions in organized labour. So it is difficult indeed for us to swallow some of the rationalizations coming forward.

The member for Etobicoke West described your jobs as payoffs, and I don't know if I'd go quite that far. What I suggest, though, is when we look at a lot of principle going by the boards in respect to stands and positions that you and your party have believed and have stood for over the years, we have to wonder if the fact that going out into the bleak Ontario economy, if we call an election, if you defeat your own government, the likelihood is very strong that most of you are going to be out looking for work. It's a very difficult economy to face trying to find a job.

I think that really is the bottom line in respect to why most of you are doing what you are doing, going against what you've believed in for all of these many years.

We have great deal of difficulty with a lot of the components of this legislation. We think there are other ways this government could have done things in terms of curbing its spending appetite.

One of the matters raised in the House today was the non-profit housing program. We have a Minister of Housing who doesn't really have a clue what's going on in respect to that area of her responsibility. If the private sector were developing housing, we would not be faced with a situation whereby we continue to subsidize these individuals residing in these houses by an average of $1,000 a month. They're not contributing to Ontario's society in any way, shape of form. Alternatives have been presented to her, alternatives have been presented to that government, and that's just one indication of where money is being thrown out the window with no concern for the bottom line in terms of total government expenditures.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Cochrane South has two minutes to make a response.

Mr Bisson: I'd just try to respond very quickly. First of all, the Tories talk about not having a clue in regard to how to deal with this. I see the federal government had real good clues. They put us in this mess with regard to their federal policies, and we're now having to deal with the mess, quite frankly. So we don't need a lecture from the Tories about the solutions that they have.

We know what they talked about. They talked about competitive tests in regard to taxes being introduced in the province of Ontario. Give me a break; as if you guys would even attempt that.

You talk about reforming the WCB. We know what reform means from a Tory. We really understand that. You talk about upsizing the private and downsizing the public sector. I think most people understand what that means. We understand that language quite well so don't come with that one.

1750

The other question is -- I would only want to recommend to people that the other thing people have to say is, "You know, the New Democrats" -- in regard to the question of dealing with large provincial budgets and all that -- "don't have too much of an understanding and have not had to deal with this."

I would remind you, social democratic governments in Saskatchewan under Tommy Douglas, and in Manitoba and British Columbia, were able to balance their budgets in all cases. All those government were good, sound fiscal managers, because we understand the value of a buck. Why, Mr Speaker? Because it's most of our people who are paying that buck, not like those people across the way.

It took Tommy Douglas 17 years of good, sound fiscal management within the province of Saskatchewan in order to develop the health care system we know today. He didn't do that without any money, he did that by building a very sound base economically for his province and saying, "Now I can afford to be able to move on it."

The other question in regard to the member Mr Sorbara, the former Minister of Labour, he would know quite well, you do not have negotiations across the way through the media. He knows as well as I do there are a number of trade union leaders who are coming to the table putting forward proposals. He also knows on the local front, there are a far greater number of local union presidents who want to be able to deal with this question.

I ask the opposition people to come clean, get on side, let's move forward with an innovative solution such as the social contract.

Report continues in volume B.

21 juin 1993