Journal des débats 1993-juil-12 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The commuters in King township are losing their only bus service, route 6565, which links Newmarket, King City and Maple to Yorkdale. In addition, the residents of Nobleton are also seeing their service eliminated.

The residents who use these services include, as King township council was told last month, students, seniors, the physically impaired and workers. There is simply no alternative for the approximately 150 riders who use this service daily.

The residents who depend on this service have made some specific recommendations on how the service could be kept, even if at a reduced rate. They have proposed to the Minister of Transportation and to GO Transit innovative ways of avoiding the straight elimination of all services. As one confused and frustrated GO bus rider put it, "First, the NDP told our area, 'You're going to have a megadump,' and now they're saying, 'There will no be more GO buses.'"

I ask the minster to accept King township's motion whereby two regular return trips would be maintained for route 6565 and thereby ensure that commuters could get to and from work. The time is now and the time is for action.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): The Workplace Health and Safety Agency is currently in the process of consolidating Ontario's 12 health and safety delivery organizations.

I would like to indicate to the Minister of Labour and the government that there is considerable concern among health care providers about the absorption of the Care-Givers of Ontario Safety and Health Association by the Workers' Health and Safety Centre. Many of these health care providers have written to indicate their very serious concerns about the elimination of sector-specific programming for health and safety programs. Sector-specific programming is important to health care employees because of the unique conditions in their work setting.

There is also concern that this consolidation is occurring without adequate consultation with the incorporated board of the Care-Givers of Ontario Safety and Health Association. This is an extremely important issue, and this government must take the time to secure the support and cooperation of all those affected by this change.

I would urge the Minister of Labour to ensure that before the process of consolidating Ontario's health and safety delivery organization is allowed to continue, there is an appropriate period of meaningful consultation during which the very legitimate concerns of all of the parties are fully addressed.

OSTEOPOROSIS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Today I rise in the House to offer recognition to a special group working very hard to raise the awareness for fighting against osteoporosis. One out of four older women suffers from this affliction, and that makes it the most common disease experienced by older women.

It was my distinct pleasure last Thursday evening to meet Eleanor Mills at an event designed to assist in the battle against osteoporosis. Eleanor Mills is a spirited senior who is suffering from this debilitating bone disorder. She is also leading a cross-Canada walk to raise the awareness of osteoporosis.

I would encourage all those listening to educate themselves on this very important issue, and if you spot Eleanor or any of the other members of the "Bony Express," as they call themselves, walking through your town, please take the time to offer them whatever support you can.

You might have noticed that I'm wearing a T-shirt today. I mean no disrespect to the Legislature or to this House, but it's merely a response to a challenge that was put forward to me last Thursday by Eleanor to help publicize the event and the campaign whenever possible. If anybody out there, my constituents or other constituents, members of the House, happen to go for a walk and see her walking, I ask them to talk to her and ask her about her friend Fred.

BRUCE CROZIER

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I rise today to ask when this government will find the courage to call the by-election in the riding of Essex South.

As you will know, I am the newest member of the Liberal caucus and I look forward to being replaced as the rookie when the voters of Essex South get a chance to elect a new member, who I am sure will be Bruce Crozier. I just hope that he, unlike me, will not have to wait a full six months before the Premier has the courage to face the electorate. Mind you, I can appreciate the Premier's fear. After all, with a candidate of the quality of Bruce Crozier, the mayor of Leamington, running as a Liberal, another by-election lost for this government is almost inevitable.

Bruce Crozier will be a great representative for Essex South at Queen's Park. His record of public and community service is second to none. He was elected mayor of Leamington in 1988 and re-elected by acclamation in 1992. He has served on various Leamington boards: the public utilities commission, the police services board, the recreation committee, the arena board and the union water system local advisory board.

Bruce and his wife and two kids are dedicated to the community. Bruce has a lifelong commitment to the area, including the Kinsmen Club, the Canadian Red Cross, the Leamington Chamber of Commerce and the Royal Canadian Legion. This kind of commitment, with Bruce's fresh ideas, is virtually unbeatable.

Although the NDP came close in 1990, we all know that won't be true this time. This election, I think, will be a true test of the Tory support in this province, which is why I know that the newest member of the Legislature will be Bruce Crozier and I look forward to welcoming him here as soon as possible.

MUNICIPAL ELECTRICAL UTILITIES

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Ontario residents should be made aware of the fact that as of August 1, when the social contract takes effect, each time they turn on an electric light they will be paying an additional tax to Bob Rae and the government of Ontario.

The social contract legislation demands that every municipal electrical commission in Ontario pay 5% of its salary budget to the province of Ontario to address the projected 1993 $17-billion deficit caused by mismanagement. Never before in the history of this province has the electrical consumer been required to subsidize the day-to-day running of the province in such a fashion.

The Minister of Finance has indicated that the cuts forced on the municipal electrical utilities result from the provisions of the social contract. Consequently, the money received should flow to the provincial government, the author of the social contract. In reality, the main provisions -- a wage freeze, which has already been introduced by most utilities, a pause day halfway through the fiscal year and against the critical service -- will be of limited use to the municipalities. Keep in mind that our local electrical commissions are not funded by the province of Ontario.

Local municipal electrical utilities have served this province well through their effective and efficient operations. The customers of these utilities are being unfairly treated by being required to subsidize the day-to-day operations of the province of Ontario -- just one more way this government has turned you off of turning on.

1340

CECIL INSLEY

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Today I would like to share some sad news with the members of the Legislature and those people who are watching. It's news about the passing of one Cecil Insley, a well-known resident in Wellington, Ontario.

Cecil was a volunteer extraordinaire and a community activist. For many years he was a commercial fisherman and he traded that in to become a charter boat operator. Indeed, it was just this past Saturday while he was exercising a charter on Lake Ontario that he suddenly died.

He was a member of the village of Wellington council from 1970 to 1972 inclusive. He was a volunteer fireman for eight years and was the Wellington fire chief from 1977 to 1979. He was recently active with the Royal Canadian Legion, formed a new seniors' group in Wellington and was also active in the boaters' association.

I talked with Cecil only on July 1, Canada Day, when he was a parade marshal -- the parade marshal for Canada Day and Santa Claus parades in the village of Wellington for many years. He was the recent recipient of a Canada 125 medal. He received that medal obviously because of his extreme sense of community and the voluntarism that he showed for his community.

I want to offer my most sincere condolence to his wife, Fran, to his family and friends. I regret that I'll be unable to attend his funeral tomorrow in Wellington and I just wanted to share this most unfortunate news with the members of this Legislative Assembly.

DAY CARE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Last week the region of Peel was forced to cancel its family day care program. This program has served families in Peel region for 18 years and provided 932 much-needed spaces. The region was forced to cut this service to meet the target cuts the Treasurer assigned in his expenditure control plan.

I'm pleased to hear that the minister has made a commitment that the province will continue funding its share of this program and that a committee of regional councillors, staff, providers and parents has been struck to assist the ministry with a smooth transition. I hope the ministry will commit to working with this group.

What puzzles me in all of this is why the minister refused to meet with the region in the first place. As soon as regional officials realized that their only option was to cut their day care program, they asked for a meeting with the minister to work out a solution. The minister refused to meet with them. He refused in a telephone call to even consider the region's proposal to salvage the program.

Now, in the 11th hour, the minister has stepped in with a solution. I have to wonder why the minister, whose government boasts about its broad consultation process, could not have met with them earlier.

Emil Kolb, chairman of the region of Peel, says he is "disappointed and frustrated by the lack of awareness the minister has shown regarding the options his government has left us."

I would urge the minister to work with the committee the region of Peel has established to ensure the transition of these much-needed day care spaces.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): While I and my constituents are in favour of fiscal restraint, I must point out that the social contract, as given third reading, is neither fair nor workable and it will not bring about real cost savings over the long term.

The Lanark County Board of Education has told me that it cannot implement Bill 48 because 20.4% of its employees are earning under $30,000. The board also reports that it will face a 24% increase in catch-up wage costs at the end of the Bill 48 period.

The county of Lanark has close to 50% of its employees earning under $30,000. Their only option now is to shut down the government offices in order to make up for that shortfall. Both these cases show that this government has shifted the entire burden upon its partners without leaving any room to manoeuvre.

The PC Party offered this government 29 amendments designed to solve these problems. They were based upon the best advice of the medical profession, the school boards, the municipalities and other stakeholders. Now that the government and the official opposition have rejected these amendments, I implore the government to give these groups specific direction as to how they can reach your goals.

SIR WILLIAM OSLER AWARDS

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Sir William Osler awards, which honour the most outstanding essays by students in grades 7 and 8. The 1993 recipients are Dundas District Public School's Nikki Bodden and Daraius Gandevia. Their essays focused on the history of their home town of Dundas and their efforts have won them special recognition.

Daraius's essay was entitled Travelling Through Dundas History and Nikki's was called The History of the Town of Dundas. The focus of Daraius's essay was on local history in the 1800s and early 1900s. He spoke of the first explorers and settlers in Dundas and focused on some of the historical sites.

His research uncovered some interesting information on the great train disaster that occurred early in the town's history. It was about a train that was crossing the Desjardins canal when some of its wheels slid off the tracks. All the cars except one plummeted into the canal and almost everyone perished.

During Nikki's research, she found that Dundas was once a more thriving centre than Hamilton, with supplies coming by way of the Desjardins canal. She also learned that the people who built the canal did not live to see it completed. She also spoke of the dreaded incurable smallpox, which was a very common disease back then.

It is through this project that both Nikki and Daraius have realized the importance of the valley town's historical buildings. As Nikki said: "They have so much meaning. I don't think people know what they're destroying. It's part of our history." I hope the local decision-makers are listening, Nikki.

I ask the members of this Legislature to join me in congratulating Nikki Bodden and Daraius Gandevia as this year's winners of the Sir William Osler awards.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I rise today to provide an update on Jobs Ontario Community Action.

As I told the House last month, this initiative aims to give local communities the resources and tools they need to undertake economic renewal initiatives. Jobs Ontario Community Action will give communities greater control of their own economic development. It will support local economic development in a way that encourages community-wide participation and inclusiveness in economic planning and development.

It will support communities of interest so that they will be better prepared to participate in the economic, social and cultural life of the broader community. For example, there will be a guaranteed minimum allocation for projects from the aboriginal community. We have begun negotiations with aboriginal leaders on decision-making arrangements that will honour and respect our commitment to native self-government.

As you may know, Jobs Ontario Community Action has three major components: community financing, community capital and community development.

Community financing provides the opportunities for communities to raise the money from local investors to encourage loans and equity investments in small and medium-sized businesses by establishing community loan funds and community investment share corporations. Through this component, we will provide loan and equity guarantees for loan and equity capital invested in small and medium-sized businesses.

Bill 40 will also give municipalities the opportunity to use more creative and flexible ways of financing community projects. My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Ed Philip, introduced the legislation to establish these new financing mechanisms on June 2.

Community Action's second component, community capital, supports capital projects which contribute to economic growth in the community. When I addressed the House last month, I announced that we would deal with the immediate demand for capital funds, respond to the initiative shown by many communities and start creating jobs right away by allocating up to $31 million to fund capital projects that could begin this summer.

The response to this phase of the program has been overwhelming and I'm pleased to announce today that the first projects have been approved. Funding has been approved for the D.A. Gillies Building in Arnprior, the Lions Park Recreation Complex in Brantford, the Peterborough YMCA, the Windsor Jewish Community Centre and the Waterworks Pumphouse in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Ontario government support for these projects will result in more than $1 million in total investment in these communities.

The $195,000 that will be provided to the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake will help fund the restoration of the historic Waterworks Pumphouse to create a visual arts centre. This project combines economic benefits with the preservation of Ontario's cultural heritage. I am sure that the renovated site will become another popular tourist attraction.

Additional details on these projects are being released locally today. Further approvals will be announced in the coming weeks.

The program's third component, community development, supports a wide range of activities to help communities with their economic development activities. I would also like to provide the House with more details on this component today.

Funding is available in several areas: community vision, priority setting and action plans; building and strengthening community organizations; special research and marketing activities; and community economic development projects or events.

1350

Community development would support the kind of project undertaken, for example, by communities in the Georgian Bay area with their Georgian Bay '94 Marine Heritage Festival. The festival is a coordinating theme for marine heritage events along the Georgian Bay shoreline from June to September 1994. It will involve some 45 Georgian Bay communities and include hundreds of marine heritage events and activities that will promote the area as a key tourist destination.

Ontario government support of $100,000 will lever over four times that amount in local funding.

More importantly, this exercise got these communities to cooperate. Together they examined such issues as environmental implications and long-term job creation, and together they developed viable solutions that were acceptable to the entire community.

For community development projects under Jobs Ontario Community Action, provincial support will be available up to one third of the cost of a project with a $300,000 maximum size of any project. In smaller communities, support would be available up to 50% of the project cost. Communities may contribute in kind for their share.

To access the three components of Jobs Ontario Community Action, communities may write or phone their local government office to discuss their economic development ideas. A 1-800 number has also been set up for people who are uncertain of where to find more information on the program.

After initial contact, a follow-up visit with a staff person will be scheduled to discuss the application process.

Once a community has submitted its application, it will be reviewed by regional teams according to the level of community support for both the project and the process to determine priorities within the community.

This program does not have a formal deadline. Applications for support will be dealt with on an ongoing basis.

The process will ensure that projects reflect a community's priorities and that the process has involved all community members. As part of the review process, the local MPP will be consulted.

Projects will also be evaluated according to economic development opportunity including the impact on local investment, job creation and training. Again, projects must reflect a community's priorities.

Before now, different ministries had economic development programs targeted at different projects, activities and communities. This forced communities to chase grant money. They would pitch their projects to whatever program and whatever ministry looked most promising.

A lot of good projects didn't get the funding they deserved because there wasn't always a grant program for every kind of project in a community. Jobs Ontario Community Action will let communities tell us which projects are the priorities they want funded.

We are moving away from ministries determining the priority of capital funding to communities determining their priorities and developing plans to achieve them.

We are also moving away from an area in which certain priorities may have been passed over by a set of narrow interests to a new era where planning is inclusive of the broader community, where decisions reflect careful consideration of economic, social and environmental issues, and where the capacity of communities for self-determination is being strengthened through leadership training and strategic planning.

We are addressing the fact that some communities lack the skills required to drive local change by providing leadership skills based on the needs identified by communities.

We will address the lack of financing mechanisms for community priorities through new mechanisms to lever local financing: community shares and community loans.

Finally, we are moving away from limited coordination between ministries to a process where the right players will be brought to the table quickly. Programs will be coordinated across government.

Jobs Ontario Community Action will support building a strong foundation for long-term community growth and jobs. It will foster self-reliance in communities, allowing for sustainable economic growth through local planning and investment in economic activity.

Making this program work effectively and ensuring broad participation will be a challenge for all of us, and I hope you will join me in this effort and take up the challenge. I'd like to invite everyone here to work with us to get their communities involved.

This afternoon I'm releasing the material that explains the Jobs Ontario Community Action initiative and its components in more detail, as well as the application forms.

These materials and other supports are available to all MPPs and their communities. I'd like to invite all MPPs to schedule meetings with community groups in their ridings to help get the program off to a good start. In fact, the government will provide staff and other resources. MPPs will be asked to supply names of interested groups and individuals who should be invited.

My ministry is ready to begin scheduling meetings and to help out with the logistics. A contact person is listed in the kits you will receive this afternoon.

This is our opportunity to ensure that our communities get involved in Jobs Ontario Community Action. It's our task to ensure that our communities take full advantage of the tools that we have created for them. We need everyone involved in the effort to renew and rebuild Ontario's economy.

I ask all of my colleagues to join us as we work to get this province back to work.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGES / COLLÈGES DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Last Friday, I made an important announcement in Sudbury for the Franco-Ontarian community.

Francophone participation at the post-secondary level, and especially in colleges, is still low compared to that of non-francophones. A series of public consultations on French-language college education conducted by the Bourdeau commission in 1990 indicated that the creation of additional French-language colleges can help reverse this situation. In fact, there has been a noticeable increase in francophone enrolment in the east since the opening of the first French-language college, la Cité collégiale, three years ago.

This government is following through on its commitment to the Franco-Ontarian community to enhance French-language post-secondary education. We will create two new French-language colleges of applied arts and technology in the province, one in northern Ontario and one in central-southwestern Ontario. The two new colleges are scheduled to open in September 1995.

The college in the north will have one main campus located in the Sudbury area and satellite campuses in various communities throughout northern Ontario. We expect the enrolment at the college to be 2,450 within five years of its opening.

The college in the central-southwest will be based on a college without walls concept with an administrative facility in the region. The college will rely on alternative delivery modes, including distance education technologies. We expect enrolment at the college in the south to be 400 within five years of opening.

Both of the new French-language colleges will have the exclusive mandate to provide French-language, post-secondary education and skills programs in their region. Each college will be governed by a Frenchspeaking board of governors. The board of governors will be appointed by the Ontario Council of Regents and their membership will be announced this fall.

We believe that a French-language college system will ensure that Franco-Ontarians have access to highquality college education and skills training, and as proven by la Cité collégiale, it will encourage many more francophones to get the skills they need to participate in Ontario's workforce.

As part of this French-language initiative, we will also build a permanent campus in Ottawa for la Cité collégiale. Since its opening, la Cité has been in leased facilities in Ottawa. The permanent campus will allow la Cité to accommodate up to 3,500 students.

To go ahead with this initiative, we had to get the federal government to share the costs. Last year, provincial and federal officials reached a tentative agreement that our cabinet approved immediately. It took a year for the federal government to make a decision, and then it reduced its contribution in new funding by one half. We had to find a way to make up the difference while keeping costs in line because we are committed to increasing access to post-secondary education for the francophone population throughout the province.

This government will contribute $120.7 million to this initiative over a multi-year period.

Investing in training is key to the economic recovery of the province. This government is giving FrancoOntarians the institutions they need to invest in their future and study in their own language as part of the process of lifelong learning. A French-language college system will benefit not only the Franco-Ontarian community but the whole province.

1400

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education and Training and to say that we welcome the minister's statement today and his statement in Sudbury on Friday.

I think the key point the minister has made is the one that relates training and community colleges and their role in training, and particularly for the francophone community. There's no question that the really overwhelming success of la Cité collégiale in Ottawa has demonstrated so clearly how important these institutions are for the francophone community, and as the minister has said, they benefit not only the Franco-Ontarian community but our province and the country as a whole.

Je pense qu'il y a plusieurs initiatives que le Ministre vient d'annoncer et qu'il est important de souligner l'importance de ce que le gouvernement est en train de faire : d'abord, de remarquer clairement que le succès de la Cité collégiale d'Ottawa a bien démontré le besoin pour ces deux autres collèges. Si on aurait voulu peut-être que cette décision ait été prise il y a un an, on comprendra les difficultés dans les négociations avec le gouvernement fédéral. Mais la chose importante, c'est que d'abord à Sudbury, il y aura maintenant un collège semblable au collège d'Ottawa. Puis, pour le collège dans le sud, l'option que le gouvernement a choisie, où on ne va pas avoir un seul site mais en effet un collège qui va être plus ouvert, ça a probablement du bon sens et ça va permettre à un plus grand nombre de francophones dans le sud et dans le sud-ouest de participer à un niveau collégial.

Donc, quand on regarde le problème du financement, on espère bien que le gouvernement pourra en effet assurer les fonds pour leur permettre le collège de Sudbury et aussi le site à Ottawa, où vraiment la Cité collégiale a maintenant besoin de son propre site. Avec tous les étudiants qu'on accueille, on a besoin maintenant de changer de place et d'assurer l'avenir de la Cité collégiale.

Donc, nous souhaitons tout le succès aux francophones dans ces trois projets, et je pense que ça va être vraiment un atout pour toute la population de la province.

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I'd like to respond to the minister's statement and wish her well in her endeavours, but I have some concerns. If the first part of their initiative is any indication of how this program is going, I really feel there may be some problems.

In her community capital report, the mandate really is to contribute to economic growth in the community. The minister has announced five projects, one of them in Windsor. I think all of these projects are worthy but hardly under the category of economic growth. She's going to be providing a new sound and lighting system and a new curtain in a community centre. As I say, I'm sure the community centre will welcome that particular investment; it hardly will contribute to economic growth in that community.

There are others just like it. In Peterborough, they're providing an upgrade of the pool circulation equipment and plumbing. That will probably bring some economic growth to the local plumber but, again, I don't see it as being an economic stimulus for the city of Peterborough. There's a new roof going on in Arnprior; that, again, will give a roofer some business.

It would seem to me that the initiative of this program was to help communities help themselves to become economically viable. It doesn't seem to me that these projects and projects like that, which traditionally have been funded by the Ontario Lottery Corp, are going to create a new program just by giving them a new name.

The other concern I have is that the government participation is in a minority position. They're going to be providing one third of the funding, or half for smaller communities, and expecting to have control over how that works.

In her statement, the minister talks about how she's going to coordinate all of these things; that she's going to get everybody involved. It would seem to me that in order to do that you're going to have to have a greater level of funding. Otherwise, anyone would say: "You're a minority player. Why should you be telling us how we should be investing the bulk of our money?"

So I have some concerns. I think if it can work, it's great. But the minister herself, in her statement, says, "Making this program work effectively and ensuring broad participation will be a challenge for all of us." I submit that it's going to be one heck of a challenge.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Let me be perfectly clear: This statement is nothing but a fuzzy, do-good statement which will allow the socialists to pretend they are doing something constructive. That's all it is.

I look on page 1, where they say they are going to, through Bill 40, "give municipalities the opportunity to use more creative and flexible ways of financing community projects." This at the same time they have cut $275 million from municipalities for their expenditure control program. On the one hand, they say they're spending money; on the other hand, they're cutting more than they are putting into the economy.

They're spending $100 million at a time when they took $2 billion of taxes out of the pockets of consumers in this province. That one tax increase alone will kill about 50,000 jobs in Ontario; 50,000 jobs will be lost. With this announcement, $100 million, they say they're going to create jobs. It's interesting that there are no job figures in here, because I don't think the minister knows.

At the same time, after last week, we are laying off nurses and teachers, rolling back salaries of municipal employees, and what are we going to be doing in this government? We're going to fix the roofs at hockey rinks across the province of Ontario.

I hope some of the people can call in on the toll-free line. Maybe some of the teachers can call in to access some of the money to open a new school to teach some of the kids, or maybe some of the new nurses who are going to be laid off as a result of the actions last week can call in and open up a new health clinic. On the one hand, they are laying off teachers, nurses, they are cutting back, and on the other hand they're saying, "We're spending money."

Quite frankly, the small business sector is the only sector creating jobs, it is not the public sector. When you look at what small business believes are the big impediments, it is the total tax burden, and there's nothing done by this government to deal with that; government regulation and paperwork, and there's nothing done to deal with that; the provincial labour laws. It's interesting that they call this Bill 40. Your Bill 40 of a year ago killed more jobs than this will ever create. They go on to name the cost of municipal government, workers' compensation, then they get down to number 6. The sixth small business impediment is availability of financing, and this government thinks it's going to solve it.

The problem in this province, I say to the Premier and this minister, is that you're overtaxing, you're overspending, you're overgoverning, you're overregulating, you're destroying jobs. They've asked for MPPs' help. I tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to work to help to defeat this government. That will do more for the economy than anything else I could possibly do.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm very surprised at the timing and the content of this announcement today. At a time when the government is speaking about fiscal restraint, it seems to be indicating that it's going to be spending yet more money.

On June 24, the Minister of Education indicated to the Ontario Public School Boards' Association that:

"Ontario will have to run its education system with fewer school boards that cooperate more effectively with one another. Over the next 10 years we're going to have to move to fewer administrative structures and school boards."

He also told school boards, public, Catholic and francophone, to take even bigger steps to share services, including staff.

"If we are to maintain and improve the quality of the system, a whole different approach has to be taken."

In light of the statements that were made by Mr Cooke on June 25 to OPSBA, I'm really surprised that this announcement is being made at this time, when we're talking about fiscal restraint, when we're talking about the need for greater cooperation, when we're talking about the need to put a moratorium on programs and freeze program expenditures.

We also have here a social contract which has cut wages by $170 million for colleges and universities. Indeed, when you combine that with the expenditure control plan measures, it's going to result in a cut of 7.4% for each sector.

This is going to result in fewer places in this province for students who are desperately seeking access to our colleges and universities. This government cuts, on the one hand, takes money away from the colleges, yet it's going to spend money to create new college spaces. It's absolutely contradictory.

Why are you not urging that there be cooperation between the anglophone and the francophone communities, as you've encouraged the school boards to do, and why do we not operate the systems cooperatively under one administrative system? If we're going to combine school boards, why don't we do the same with the community college system and save some money rather than continue to spend?

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. Mr Premier, would you inform the House whether you will be attending the cabinet meeting on Wednesday of this week and whether it is your intention to be in the Legislature this week?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): My recollection of my schedule is that I'm here today, away from the House tomorrow afternoon because I'm going to be in Minden and Lindsay, I will be back on Wednesday and I'll be here on Thursday.

Mr Bradley: My supplementary will deal with what you might be talking about during the time you are in the cabinet meeting and the times you are in the House. The question relates to the threats you are issuing, through your various members, to members of the House that if they don't comply meekly with the legislative agenda you have, somehow you're going to bring in draconian new rules -- even though last June you already brought in rules that limit the time a member may speak -- that empower your ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate, that reduce the number of days the Legislative Assembly would normally be in session and which diminish the role of the neutral, elected Speaker.

In view of the fact that the people of the province of Ontario are asking virtually everybody if they will place in the hands of the elected representatives most of the power to deal with legislation and policy, in view of the fact that there's a widespread feeling in the province that that should be the case, why are you now contemplating new rules which will further concentrate the power of governing into the hands of appointed people in your office and the senior positions in the civil service?

Hon Mr Rae: If I'd known, when the member asked me a question about where I'm going to be on Wednesday, that he really wants to talk about the question of the rules, of course I would have referred it. But I would say to him directly, it's my understanding --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): No dodging.

Hon Mr Rae: I welcome the return of the member for York Centre. It's a delight to have him here on this occasion as on the other occasions when he's here.

I would simply say to the member for St Catharines that it's my understanding that, as is frequently the case at this time of year, there are discussions among House leaders about the remaining House business. I would think it wouldn't be unreasonable for all of us to expect that at some point during the summer we might have a bit of a break to spend some time with our families, that that's not an unreasonable approach -- and with our constituents. Of course we're all glad to work here and glad to stay right through, but I think it might be common parliamentary practice for there to be, at some point, an adjournment after there's been a consideration of the business of the House. Those discussions are under way now between and among the House leaders, and above and beyond that, I have nothing to say.

Mr Bradley: It's very likely, of course, that the House would not be in session at this time if the Premier hadn't in fact insisted that the House be out of session from December 10, 1992, to April 13, 1993.

My question to the Premier is this: Since I think we can judge governments and people on the way they act when nobody is looking, when there is not the glare of publicity on us, when we're not in the middle of the holidays of the summer, when we don't have a circumstance where editors of people who work as reporters in this Legislature would be reluctant to include within their stories so-called in-House issues such as government rules, would the Premier not agree with me, as a former defender of civil rights, as a former defender of the rights of parliamentarians to deal adequately with legislation before the House, that he should abandon any initiative to introduce even more draconian rules which will restrict the rights of the opposition and other members to deal appropriately with legislation?

When he's doing so, would he also guarantee to the House that at the end of this particular session he will not insist upon the removal of the member for Victoria-Haliburton from the position of assistant deputy Chair of the committee of the whole because he has rendered independent judgements and because he's been a thorn in the side of the Premier over the past several months?

Hon Mr Rae: I feel I must respond to the preliminary comments made by the member for St Catharines.

I think that a largely defenceless media deserves occasionally the support of all of us in public life, given the vigilance that they perform summer, fall, winter and spring, morning, noon and night. For a member with the experience of the member for St Catharines to launch such a vicious attack on the vigilance of the media surprises me deeply. It's quite unfair, because after all, they can hardly respond, they hardly have the capacity and means to respond. And given the very favourable coverage which the member received while he was in government, I'm surprised that he would stoop to the level of attacking the provincial media at this particular point in our political life.

Mr Bradley: If only the television cameras in this House were allowed to go back to the Premier now while he smiles, having well kept a straight face with that particular non-answer to my question.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a second question to the Premier. This question deals with his favourite project, his economic salvation for the province of Ontario, and that is his new initiative for casino gambling.

Even while the government is proceeding with its policy on implementing casinos across the province, it continues to look at new additional areas of gambling revenue, including the licensing of its own video lottery terminals. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has said in the past that no decisions had been made on video lottery terminals but that she has not ruled them out.

Experience in Nova Scotia and other jurisdictions has shown that their use is incredibly addictive, and in fact they've been removed from the convenience stores of Nova Scotia. I want to give the Premier the opportunity to be specific today by asking if he will guarantee that the government will not implement video lotteries in this province.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd refer that to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): When we made the announcement about the pilot project in Windsor we said quite clearly at that time that VLTs would be allowed within the confines of the casino, and that's the long and the short of it.

Mr Bradley: When the government first announced its intention to open casinos in Ontario it indicated it was looking at, I believe, seven different locations. Since then, the government has commissioned a study by Coopers and Lybrand on casino gambling, including the number of potential provincial casinos which the province can sustain and their potential locations. The report has now been completed, it is my understanding.

Will the minister explain what the report has revealed about your government's casino plans? How many casinos does the report recommend that the province can sustain? Where will they be located? And by the way, why is the government refusing to release the Coopers and Lybrand report?

Hon Ms Churley: The report to which the member is referring in fact will be ready very soon. It's not quite completed and, of course, as soon as it is and as soon as I get receipt of it, it will be released to the public. It is one of many reports which the government commissioned around gaming in general, and this report, I would say within the next week or two -- I'm not quite sure when it will be complete -- will be released to the public, and then we will respond to the recommendations within that report.

Mr Bradley: Would the minister reveal to the House whether or not the Coopers and Lybrand report will deal with the additional costs for security and policing that will result in this province as a result of your policy to implement casino gambling, particularly in light of the fact that Bill 48 and your program to restrict expenditures in the public domain will in fact result in rather substantial layoffs of police in various parts of the province and will result as well in the diminishing of the resources that might be available to those police forces?

Hon Ms Churley: To begin with, I don't think at this point there's any evidence that there will be police layoffs. But referring specifically to the question the member asked, I should point out again that the full cost of policing, both internal and external, will be completely covered by the proceeds from the casino. So it will not cost the taxpayers any extra money to fund policing in Windsor.

I think that's a very important issue to point out to the member across the way, because we have come up with a government-owned casino in Windsor which the taxpayers of Ontario will not pay one cent for, unlike that party over there which constructed the dome, which the taxpayers of Ontario are still paying for. The taxpayers will not contribute a cent to the policing of the casino in Windsor.

1420

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Premier. When you brought down your latest $2-billion tax grab, our leader, Mike Harris, said that the only economy it would stimulate would be the underground economy. It is now projected that the underground economy represents 15% of our gross domestic product or over $42 billion annually.

Can you tell us how much you estimate your latest tax grab has stimulated the underground economy in the province of Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think the Minister of Finance is well qualified to answer that question.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): It is indeed a fact that in Ontario, and other provinces as well, the underground economy has been growing in recent years. It is no secret. It's no surprise. It's not a good thing to have happening, because it means that the people who don't take advantage of the underground economy end up paying more than they would otherwise do.

That message needs to go out. We in the Ministry of Finance are in the process of hiring new auditors who will pursue those who avoid paying their fair share of taxes in this province. But there's no question that the underground economy has grown in Ontario and in other provinces.

Mr Carr: Minister, the amount, I will tell you again, that the underground economy is worth is about $42 billion in Ontario. Your ministry officials have said on CBC Radio that the underground activity is up 25 times. What has been referred to as the "fink line" used to average about two calls a week; it's now up to 10 calls a day. The reason is very clear: We have reached the point where tax increases have driven the people to the underground economy.

You realize there's a problem; what are you going to do to stop it? How are we going to stop this trend which is happening in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is certainly clear to all of us. I had a meeting with the provincial ministers of finance several months ago to talk about this very matter. In Quebec the problem I believe is even more serious than it is in Ontario. That's cold comfort, I appreciate. I'm not suggesting for a minute that that gives us any reason for relaxing in our vigilance on collecting taxes that are owed to us.

It's also clear that the underground economy took an enormous jump with the introduction of the GST. That's not the only reason for the increase in the underground economy. We know that it's very high on cigarettes and on alcohol. We know that. We are working with the federal government and with other provincial governments as well to try and get a handle on this.

If it was as easy to identify and describe, of course it'd be easier to do something about it, but it's very tough and the enforcement question is one we are pursuing almost as we speak.

Mr Carr: The problem is that the Minister of Finance doesn't realize where the problem is. The problem is that taxes are too high. It isn't only the provincial government's fault; there are municipalities and the federal government. The fact of the matter is that in the province of Ontario right now taxes are too high and people are going underground. They are saying, "We are not going to pay the taxes because they are too high in the province of Ontario."

We now have 40 people in the Ministry of Finance whose job it is to try and find examples of the underground activity. This is no answer. The problem is the taxes in the province of Ontario are too high. In order to remain competitive, we need a tax environment which will allow people to pay their fair share and not try to avoid taxes.

The problem is that taxes are too high. You can hire more people to try and find it, but will you give us a commitment today that in order to get rid of the situation of the underground taxes you will not increase taxes in the province of Ontario in the remainder of your mandate, for probably the next two years? Hopefully, it will be sooner. Will you give the people of this province a commitment that as a result of your taxes you will not increase any more taxes in the province of Ontario over the next two years?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite takes a line that is sometimes described as populist or Reagan-like in its simplicity. But the solution the member from the Tories talks about all the time is that you simply reduce all your taxes, reduce all your expenditures and the province will be prosperous. What the member never talks about are the services those taxes provide, to protect the most vulnerable people in our society, to provide an educational system in our society, to provide a health care system that's second to none anywhere. The member never talks about that; he simply talks about reducing the taxes that pay for those services which people in this province want.

Finally, I've gone through from time to time in this Legislature where this province ranks with other provinces. We are not an excessively taxed province, whether you compare ourselves with other provinces, if you look at the corporate side, or if you compare ourselves with other jurisdictions south of the border. I do realize that no one likes to pay more taxes, but I think people in this province understand that the very simplistic view that you just keep lowering taxes all the time and somehow all the services will still be provided is not one that has any credence whatsoever in this province any more.

LABOUR POLICY

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have a copy of an article from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. This article reports on the contract that apparently you have offered to municipalities. It says, "Municipal employees and their unions will have a much larger say in how the respective municipalities are run." It goes on to say, "Some critics say that accompanying government initiatives greatly bolster the hand of labour and will go well beyond fiscal issues and deficit reduction."

Will you confirm today that in fact these extensive union powers are part of your social contract agreement?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No.

Mr David Johnson: I guess I'll take it that he will not confirm. That means we can expect those kinds of powers to be part of the social contract agreement.

Again to the minister, the chief administrative officer from Waterloo, Gerry Thompson, has said that this could allow labour to sit on senior committees of the municipalities such as the policy and priorities committee. I quote the CAO. He says, "It's conceivable that union representatives might demand to sit on senior bodies such as the region's policy and priorities committee, a committee that deals with strategic planning and the budget."

This ideological baggage will cost the municipalities dearly in the future. The municipalities do not want to carry this baggage. I ask again, will the minister rethink his situation and will the minister give an undertaking to this House that he will not permit labour leaders to sit on such senior committees of the municipalities?

Hon Mr Philip: The only ideological bashing is the ideological bashing that comes from the third party. What we have is ongoing negotiations, both at the local municipal level and at the sector table, and those negotiations are ongoing. We are prepared to look at any proposal by the municipalities. The municipalities in turn then, that I've talked to, are quite prepared to consult with their unions and other interested parties and to work out any kind of ideas that will help them to run their municipalities more efficiently and consult in a more open way with those who are working for them. I don't call that the rhetoric which the member has used.

Mr David Johnson: If you talk to the municipalities, they will certainly make it clear that they do not want labour representatives on their senior committees such as their priorities committees and their budget committees. That's not at all going to be helpful. What the municipalities are asking for in a positive sense is the tools to be able to deal with the draconian thrust of the social contract legislation -- that's what they want -- not to have representatives foisted on them. The pay freeze won't help much. The pause days will help very little. The minister and this government are tying their hands and their legs and saying, "Swim."

For example, this same article says that the draft agreement also attempts to put a damper on contracting out work to outside companies or consultants by stipulating priority consideration must be given to work done in-house. Municipalities need this kind of tool, need contracting out, need all other kinds of tools that they can put their hands on.

1430

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

Mr David Johnson: Will the minister confirm that he will revisit and will he allow the municipalities to use all the tools, including contracting out?

Hon Mr Philip: It would be the most authoritarian, reactionary thing that I could do, to tell municipalities how they are going to negotiate with their unions. I'm not going to do that.

Quite frankly, I don't know why the honourable member, who was a mayor, finds it so repulsive that some municipalities -- and I say "some" -- might consider using a management style which involves the unions in some sort of decision-making which some of the most successful corporations in North America are now using. I think perhaps some of the larger corporations are more progressive than the honourable member is.

TOPICAL

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. Sir, I'd like to refer you to this publication called Topical, which is published by the Management Board secretariat. It's put out regularly throughout the year with some good information for Ontario public servants. This is the January issue and in fact out of eight pages, there are four pages of good information on the United Way campaign and "Employee Volunteers Key To Drive Success" and other very interesting things and then there are four pages of Job Mart. That, frankly, is what it's all about: It's information to the employees.

Now let me take you to the latest publication, the same one, Topical. It's expanded to 16 pages. There's one page of Job Mart. There are 15 pages of NDP cabinet ministers and appointed hacks talking about propaganda. Look at this for an interesting one. It's a big centrefold on Floyd Laughren. You finally made it, Floyd. You finally made it. I'm glad you didn't allow them to take the picture with your suspenders or you might have been fired. But Floyd is going on and telling everybody what a wonderful job the government is doing; nothing but NDP propaganda.

Mr Chairman of Management Board, is this a proper use of taxpayers' money, for you to sell your message on what a great job the government is doing?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member opposite likes to portray everything as government propaganda, but I think it's fair to say that Topical, the paper that he refers to, is a publicity organ for the people who work in the OPS. It talks about jobs, yes, but it's also a document which imparts information to the people who work in the OPS about their jobs, not just about new jobs that are available.

The articles which the member is referring to -- and he held it up and showed it to everybody -- were all articles about the restructuring of government, issues which the employees in every single ministry of this government are asking questions about every day of every week. That's why we decided to put out some information.

Mr Mahoney: By way of statistics, just let me tell you that they put out 90,000 copies of this document per month. This double-size issue represents 720,000 pages of nothing more than political propaganda that no one wants to hear about, costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.

Here's the type of information to the Ontario public service: Floyd Laughren saying, "In 20 or 30 years, how the public sector looks and the role it plays in society will be your doing" --

Interjection.

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

Mr Mahoney: He's talking to the public servants -- "because you're the ones that helped steer it in a new direction." They must be somewhat confused when this Treasurer says that.

Here we have an in-depth profile of the Premier's former campaign manager entitled, "Secretary of Cabinet Redefines the 3Rs of OPS Management." Mr Agnew is quoted as saying the size of government is "too complex, too big and too confusing." I guess that's why you increased all those cabinet ministers without portfolio, to try to reduce the size of government. Maybe that's what you did.

The Speaker: And the member's question?

Mr Mahoney: All this document is is NDP propaganda. What you have done is taken a very functional, important publication to the Ontario public servants and you've turned it into nothing more than an NDP rag full of your propaganda, trying to sell your line, your bill of goods to the people of this province. This is a total waste of taxpayers' money. How do you justify in these times throwing away money on a rag like this?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member across the way can refer to Topical as a rag and refer to the money we spend on Topical as throwing away taxpayers' money, but the reality is that the issues we've addressed, both in the current issue of Topical and that we intend to address in the future, are the very same questions members across the way have been raising here in the House and that the people who work in the OPS have been raising with their managers throughout the civil service for months now. They deserve answers and they'll get them.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is for the Minister of Health. You should be aware that the Ontario Hospital Association has reached an impasse with your government in its attempts to negotiate an agreement under your social contract legislation, Bill 48. The Ontario Hospital Association is now dealing with two significant obstacles because of your government's refusal to accept our amendments to Bill 48.

The first obstacle is that under Bill 48, you cannot lock in non-signing parties. As you know, CUPE is not at the social contract table. Therefore, any agreement that might be arrived at would have to exclude CUPE employees in the hospital sector, which in effect means that the Ontario Hospital Association won't be able to reach an agreement before the August deadline.

The second obstacle is, your government and the Liberal Party voted against the OHA's amendment that would have ensured that the low-income cutoff would have applied to all part-time employees. You should know that in the hospital sector, only 30,000 out of 164,800 total employees are full-time. Therefore, under Bill 48, any agreement would mean that 30,000, or 20% of the employees would have to bear the brunt of the social contract savings.

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

Mr Jim Wilson: Here's the question, Mr Speaker: Minister, because of your government's refusal to address these very significant negotiating obstacles during the amendment process of Bill 48, the OHA may have to walk away from the sectoral table. What do you expect the Ontario Hospital Association to do in light of the barriers it faces in trying to reach an agreement before the August deadline set by your government?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Bill 48 stands in the name of the Minister of Finance and I will refer the question to him.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Simcoe West raises some legitimate questions and problems surrounding the negotiations in the health care sector, surrounding the social contract legislation. We are working very hard to try and resolve those issues and, as I said, they are legitimate issues that the member raises.

It's my hope that CUPE will at some point return to the sectoral table and we can get on with it. If, on the other hand, they choose not to take part in the sectoral bargaining, then of course they would be subjected to the fail-safe legislation. I have not myself given up hope that we will be able to resolve the differences that are still outstanding at the health sector table.

1440

Mr Jim Wilson: It's all very well to talk about wishful thinking on behalf of the Treasurer, but the obstacles I presented are very real, and they stem directly from your refusal and the Liberal Party's refusal to accept the amendments that the Ontario PC Party put forward on behalf of the Ontario Hospital Association.

I think the Treasurer would agree that the Ontario Hospital Association has played the NDP's game all the way along and has been very cooperative. The government took a political decision to reject our amendments. Now the OHA needs leadership and it needs a political decision to help it out to reach an agreement.

Because 30,000 full-time employees out of a total of 164,800 will have to take the brunt of the social contract savings, perhaps I could word my question to the Treasurer this way: Treasurer, do you think it's fair that there would be a social contract in a hospital sector in which 20% of the employees will have to bear 100% of the savings that need to be achieved to reduce your deficit? Not the hospitals' deficit but your deficit? Do you think it's fair that 20% of the employees are going to take 100% of the pain?

Hon Mr Laughren: As I said in response to the member's first question, he does raise some very legitimate issues. The fact is, though, that if we had accepted the OHA amendment, which the Tories then put in the form of a Tory amendment, that would have raised a whole new set of questions as well, so that whether we went with the exemption of the $30,000 or went the route that we did go, there was a particular set of problems attached to either route that we chose to go.

In this case, because a large number of people earning under $30,000 do work in the health care sector, it does pose a particular problem, no question about that. The OHA and the others in the health care sector are attempting, along with the government, to work out that problem. As I said earlier, I'm hopeful that we can resolve it, but I don't dismiss for a minute --

Mr Jim Wilson: They need your leadership. They have no answers.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Simcoe West says it needs our leadership and these answers. That's exactly what we're trying to resolve at the bargaining table, and we'll continue to work very hard to accomplish that.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Health. There has been much debate about the recent announcement from your ministry concerning the reform of long-term care. My riding of Kingston and The Islands has many senior citizens in it, and of course they're concerned about how the initiative around long-term care will be affecting them. What have you been hearing from the senior citizens of Ontario about this announcement?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I've certainly been hearing from most senior citizens of the province that they're delighted that action is now occurring to put in place a long-term care system and that they are appreciative of the fact that in tough economic times our government has been making the necessary reallocations within our finances to enable us to put that system in place.

In fact, let me say to the member that the praise for our health care system and its excellence comes not just from seniors within this province but from no less a vehicle than the front page of the New York Times last week, which said, "In Canada, Elderly Praise Their Health Care." Under Bill 101, we have moved forward to put in place a system of long-term care.

If I can quote from the New York Times, it made the point that, "In the US so great is the fear of being forced into poverty by the cost of long-term care that more than 2.2 million Americans have bought insurance to cover that cost." In Ontario, there is no such fear.

Mr Gary Wilson: Madam Minister, you've clearly outlined the importance of maintaining our health care system and working with these reforms, so I'm just wondering how these more equitable steps will be implemented.

Hon Mrs Grier: In order to make the system more equitable, and particularly the system within institutions, we have made adjustments, as I think everybody in this Legislature has heard and is aware of, in the payments that residents make.

Under the system that we replaced, 10,000 residents of nursing homes and homes for the aged paid between $40 and $90 a day. At the same time, 4,700 residents received similar services but paid only $26 a day. With the new system, the daily accommodation fee for all residents is between $26 and $38 a day. The reason that our seniors need have no fear of being pushed into poverty is that our system of basing it on their ability to pay takes into account their income and not their assets. So we have a continuum of care and a system that is affordable for everyone, regardless of their means.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training and it concerns educational funding. As you will know, over the last nine months, school boards have been hit hard by several changes in funding. In the first place, the promise of a 1% and 2%, 2% increase in budgets for education was cut back to zero. Then boards were cut a further $290 million in terms of the expenditure controls that you brought forward. Thirdly, the social contract is estimated to take some $535 million out of the system. Last but not least, the Treasurer's budget will account for something in the order of $50 million to $75 million less for school boards. This almost $1-billion hit within one year raises clearly the importance of dealing with educational financial reform.

Can you today tell this House specifically and clearly what your specific timetable will be for that reform, what consultative process you have put in place or are putting in place to bring about that reform, and finally, will those changes be ready in time for next year's provincial budget?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): There is a team of people and representatives from school boards and others in the community who are part of the educational finance reform secretariat, and they've been working on this item for quite some period of time.

I hope that I'll be bringing something forward to the Treasury Board and to cabinet this fall, but I can tell you very clearly that whatever the end results are through the education finance reform project, it will require, of course, legislation to be brought forward to the House, and therefore it won't be possible to have it in place for 1994 unless you and representatives from the Conservative Party want to make a commitment today that you'll pass the legislation this fall.

Mr Beer: I would think that if you had been moving with more diligence, we might have been in a position in the fall to actually look at legislation so we could bring about that change. Clearly, you know there is a crisis out there. In fact, you spoke about it at a recent meeting in North York and talked about the very severe problems many boards are experiencing. In fact, there are some 18 assessment-poor school boards right now with deficits. They can't wait until December, they can't wait until the next budget and they can't wait until whenever you're going to bring your legislation in.

I think what they need to know, those 18 and others which presumably are going to be in a deficit situation because of the changes that have taken place in the last number of months, and what they want to know is, what are you going to be doing to work with them to get those deficits under control and to make sure that the kinds of cutbacks that are going on, cutbacks that are affecting kids with real programs, families, children who need those programs -- what are you going to do to deal with those specific problems facing the assessment-poor boards that now have deficits?

Hon Mr Cooke: We're working specifically on the ones that are the most difficult, like the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board.

Last year, my predecessor, Tony Silipo, assisted a few of the school boards that were in real difficulty, like the York region Catholic school board. Part of the responsibility clearly has to lie with the trustees. In the York region Catholic separate school situation, financial assistance was committed last year and that board decided, through its trustees, to increase the deficit again this year. I don't think that is particularly responsible leadership from the local school board.

Part of the questions and policy decisions that I think we have to look at through education finance reform is a stronger partnership between the ministry, the provincial government and school boards. I think ultimately, in addition to looking at how the resources are shared across the province, we need to look at putting more financial controls in place, from the Ministry of Education, on school boards, and those are policy initiatives that we'll bring forward as well.

1450

HIV IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. Studies of correctional facilities in other provinces, such as Quebec, indicate that as many as 7% of inmates carry HIV. Your ministry can test inmates for several virulent diseases, but HIV is not one. There are serious problems posed by this policy for guards and inmates alike. Tuberculosis and other virulent contagious diseases often do not show up in conventional testing of HIV-positive people because their immune system is suppressed. As you know, most HIV patients die from serious and contagious secondary diseases such as tuberculosis, not from HIV itself.

Minister, are you prepared to support reclassification of HIV from section 22 to 35 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, so that Correctional Services may test inmates for HIV and reduce the problem of multiple carriers and protect guards and inmates alike?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the member for the question. Obviously, this ministry takes very seriously this issue, particularly as it relates to the health and safety of both the inmates and, of course, our staff who work there.

I'm aware of some of the recent public discussions about moving this particular matter from section 22 to section 35, and I can say that at this point I am looking at the matter, as our senior medical adviser has stated there are certain circumstances in which he would feel comfortable that this be moved over to section 35.

But let me say very clearly to the member that if indeed he is talking about the issue of mandatory testing for HIV, at this point this jurisdiction, like all the other jurisdictions across Canada, both provincially and federally, does not support the issue of mandatory testing for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it can give a very false sense of security in that there can be a few weeks' to a few months' window of opportunity where a negative result can be shown and the reality is that there indeed can be the virus present.

There are a lot of reasons why we wouldn't want to move to mandatory testing holus-bolus, but I appreciate the question and we're reviewing, indeed, the possibility of moving from section 22 to 35.

Mr Runciman: I knew the minister was going to use this argument about a window, and it's a window of ridiculousness, really. It's unbelievable, when we're talking about dying and guards being placed at risk, to talk about that sort of opportunity window.

Current policies in the ministry promote mutual distrust and suspicion among guards and inmates. In one case, guards refused to resuscitate a patient thought to carry HIV, effectively leaving him to die. In another, a guard applied mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to an inmate suspected of carrying HIV. During the course of this procedure, the patient vomited blood into the guard's mouth.

I have letters from inmates of the Guelph Correctional Centre who claim that some guards are openly hostile to them because the guards fear inmates who carry HIV and other related illnesses. One prisoner writes: "Four guards decked out in helmets and special suits took the man from his cell to the hole because he was in pain. No one knew what to do with this inmate."

Minister, is this the kind of treatment that you believe terminally ill patients should receive in Ontario correctional facilities? Are you prepared today to provide better facilities for HIV-positive inmates, to test these inmates so we know which ones need special facilities and treatment, to improve training for guards so inmates and guards can have peace of mind, and to put an end to horror stories like the three I've related here?

Hon Mr Christopherson: It's unfortunate that interspersed with actual situations that certainly are important and serious, the honourable member chose to shut the window of reason in terms of listening to what someone says. The fact of the matter is that this window is real. It's based on medical knowledge. It's not something that I have dreamed up.

The fact of the matter is that we have in place universal precautions which are deemed to be, by all the jurisdictions in Canada, and to the best of my knowledge, mostly around the world, the most effective policy available. In fact, it stems from the communicable disease policy that was implemented in April 1989 by the previous government. I commend them for the efforts they've taken there.

We continue to review this matter because of its importance, but to take the kind of stance that the member has today I think really does not give to this issue the kind of serious debate and consideration it deserves.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week, you released in a white paper a proposal to scrap welfare as we know it and outlined a new support program for people with low incomes.

We all know people everywhere who have been saying for some time that welfare is not working, that something must be done and that we must break the welfare and poverty cycle. I'd like to give you an example. In my riding, Niagara Falls, many people have lost their jobs through the recession. This summer there are some minimum wage jobs in tourism. Single mothers have said to me that they would like to go back to work but fear their families will lose out.

Mr Minister, how will this program assist single mothers who are trying to get back into the workforce?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the member for the question. There are, if I can answer the question very directly, at least two significant ways in which single parents with children would be able to be assisted under the new system. The first is under the drug benefit provisions and the second is under the child benefit provision.

As I indicated last week, by establishing the child benefit outside the social assistance system, it will no longer be necessary for people to be on social assistance in order to receive assistance with the raising of their children, because that will be tied rather to people's income. The situation that the member described I think would be ripe for that kind of approach to be taken.

Similarly, under the work that my colleague the Minister of Health is doing with some of the changes we are looking at with respect to the drug benefits, those benefits would also be tied, as we are looking at them now, more to income and therefore not particularly to whether or not people are on social assistance. Those are two significant improvements over the present system.

Ms Harrington: I am sure this will be of benefit and I really hope that message gets out there as directly as possible to the people on welfare.

In your announcement last week, you stated that you will be talking with interested groups and individuals over the summer and as far as September 30. What I want to ask you, if I possibly can, is, will you be communicating with the people in Niagara about where and when you will be able to speak with them about these changes? Also, how will people be able to participate in these meetings?

Hon Mr Silipo: I would first of all want to say that I encourage all members, on their own initiative, to set up discussions with people in their own ridings, and I'm sure many people will. Beyond inviting people to write, to send in their comments to us by September 30, we will also be setting up a number of meetings of our own volition throughout the province that I'll be attending and that my parliamentary assistant, the member for Chatham-Kent, will be attending. As well, we will be responding to any number of invitations that will come.

We also want to ensure that as we work out the significant and important details over the next number of months, we will be involving people who will be affected. We will be doing that through the Council of Consumers, through a number of groups that we'll be meeting with and that we want to involve very directly with us in discussions helping us to design the new system, all of which we are intent on putting in place in 1995.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it's about jobs. As I think everyone realizes, we now have the first six months' employment data out for 1993. In spite of the job growth that took place in the first six months, of about 77,000 jobs, the numbers are still quite troubling, at least to us. The unemployment rate for the first six months was 10.8%, which is the same as 1992. In spite of the job growth, we still saw record numbers of people unemployed. The real number, as you point out in your budget, is closer to 14%.

My question really has to do with what we can expect for the year. Realizing now that for the first six months the unemployment rate was 10.8%, do you still anticipate that for the full year you will have your 10.3% unemployment rate that you projected in the budget, and is that about the best the people of Ontario can expect from the government in 1993?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I assume the member for Scarborough-Agincourt wants a direct and frank response, not a political response which pretends that unemployment isn't as bad as it really is. That's the kind of exchange I wish to engage in.

1500

The member is correct when he says there's been a net increase in the year-to-date employment of about 77,000. Actually, there have been about 120,000 new jobs created, but there were job losses in certain sectors, including public sector employment, I might add, which reduced the net amount to about 77,000.

That's roughly in line with what we predicted in the budget, as the member knows, of about 106,000 new jobs in 1993-94, so we're more or less on track for the number of new jobs that will be created in the economy this year. I do not believe we will see much of an improvement in the unemployment numbers this year. That's simply reflecting not my own views but those of private sector forecasters, federal government forecasters. Virtually anybody who looks at the economy is saying that unemployment's going to remain unacceptably high in the next three, four, five years.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the answer. Another concern about the employment numbers, at least to us, is what looks like a trend to more part-time jobs and fewer full-time jobs. As I look at the numbers, at least to the best of my ability, for the first six months of 1993, it looks like we've seen about 300,000 fewer full-time jobs in Ontario than we saw in 1990, offset by a growth of about 100,000 part-time jobs. It used to be that around 15% of the jobs were part-time; now we're getting around 19%, heading to 20%.

Do you view with any concern what looks like a trend to an increasing number of part-time jobs, and what sorts of things is the government planning to do, what sorts of things can the Legislature do, what sorts of things can the people of Ontario do, if this is a trend we should be concerned about?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do view with some concern the trend to part-time jobs in our economy. This has been going on now I suppose for 10 years. I don't know precisely when the numbers started creeping up, as to the percentage of jobs that were part-time versus full-time; certainly it's not something new, but when a recession hits, it exacerbates that kind of problem. There's absolutely no question about that.

I was looking at the sectors in which there have been the greatest increase in jobs. Community business and personal services lead the pack, with almost 70,000 jobs this year, financial services 18,000, construction 14,000, primary industries 11,000, communications 7,000, manufacturing 3,000. Offsetting that was a decline in jobs in transportation, wholesale and retail trade, where often there are a lot of part-time jobs, utilities and public administration, which gives us our net of 77,000.

I believe what the government can do to address the phenomenon of part-time jobs increasing as a percentage of total jobs is somewhat limited. What I think we must be doing is making sure there are education and training programs that allow people, even if they're already working part-time or if they're not working at all, to take advantage of the training opportunities or the educational opportunities so that as the economy improves in this decade there will be more opportunities for them than there would otherwise be.

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Given that municipal and school taxes inevitably will be increasing in spite of the fact that municipal councils and school boards are attempting to control their spending, and given the fact that Bill 48 will create for them major, major headaches, what would the farm tax rebate have been under these new circumstances had it not been frozen at the 1992-93 level?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I think what the honourable member is asking me is what percentage of rebate the farmers are going to get on the farm tax rebate program, given that it's frozen at its 1992 level.

I might add that the member is suggesting that there are going to be a lot of increases in municipal taxes across this province, and I don't happen to agree with that. I think most municipalities and school boards have worked very hard at keeping their tax increases down. They are going to be working with the social contract in trying to reduce the costs on salaries and wages of their employees. I have not heard any municipalities talk about passing along any increased costs in the form of taxes.

With that, with the freeze on the amount of money available for the farm tax rebate, we believe that somewhere in the order of 72%, 73% rebate will be achieved this year.

Mr Villeneuve: The minister knows very well that that is building up, and certainly I hope he's right. I am led to believe by a lot of rural municipalities where many employees are at the $30,000 or less that indeed they are being cut very extensively. However, be that as it may; time will tell.

There have been major cutbacks in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Two colleges have been closed down, plus $3 million cut from the University of Guelph. We agree that there's been an announcement today that many dollars are going to spent in new colleges, and I agree that education is very important for some people, although seemingly not too important for people in agriculture.

Would you be prepared, Mr Minister, to renegotiate with New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology and attempt to keep that only college in northern Ontario open? I know you will be meeting with them, if you haven't already. Would you be prepared to look seriously at their offer?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I certainly look seriously at whatever people have to offer in terms of concrete, positive suggestions. In fact, I will be meeting with a group of people from the New Liskeard community in less than half an hour; they are bringing forward, I understand, a number of suggestions. Now, some of them cost a fair bit of money and are not going to allow me to achieve the reductions in spending. I am interested, though, in preserving the research component of the budget that was allocated at New Liskeard, and there are other research stations in northern Ontario that we would like to maintain. We are looking for partnership agreements with commodity groups and general farm organizations and other people who might be interested in helping to fund such activities, and we will be meeting with those committees to try and maintain services to the best of our ability.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In my riding of London South, and I'm certain across the province, there is a concern about workplace safety. There is a need for workers to be aware of health and safety legislation, workers' rights, accident investigation and investigating workplace hazards. This knowledge will enable labour to work together with management to address more effectively the problem of workplace injuries.

Minister, the Workplace Health and Safety Agency certification training program was launched three months ago. Can the minister tell us how training is progressing and whether it is having an impact on Ontario workplaces?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I can tell the honourable member that certification training is progressing very well. Already the first graduates of the program have returned to their workplaces, and labour and management are working together to jointly address health and safety issues; 15 courses have already been completed, including one in London, and 176 other courses are either under way or scheduled to begin soon. More than 200 people have graduated from the program, and the agency expects to train 100,000 managers and workers by April 1995.

I thought that of interest to the member would be the comments from one of the first people to take the course, a manager from a manufacturing plant in the Windsor area. He said that before the course, he had always thought of his worker counterparts as the guys on the other side of the fence. In the course, he said, he learned that now they're not the guys on the other side of the fence: "They're the guys in the same building as myself working towards the same goals."

1510

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario re Bill 38, an amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act to permit wide-open Sunday shopping and eliminate Sunday as a legal holiday:

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

It's signed by 160 constituents, and I affix my signature.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board, at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting, decided to loosen the guidelines for films and videos, for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening will result in permitting some very gross and indecent acts in films and videos; and

"Whereas these acts include bondage, ejaculation on the face and insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of true human sexual activity but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviance; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature to cancel the new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board and dismiss the chairperson, Dorothy Christian, from her position for her lack of sensitivity towards Ontarians and for being dedicated to represent special interest groups more than the taxpayers of Ontario."

I'm happy to support this resolution.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here signed by hundreds of people in my riding, people like Jessie Greig and Marian Miners, concerned about Bill 38.

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

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

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

I affix my name thereto.

DAY CARE

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

"As of September 3, 1993, the region of Peel will stop subsidizing the cost of family home day care for children in the region. This subsidy is provided to parents going to school to further improve themselves, and parents not making adequate money to ensure their children receive good family home care.

"The Peel region subsidizes children with special needs, whether it be medical or developmental. We cannot afford to ignore these children's special needs. It's hard enough in today's society to earn enough money to ensure the necessities of life. With the funding stopped, many people will not be able to afford to continue to work or continue their education. Also, welfare and unemployment again grows. We don't want this to happen."

I have signed my name to this petition.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's signed by a couple of hundred people from Waterloo and Kitchener and area, and I too affix my name to this petition.

SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS CONSERVATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition from a number of people who continue to be worried about the erosion of the Scarborough waterfront, which has worsened since I last presented a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is in the interest of all people of Ontario and all of our future generations to preserve the beauty of the Scarborough Bluffs; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority commenced the construction of a breakwall and roadway to stabilize the bluffs and create a waterfront trail; and

"Whereas erosion continues at an alarming rate in areas where the breakwall is incomplete, thus threatening the safety of homes near the bluff edge; and

"Whereas some homes have already been expropriated due to erosion, at great public cost,

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Natural Resources to make the securing of the bluffs an immediate priority and to enable the Metro Toronto conservation authority to proceed with necessary construction to complete the lakefront breakwall and roadway between Rogate Place and the Bellamy ravine."

I append my signature to this.

HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition which is signed by many patients and physicians in Toronto.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

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

I too have affixed my signature to it.

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I have received this past week many, many petitions from the people of Niagara Falls that were distributed in the last couple of months through the economic development agency in Niagara Falls. It reads:

"We believe that the New Democratic Party government considered legalized gambling in Ontario to revitalize our recession-battered tourism industry and to provide employment. Each year, over 12 million people regularly visit our fine city. Of these 12 million tourists, it is estimated that over 70% of our visitors stay for only one day. We feel that one government-regulated casino would be an excellent attraction to retain our tourists for longer periods. Increasing the percentage of overnight tourists would have a significant positive impact on our economy in Niagara Falls and the region, which would also contribute to the provincial government's increased revenue requirements.

"In summary, we believe that one regulated gambling casino will provide much-needed employment, increase tourism for our existing hospitality industry, provide an immediate and lasting improvement for our local economy and provide much-needed revenue for the provincial government.

"We therefore strongly urge you to support the establishment of one government-regulated casino in Niagara Falls."

1520

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 laboratory 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 CCAT and VLS diagnostic lab located on Centralia's campus."

I have signed the petition.

CASINO GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): On behalf of the member for Hamilton Mountain, I have a petition to members of provincial Parliament. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

It is signed by 337 constituents of Hamilton and surrounding area and I present the petition.

HEALTH CARE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have another petition. To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw the proposal to restrict payment for psychotherapy and withdraw the proposal to allow the cabinet to make decisions with respect to the number of times patients may receive particular insured services and set maximums with respect thereto;

"The government must reaffirm its commitment to the process of joint management and rational reform of the delivery of medical services in the province as specified in the Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

I have affixed my signature to this document.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): "I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

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

It's been signed by people from Stouffville, Uxbridge, Mount Albert, Sunderland, Sutton and Keswick, a good chunk of my riding.

HEALTH CARE

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

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

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

I concur with this petition, which is signed by thousands of people, and affix my name to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading of Bill 25, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I don't have a great deal to add at this time. I think it's a very straightforward bill. We had quite a bit of discussion on second reading, quite a bit of debate among the members. This is a normal procedure for the government to carry out to allow it to do its borrowing. So, with that, I look forward to any additional comments that may come about as a result of third reading.

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

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I did want to speak, I guess rather briefly, on what's called Bill 25, just to remind ourselves that it's a bill, although only one page in length, that authorizes the government to borrow $16 billion to fund its programs.

I think the debate around here has been very much on the spending side, and I thought I might spend just a couple of minutes on the other side of the equation, because if we are going to solve our fiscal problem so that we won't be looking at having to borrow these kinds of moneys, there are going to be two ways we will solve it. One is by getting the spending in order. As I say, that's what the debate here has been mainly around on this bill.

The other thing that we have to do is get the economy rolling. We've heard the expression -- in fact, I think somewhere in the budget it says that the recession is over and that we now are on our way to recovery. I'm not sure I'll be able to find it quickly. Here it is. This is in the budget on page 39. "The recession has ended and the Ontario economy has turned the corner."

I think most people I speak to, at least, and most people out in Ontario don't feel that. They say, "Well, theoretically, it may have ended, but certainly for me it hasn't ended." In fact, as you look at the government's Economic Outlook, which is a useful document, I must say, you can see that the reason why people aren't feeling this recovery is that we have gone through two years now, 1990 and 1991, of a fairly significant decline in what's called the gross domestic product, and then in 1992 we saw a modest growth in the economy.

So even at the end of 1993, if we assume that the government's projections on the economy are right -- and the government's projecting, I think, that the economy will grow around 3%; even if those numbers are right, and I suspect they'll be close to being right -- at the end of 1993, the Ontario economy, in terms of output, will still be smaller than it was in 1989. In other words, we have a significantly larger population in Ontario. We've had not a bad growth in our export business. In spite of that, at the end of 1993, we, as a province, will be producing less than we did in 1989.

1530

That's why I think many people out there are saying, "The recession may be over technically, but for me it isn't." I make a habit of talking to virtually every business person I meet, if not all of my constituents when I run into them. I just say to them: "How's the economy? Are you feeling the pickup? Is it happening?" I don't know what other members are finding, but I can find virtually no one who believes the recession is over and the economy is picking up.

There are certain companies that are doing quite well. Certainly some of our export-oriented companies are doing very well. Our problem is that, to solve our financial problems, we do need to get our spending under control, but somehow we have to get the economy moving. We will not be able to solve our deficit problem unless that happens.

On Friday the employment statistics came out. Frankly, I think all of us were pleased to see the growth in jobs. Earlier in the Legislature, the Minister of Finance pointed out that we did see in the first six months of 1993 a growth of about 77,000 jobs on average. The problem for us is that this 77,000 growth in jobs wasn't enough to even cover the number of jobs required for the people entering the labour force. So we actually saw the number of people unemployed in the province go up in the first six months of 1993.

That's another problem. I talked about somehow getting the gross domestic product growing. But I would say we also have a continuing very serious problem, unemployment; I must admit, not an easily solved one. It is not a problem also unique to Ontario. In fact all of us who followed the G-7 meetings, where the leaders of the seven major industrial countries met, know that was the number one item on their agenda, non-employment.

But in any event, I'm saying we are now halfway through 1993. The government in its budget predicted that the unemployment rate in Ontario, average in 1993, would be down from 10.8% in 1992 to 10.3% in 1993. I would say at the end of six months -- we're halfway through the year -- the unemployment rate has not gone down. It was 10.8% for the first six months, exactly what it was for 1992.

The one bright spot acknowledged is a growth in the number of jobs at 77,000. But as I say, that was not enough to accommodate even those people who had entered the labour force, let alone begin to make a dent in the number of people unemployed.

This continues to be for our party, and I daresay for many in the Legislature, the number one issue. That doesn't mean the deficit and getting our fiscal house in order isn't an extremely high priority, but we will not solve that problem by spending restrictions alone. We have to somehow or other see the climate where more jobs are created.

The one thing that I think is important to continue to remind ourselves of is, whenever we say, "We have to see jobs created," I think historically when politicians said that it meant government spending. "We need to see jobs created. That equals government spending." I think all three parties in the House now would acknowledge that those days are over and that the days when job creation was seen as something that could be done by public spending are finished.

Indeed, I think we all believe that the one in five jobs that are there in the broader public service, the whole issue we've been talking around, the social contract and what not, the number of jobs there, those one in five jobs, actually I think we'll see over the next two to three years fewer jobs in that sector.

Our challenge is clear, it seems to me. It's going to be job creation in the private sector that will be the solution to our problems. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we possibly can to sustain the maximum number of jobs in the public service as long as we can do that efficiently and effectively.

I want to highlight some of the issues around employment. I think we all now know from the budget that even though Statistics Canada unemployment numbers suggest we're around 10.8%, the real number, when you take into account the number of people who have stopped looking -- they're called discouraged workers -- is much closer to 14%. I think it's important to remind ourselves of that number. I frankly commend the government for putting it in the budget document, because it's a necessary figure for us to be aware of.

On page 45, for those people watching or members who are interested in this, it's worth looking at that chart which shows the real unemployment number at 14%. What that means is that we've got up to 200,000 people who have just dropped out. They are not shown in the labour force. They are discouraged, they've stopped looking, but they are still in Ontario. They are people who could be productive members in the labour force but aren't there.

The second thing I wanted to talk a little bit about on the employment situation is that in the last decade really, the growth in jobs has been in the service sector. As a matter of fact, I've mentioned that in the first six months of 1993, there were 77,000 more jobs in Ontario than there were in the same period a year ago. Of those 77,000 jobs, 70,000 are in the service sector.

The challenge there is that fully half of the service sector jobs are in health, welfare and education. I think it's fair to say that we will not be seeing, over the next two to three years, job growth in that area. So if we're looking to the service sector to be the engine of job growth, the private part of the service sector will be, but we should expect in some respects an offset in the education sector and the health and welfare sector, where we will see at best, I think, jobs maintained.

I also wanted to touch briefly on the full-time/part-time employment situation, because underlying the numbers, in behind the numbers, is another disturbing trend, that is, that full-time jobs and part-time jobs are counted equally. If you have a part-time job, you're shown as employed. That shows just the same as would a full-time job.

We've seen in Ontario a very dramatic growth in the number of people working part-time. In 1989, it used to be about 15% of the jobs; it's now 19%. It looks like it's going to 20%. We saw the number of full-time jobs decline by about 300,000 and the number of part-time jobs go up by about 100,000.

I can understand people wanting to work part-time -- for many people that is their preferred employment -- but an increasing percentage of these are what's called involuntary part-time. They are part-time not by choice but by necessity. In many respects, it understates the employment problem, as I say, because of the number of organizations that have converted full-time jobs to part-time jobs.

I think all of us know that at one stage Ontario had far and away the lowest unemployment rate in the country, and we've seen now, in the first six months of 1993, Ontario's unemployment rate, as I said earlier, is at 10.8%. Alberta now is lower at 9.9%, British Columbia lower at 10.3%, Manitoba lower at 9.6% and Saskatchewan lower at 8.7%.

1540

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Everybody's lower.

Mr Phillips: Certainly when the member said, "Everybody is lower," all of the western provinces are lower, and in fact it was I think about a year ago, if my memory serves me right, that for a period of time New Brunswick's unemployment rate dipped lower than Ontario's unemployment rate.

The point I'm making here is the one that we've made before, and that is that, as important as the deficit is, as important as it is to have the battle to fight and fight the deficit, I would argue that there is perhaps a higher priority, and that is how we create a climate where we can begin to make significant inroads into this unemployment situation.

I think it's important to focus on, because in many respects Friday's employment numbers were greeted in some quarters as: "Well, the problem's over. It looks like the problem's solved. We're well on the way to solutions, so why worry?" I would say to the members in the Legislature that I don't believe that to be the case. Unfortunately, I don't believe it to be the case. I think we make a mistake if we take our eye off this issue. I think we make a mistake if we don't make this a higher priority than the deficit.

What are the solutions? Well, I think some of them are at hand. There is no doubt that the whole issue of training and of skills development and having a workforce that is future-oriented is important. We'll be dealing I guess shortly with something we call here Bill 96, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. I think members know that we have some questions about OTAB. I think there's a fundamental flaw in it.

Having said that, I think that somehow or other we have to get on with this whole issue of training and development. I hope it is not as serious a flaw as we believe it to be, because the government is going to go ahead with it anyway; yet I think members know it essentially, in my mind, isolates training and development and lifelong learning skills from what should be a continuum of learning.

It sets up an independent agency, what we call around here a schedule 4 agency, and I think it's a mistake. It has a 22-person board that will make the decisions, and we'll have a continuum and then suddenly we stop and this independent board takes over. I think, as I say, it's wrong. But in any event, we've got to get on with the training. The government has been promising for a couple of years now some vehicles for what are called patient capital investment funds. We should be looking at that.

I think there's no doubt that we have to instill some sense of confidence out there, and if I could fault the Premier on what's been going on in the last little while, I think there's a sense of chaos in the province. I hope that's not too strong a word, but when you have this level of uncertainty, I don't think there's much doubt that people are apprehensive of the future.

I don't talk to anyone who doesn't say: "I have personally retrenched. I have things that I might have done six months ago I'm not doing now, whether it be expanding my business, whether it be renovating, whatever it might be." People are in a pessimistic mood, and we won't get the economy rolling until people have that sense of confidence.

I wanted to touch briefly on the other side of the equation on the bill. We've had, I think, a good debate around this bill on the expenditure side, but I don't think we'll begin to tackle the enormous appetite for borrowing that the government has until we begin to fix the revenue side of it, which is getting the economy rolling. A key component of that is somehow or other creating a climate where we see significant numbers of jobs created, and those no doubt will be in the private sector.

I will conclude my remarks there on this important bill and look forward to further debate and the vote.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'd just like to commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on the breadth of his knowledge in this particular area and on putting facts before us as we debate this very important bill.

As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt pointed out, it's only a one-page bill. At first glance it doesn't seem all that substantial, but we're talking about borrowing $16 billion that eventually will have to come back out of the taxpayers' pockets as we repay that interest and principal.

But the question I'm asked most often by my constituents and by people in this city is: How could we get to this stage when we're having to borrow sums like $16 billion on the flick of a wrist? We remember back to the year 1990 when there was the first budgetary surplus in 20 years in Ontario's history, a $20-million surplus projected for that year. How did we get to the stage now where $10 billion is the accepted norm? In fact, the government is, I believe, with its expenditure control plan and its social contract legislation, trying to get back to -- what is it? -- $12 billion? That is now acceptable as the norm in Ontario; it is not acceptable to me.

I think every member of this House agrees that restraint is in order, but I remember back to 1991, when the NDP government made the decision that it was not going to fight the recession on the backs of the people, that it was going to spend its way out of the recession. They made a momentous mistake that year when they decided not to act with restraint. They created this chaos, they created this problem and today we're having to ask for authority to borrow $16 billion to correct their mistakes. That's unacceptable.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I always enjoy listening to any debate by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He always brings something very cogent to the debate. However, I really would like to comment on any discussion of the Liberals bringing in the only balanced budget in the last 20 years. Let us just examine the circumstances under which that was brought in.

That year, they budgeted -- I emphasize the word "budgeted" -- for a deficit of some $550 million. However, due to a very unusually large and unanticipated transfer from the federal government of $888 million, they were able to show a surplus, but interestingly enough, they showed a surplus of $90 million. In other words, had they not received $888 million, they would have been more in the hole than they had budgeted for as a deficit. In other words, they were involved in the spot-on mechanics of fiscal control that we know this present Treasurer is involved in. That is how approximate it has been.

Let us have no doubt: No party of any political stripe should take any pleasure in the way this government or any other government has controlled the economy, because we're piling up debt for our children. That is unacceptable and we must all say we're going to change this so that our children don't pay for our extravagances.

Once again, when the Liberals are saying how responsible they were, they weren't; it was a pure fluke. We know that in the last election they promised us a surplus; we got a deficit.

1550

Mr Sutherland: To start with, let me say that I concur with the member for Scarborough-Agincourt in talking about how serious a problem unemployment is, because if we are to have a true recovery and if we are to deal with the serious financial situation the government faces, we do have to get people back to work. I think this government's record on job creation in terms of capital investment, in terms of supports through Jobs Ontario Training, in terms of helping single parents through providing extra day care spaces, and a whole range of other initiatives, this government has taken shows that we are very serious about dealing with the unemployment issue.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt talked about how unemployment was recognized as a major issue at the G-7 summit. I must say that I myself was quite surprised to hear our new Prime Minister, having been in government since 1988, finally recognize the fact too that unemployment is a major issue in this country. I'm not sure where she has been for the last five years and what has finally made her come to that conclusion, but it is quite clear that if all the provinces are going to be able to deal with the issue of unemployment, then we do need to have some leadership at the federal level.

I'm sure the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would acknowledge the fact that we haven't seen that leadership in terms of trying to work with the provinces in a coordinated way, whether that's a national infrastructure program or whether that's other changes to the destructive policies that have created a great deal of unemployment, in this province particularly.

The fact is that the federal government, while this province has suffered the most and was starting to suffer even before we came into power, has not seen fit to ensure that Ontario receives its fair share in terms of trying to deal with the issue of unemployment.

Mr Bradley: I was very pleased to hear the speech of the member and I wanted to mention to him that the only absence I found in the speech was any reference to blue box funding for the Niagara region. I know the member is very concerned about that, because it says in the St Catharines Standard:

"The province's silence on its two-year-old offer of funding for blue box recycling has eight Niagara municipalities bristling with anger.

"The municipalities, including Niagara-on-the-Lake, Lincoln, Pelham, Grimsby, Niagara Falls, Welland, Port Colborne and Wainfleet, have received no word from the province since early February when they wrote a letter inquiring about the funding status, said Welland's environmental services engineer, Don Cook....

"Hanging in the balance is $284,000 in 'enhanced' funding the province offered in 1991 to help pay the cost of municipalities' blue box programs.

"The province is also holding back another $568,000 that would help defray their blue box costs to the spring of last year.

"The situation" -- as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would know -- "has left the eight municipalities -- all members of a regional 'recycling club' -- feeling 'completely frustrated' with the province's Ministry of Environment and Energy....

"'We are frustrated right down to the nth degree, added Wainfleet's treasurer, Al Guilier.

"The enhanced funding package -- the most generous of its kind offered anywhere in the province -- was put forward by the ministry in 1991 as an incentive for all 12 Niagara municipalities, including St Catharines, to reach an agreement to work together on blue box recycling."

That's why I was complimentary of it at that time. Being fairminded as I am, I said, "Here is a good package being offered." I just anticipated that having offered this, putting it forward as an incentive, the government would follow through.

Now I find, to my disappointment and to the disappointment of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, that they have not heard from the province. Perhaps through my intervention this afternoon we will hear something from the ministry in the near future.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, you have two minutes.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comments of all the members. I had planned to get to the point the member for St Catharines was raising, but I think the House is anxious to get on to debate some additional bills shortly, so I had to omit that.

I just want to comment on the point the member for Oxford raised, and that's that one of our problems is -- and I think maybe it's a problem that's particular to Canada, or at least we seem to dwell on it a lot -- with our three levels of government, we all tend to blame some other level. It's convenient. But I would say to the member for Oxford that the one thing you can't dispute is that Ontario did have the lowest unemployment rate, by far, and now we find that there are four provinces with a lower unemployment rate. So whenever the Premier says, "It's free trade and it's the policies of the Conservative government in Ottawa," I say that certainly free trade has had an impact, there can be no doubt about that, but how can it be that we've gone from the lowest rate of unemployment to the fifth lowest rate?

One of the other members raised the issue of the spending and the surpluses and what not. We'll be into endless debates about this with all three parties pointing a finger at each other. The only thing I can do is to take the independent Provincial Auditor -- this is an individual and an organization that is independent; I don't think any of us have ever questioned their objectivity. They did say that Ontario's had only one surplus in 20 years, and that was the year that ended March 31, 1990. So that's the number I use, and I would defend the auditor's objectivity on that and that's irrefutable.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few brief comments with respect to this loan bill, which is Bill 25, which was introduced in May 1993, and second reading was just recently given, I believe last week.

This is certainly a routine borrowing bill which, it has been said throughout, "authorizes the borrowing of up to $16 billion...for the consolidated revenue fund." I'm reading from the explanatory note of the bill. "It is expected that the public capital markets and the Canada pension plan will be the principal sources of funds," which, of course, troubles a lot of people, when you hear that the Canada pension plan will be the principal source of funds, particularly when this debt will ultimately have to be paid back.

The other interesting thing with this bill is that the authority expires at the end of December 1994, which I believe is a little longer than what these bills normally take.

This year, the New Democratic government is seeking authority, as was read in the explanatory note, to borrow up to a maximum of $16 billion on the credit of the consolidated revenue fund. It has been said to some extent, but I'd like to emphasize exactly where some of this breakdown is because I think it's useful to know that before we vote on the bill.

The actual borrowing requirement for 1993-94, from information we've received, is projected at $11.4 billion. That's the actual borrowing requirement for the forthcoming year. Of that $11.4 billion, that's composed of $6.1 billion for the operating account, $3.1 billion for the capital spending, $1.1 billion for alternative financing arrangements in new loans, and $1.1 billion for the refinancing of maturity debt. Then there are retirements in the current year which are projected at $1.1 billion.

Every once in a while you hear politicians and non-politicians philosophizing on the deficits that keep increasing in this provincial government and in the federal government, at all levels of government, and of course there are new pieces of legislation that are now going to allow municipalities, school boards and hospitals to also have deficit funding. In other words, the expansion of debt is going to increase, and I think that concerns people.

We look at the general confidence of the public in this government, which is now seeking legislation to borrow a maximum of $16 billion; a very strange time to talk about that, particularly when we've just passed Bill 48, which was opposed by both opposition parties and a smattering of New Democratic members. This government has lost the confidence of the entire union movement across this province. It has lost the confidence of small business. I don't even know who their friends are.

1600

When you start looking at the philosophy of how we finance things, every once in a while people suggest that maybe we should keep a lid on things, that maybe we shouldn't be spending so much, that there should be substantial reductions. I'll tell you, it's hard to talk in this House about agreeing to a bill to borrow up to $16 billion when the lack of confidence has simply disappeared. I know that this government and the federal government, all governments, are saying that the recession is over. Well, I don't know; I don't think it's over. There are still a lot of people losing their jobs. The very fact that we're putting forward legislation such as Bill 48 and Bill 50, which is going to have a major effect on the health system in this province, shows that this government is convinced that the recession is not over.

Yet it continues to spend, wild spending programs. I give one that has troubled me since I've become elected in this House, that is, the housing policy of this province. I'm not going to let you forget about it. I'm not going to let you forget about the fact that in Ontario we're going to be hitting a billion dollars in annual operating subsidies -- a billion dollars -- in just two more years, when Queen's Park just put forward a budget that we've never seen in this province, that I don't think any provincial government has ever seen, a budget that has just shocked everyone from all levels.

We're looking at all of these financial matters, and then all of a sudden -- well, not all of a sudden; I think the bill was introduced on May 19, but it's been sitting there until last week, when we started talking about this bill.

There is the recession going on. There is the continued wild spending, and I give housing as an example. I give the unbelievable waste going on in the health system; there are critics for the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party who know much more about that topic than I, but clearly there are unbelievable examples of waste in our health system. Yet the fear that's been generated with Bill 50 is another example that certainly the entire medical profession does not have confidence in this government.

Looking at the confidence in this government from within and the confidence in this government from without, would you loan substantial amounts of money, whether it be bonds or anything else, to the province of Ontario? It's been made clear to us from people in the bond business that unless this government is able to demonstrate more than what it's been doing with respect to fiscal management and restraint, it's going to have a great deal of difficulty in selling more bonds with respect to the province of Ontario.

The Ontario budget has just terrified people outside this province. Bill 48 has just terrified people outside this province. Can you trust a government that unilaterally breaks contracts, opens up contracts that have been negotiated, hard-fought in negotiations? I know Bill 48 is law, but we're looking at the series of bills that go back, and I could reiterate the various expenditures and the increases in the budget not only in taxes but in fees. When you add it all up, they are just making it more and more difficult to invest in this province. And I believe the $16 billion is the most that this province has ever floated with respect to a loan act.

People in this province and outside this province are terrified with respect to the loss of their jobs, the loss of their homes, the loss of ability to maintain the family unit because of the economy. I know the government doesn't have the full blame for that. There are probably a whole series of governments, the federal government, the municipal government and the provincial government, that are the cause of the unbelievable bureaucracy that's been increasing more and more over the years.

The province's total direct debt by the current fiscal year-end is projected at $78.6 billion. That's at the current fiscal year-end; that's what the debt will be in this province, $78.6 billion. That's $7,638 per capita. That's up from last year, $68.6 billion, so it's increased roughly $10 billion in a year.

I know the government's trying restraints. I know the Treasurer and the Premier are standing up in this House and saying that they're cutting. I know seriously that there's a small group among the front bench that has pushed Bill 48, and somehow they got their backbenchers to support it. But just keep in mind, the wild spending is continuing, and I give the example of the housing policy, which I don't really think we can afford to get into.

You can say it's like a broken record, hearing this topic from me over and over. Almost every time I stand up in the House, it's to criticize this government with respect to its housing policies. But facts are facts, and yet you're coming today for third reading to ask authority that this province can borrow up to $16 billion. I don't know. The confidence in the government has reached an unbelievably low ebb with respect to Bill 48, and the people are getting more and more cynical. Now, of course, you're coming forward and saying, "We must have $16 billion."

Over the past decade, Ontario debt levels have increased by 161%, while debt per capita has increased 126.3%. Over the same period, by comparison, personal income per capita has increased only 53.5%. So what the government is doing and what we're doing as individuals is not even close; personal income, what people are making and putting in their pockets, is substantially lower than what this government is spending.

Our debt is increasing and increasing, and it's not just the New Democratic government. It's the Liberal government and probably, if you went back far enough, it would be the Conservative government. The question is, how are we going to stop all this? The government that's in power has an obligation to make a greater effort, certainly greater than what you're doing, to stop the increase in debt.

In the fiscal year 1992-93, the government of Ontario borrowed a total of $16.6 billion in a wide range of markets, including its first venture into the global bond market, with a $3-billion US issue in January 1993. Under the government's midterm fiscal plan, the budgetary deficit will be reduced over time; however, the province's debt level will increase -- and this is a projection -- from $78.6 billion currently to $90.1 billion by 1995-96.

That's about the time that the New Democratic Party will be calling an election, and you're going to have a hard time explaining what you've done to this province on this issue alone, aside from all the other policies you've been following. You have no support from any of your friends. The labour unions, which have traditionally supported you, have gone. They're not going to support you.

I don't know what the government's going to do. I don't know whether it's continuing to spend and to let the debts increase. They're saying, "We must all share; we must all have substantial tax increases," which we received in the last budget.

Then the Premier, of course, says, "We're going to have to also do something with our civil service." Yes, the Progressive Conservative Party agreed with that, yet it is rather ironic to watch all of the members of the New Democratic Party in this House support Bill 48, a bill which opened up the contracts which probably many of them negotiated themselves. Many of them were part of the negotiation of many of those contracts. It's a very strange world we live in.

1610

Then we have to look at Bill 17, which is still on the record to be passed, and that of course is the creation of new crown corporations. One of the things that Bill 17 is going to do is to pass on the management of the province's financing and debt management plans to be assumed by the Ontario Financing Authority, a new schedule 4 agency with the responsibility for implementing the government's new capital investment strategy. In other words, the debt of this province is moving over to this new crown agency, yet Bill 25 says that we need to borrow up to $16 billion. It's very strange. Those two bills seem to contradict.

Of course, with Bill 17, what used to be called grants in this province, particularly with the school boards and the hospitals, are now loans. They are now owed. Any moneys over $1 billion, with respect to the hospitals, are now owed to the new crown agency. The Ministry of Health has said, "We'll pay that on your behalf." But do you trust them? Do you trust a government, particularly a government that's just passed Bill 48 that has simply broken contracts? These are very strange times we're going through, and I do ask the members of the House to consider the conflicting aspects of moving the debts of the province of Ontario not only to these crown agencies but to the hospitals and the school boards and, most of all, the municipalities.

I believe the Treasurer and his assistants and his advisers looked back and said: "We're at our capacity, so where else can we get credit? Well, we can get credit with the municipalities." And that's exactly what they're going to do.

The New Democratic government, when it was in opposition, used to chastise the Liberals for downloading. What the Liberals have done was nothing compared to what you're doing today in passing on the debt to the municipalities, the hospitals and the school boards, absolutely nothing.

I'm getting letters constantly, as I'm sure members of this House are getting. People are simply wondering how in the world they're going to operate their school boards and their municipalities. In Bill 48, there's an example with an amendment that literally surfaced in the final hours of the debate of Bill 48, as short as it was to debate in this House; one of the most important bills in this House and we hardly had time to debate it.

I know I'm varying slightly from the topic of a loan bill that is asking permission to borrow, but it does get back to the whole issue of confidence, as to whether or not people are going to invest in provincial bonds from outside and within.

I'll tell you, the bills are coming fast and furious, and all the rumours flying around in this place today are that the bills are going to fly around even faster and more furious. We're going to see time allocation on bills that we've never seen before. When you people were in opposition you would have pulled your hair out in absolute horror at what is being planned to ram through the half dozen to dozen bills that are going to be put forward in this place with very little debate.

In any event, my concern is with respect to the fear of the school boards about how they're going to operate. A news release came out from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and another one came out from the Peel Board of Education at about the same time as we were voting on Bill 48, and they had to do with the amendments. It was an amendment to section 33 of Bill 48 which would allow unions to unilaterally extend the terms of existing collective agreements until the end of the social contract period. We all know that collective bargaining --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We are not debating Bill 48 today, and the member is debating Bill 48. Can we stick to the subject we're to deal with?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I want to remind the honourable member that we are dealing with the money bill. I would certainly like him to stay on topic.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, you're quite right, that I am talking about Bill 48 and I am talking about collective bargaining, or what used to be collective bargaining in this place. I'm also talking about confidence to invest in the province of Ontario, because that's what this bill is all about, that we need money, we need $16 billion to make this place work, and we're going to be going out and having bonds. Quite frankly, as has been indicated, unless you people start showing some restraint and some good fiscal management, you're not going to get your bond investment, you're not going to get your loans, because no one's going to invest in this province.

I can tell you that it affects the whole fabric of our society, whether it be education, whether it be municipal, whether it be health. I mean, the member's quite right; I'm talking about Bill 48, which has already passed. But I'm also talking about confidence, and I say I have every right in this world, in this House, I would hope, to speak on the topic of confidence and how it is being completely lost. No one wants to invest in this province. Everyone's afraid of the power of the unions. Everyone's afraid of the disappearance of the small business. Everyone's afraid of this philosophy of this government, that this government thinks it can do everything for all people, and they're finding out that they can't; hence, the passing of Bill 48.

They've suddenly reversed their stance. What did they do with their first budget, their 1991 budget? They said: "We're going to spend our way out of this recession. We're going to increase the deficit from $3 billion to $10 billion." That's what the Treasurer in this place said, and I'll tell you, he has now reversed his position, and we're all paying for it. Everyone in the civil service is paying for it; everyone in private enterprise is paying for it. They're political and philosophical policies that aren't working.

The school boards are very worried because the school boards have said that there is no way for school boards to absorb the social contract cuts unless they're free to negotiate with unions during the social contract term and to cooperatively find ways to make the social contract cuts and other reductions in the province's transfer payments to education. They're saying, "We can't make it work." So the member's quite right: I'm talking about Bill 48. But I am going to be referring to Bill 48 until you're turfed out of office, because what you've done to this province is absolutely disgraceful.

I would just like to refer to a couple more points with respect to, again, people who have written me expressing their lack of confidence in this province. I'm just going to refer to one letter. I know it'll get the ire of the member, but he's going to have to bear with me because, again, the intent of reading this letter is to show how more and more people are losing confidence in this government and there's no way that they're going to be preparing within and without to loan to the province of Ontario $16 billion, notwithstanding the fact, from our information, they're going to need $11.8 billion, I think, although they're asking for $16 billion.

This letter came from a member, someone in my riding. I won't give their name, but it came from the Mansfield area. They talked about their dismay with respect to Bill 48.

"The costs are only being deferred for three years. If the civil service is able to do their work in 12 fewer days per year, why not get rid of the excess employees now? Instead, there will be the same number of employees in three years as there are now" --

Mr Huget: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We are debating Bill 25, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and not Bill 48. That member persists in debating Bill 48. I would ask that we deal with the bill at hand.

The Acting Speaker: The member does touch on relative information pertaining to the borrowing, which is part of Bill 25. The member will please resume his participation in the debate.

1620

Mr Tilson: I quite concur that Bill 25 consists of four sections and one page. It simply says they want the permission to borrow $16 billion for the consolidated revenue fund, which is going to spend all of the foolish policies you're getting into in the forthcoming year. I have every right to speak on all of your anticipated goofy plans you have to destroy this province, including Bill 48. Where was I?

My letter that came from my constituent in Mansfield was concerned with the costs being deferred for three years. He indicated: "Instead, there will be the same number of employees in three years as there are now, at which time they will receive their 6% back along with all their lost experience pay. This will probably cost whoever is in power at that time an increase of close to 10% to 15% in one year." So the debt is going to increase, and it's going to be one awful mess in 1995 when these people leave office. This person is quite right.

He says, "Pare the excesses now," which was the philosophy of Mike Harris, our leader, when he put forward a number of amendments to Bill 48, none of which were accepted by this government, none of which were even mentioned by this government as being adequate to support the way in which the Progressive Conservative Party would recommend the cutting back of the provincial debt.

The person goes on by saying: "We all know that there are excesses in the system. The government should be reducing its budget by tackling these problems now, not by deferring them to another government. Make the school boards more efficient. End the duplication of busing, audio-visual, psychiatric services, trustees etc by combining or amalgamating boards in the same region. Cut some of the frill programs to keep the students in the classroom instead of out on numerous field trips and sports activities. Merge the hospitals and have every hospital specialize in a few treatments instead of every hospital possessing expensive equipment for all areas of treatment." This individual went on, and those are some of the suggestions he made.

I have a pack of letters that heavy of people who are making recommendations, and I'm sure the same letters are going to members of the government and all members of this House as recommendations by the members of the public as to how costs should be cut down. Yet the future seems to be, with Bill 25, that we're going to continue to spend. We're going to spend at least $16 billion, and that is unacceptable.

Mr Bradley: I wish to speak briefly on this bill, which deals with the borrowing of funds in Ontario for various purposes. One of the areas where I think there's a good deal of concern about expenditures by government and whether they're sufficient or not is in the area of the provision of justice.

Members of the House will be aware that the people of St Catharines, and indeed I suspect of much of Ontario and the country, have had a focus of attention on what is happening in terms of the justice system in our community.

I have had a large number of calls, as have other members of the Legislature, about the provision for justice in our province, about the adequacy of the justice system to deal with issues that are before it. The expectations that the general public in my area have of the justice system and how it is appropriately being funded and operated are certainly many.

I can tell members of the House that there is a good deal of concern, there's a good deal of anger and there's a good deal of anxiety about the justice system and whether it is operating appropriately. We had a decision which was rendered last week by a member of the judiciary, and that decision has certainly had a marked effect on people in our community, a large number who have contacted constituency offices and others to indicate they are dissatisfied with the dispensing of justice in this particular case.

Also, there has been concern expressed about the suggestion by the Attorney General, Ms Marion Boyd, that the media and not the public are angry about events surrounding the trial in St Catharines relating to the taking of the lives of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy and these have provoked frustration and disbelief on the part of a number of people in my constituency. So I can convey to the members of the Legislature that this concern is genuine; it is not simply the concern which is expressed by the news media, but certainly by residents in my area.

I want to indicate that I believe that there are many areas within the justice system where the lack of adequate resources has resulted in those who are involved in prosecutions having to deal with those prosecutions in a way they would prefer not to. In other words, the court system can accommodate only so many people in terms of the trials that are held, in terms of the cases that proceed. Because of clogged courts, because of a lack of adequate resources to deal with these matters, in fact, it has been a practice for people to engage in various kinds of plea bargaining and other discussions between the defence and the prosecution to reach some kind of accommodation whereby a trial can proceed, and it may or may not influence the proceedings with another trial.

I would say that the people in my part of the province would want to see adequate funding from this bill, which allows for the borrowing of, I believe, $16 billion, given to the police forces in this province to deal with crime and to the justice system to deal with the various trials that are before them. I know I express the views of my constituents. I share with the members of the House the views of my constituents.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check for a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for St Catharines can resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Bradley: The Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, who is sitting in the House today, I know would probably be appreciative of the fact that there is considerable support for any initiatives that he and his ministry might wish to undertake to expand the opportunity for police in this province to be able to fight crime. He holds both the positions of Solicitor General and corrections minister and I would suspect that if sufficient resources were available for the Ministry of the Solicitor General, not as many resources would be necessary for the ministry of corrections.

I did, in the brief time that I have available to me this afternoon, want to share with members of this House the very genuine anguish of people in the community of St Catharines over happenings related to the Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy killings and ultimately the judicial action which has taken place since then, and for members to know that's a very strong feeling in our community, and that I believe there is very considerable support for providing those resources to police forces and to the justice system so that the expectations that people have of our police forces and their ability to fight crime and to conduct investigations and the expectations of our people as to how the court system should work can, in fact, be realized.

1630

Mr Sutherland: I want to thank the two members for participating in the third reading debate. As I say, I think we've had a very extensive discussion in second reading.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt brought up the issue of unemployment, and as I said in response to that, this government is very serious about dealing with the issue of unemployment.

I think I would disagree with some of the comments made by the member for Dufferin-Peel and just say once again that in terms of dealing with all the economic issues that this province faces, cooperation and partnership by the federal government in ensuring that Ontario, being the largest province and having traditionally been the largest contributor to the economy -- that their partnership and willingness to work with the province in trying to get people back to work and help all of us solve our economic issues would go a long way in improving the situation for everyone and I think also, in the long term, ensure that this government wouldn't need to borrow as much money.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Mr Sutherland has moved third reading of Bill 25. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

I do resolve that the bill do now pass and be proclaimed as in the motion.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Scarborough North, I believe, had the floor.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Well, no, I'll be starting my debate, Mr Speaker.

If there is any important bill that has passed through this House that had its first reading and that has been awaited with such anticipation, it is this Bill 79. It has been watched by many hoping that it will bring into place the necessary requirements, that the designated groups that are identified in this bill would have some of the injustice be addressed. So I take this opportunity to speak on this bill at length, and I hope too, as I address this bill, that it will be adhered to and listened to in a manner where the government of the day would see the necessity of the concerns of all the individual groups there.

We know that this concept of employment equity -- that's what Bill 79 is all about. If we go back in history, not too far back, Judge Rosalie Abella in her royal commission report in 1984 coined the term "employment equity." Although it's quite appropriate in some respects, I have some sort of concern about the term itself. I think that employment equity on its own will not bring about the kind of equities that are of concern to the designated groups. Employment equity on its own will not do that; we'd have to have other equity in the system of access so that people who are employed would be able to be recognized for some of their abilities there.

I recall some time ago -- and I'm not too long a member in this House -- when we were in government at the time and the Liberal Party was addressing the concern about employment equity. I recall my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt, the Honourable Gerald Phillips of the day, putting together consultations and hoping to bring forward some rather effective employment equity legislation. That, we found, was quite complex and took some time for the consultation process.

Later on, the other minister, Bob Wong, had taken on, from Fort -- his riding doesn't come to mind --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Fort York.

Mr Curling: -- Fort York. He also addressed that concern. The mantle was then placed on the current minister. I would say she and I have had some consultations and discussions, and I've come to appreciate some of the things that's she doing. I've also come to appreciate the fact that if she was maybe given the kind of tools to do the job, we'd have had better legislation and better regulations coming forth.

I say this with authority, and she would appreciate that, that having come to know her over the years, I think she has good intentions -- I think I said that at first reading -- but I don't think she got the cooperation from her colleagues in cabinet to bring something that is worthwhile for us to address the great concern that the designated groups identified here could have had.

When we were government and the then leader of the party, now the Premier of the province, the Honourable Bob Rae, brought forward a private member's bill -- as a matter of fact, many of us thought this rather bold in the things he wanted to address there -- this private member's bill provided for the legislation of employment equity for women, people with disabilities, native people and visible minorities. In that private member's bill, I recall that he had imposed fines of $100,000 to $200,000 for first and subsequent infringements on the legislation. These were tough and forward-moving decisions he had made.

He said also in that bill, the bill would have applied to all employers in the private and the public sectors that have payrolls of over $300,000 per annum. So when the government came into place and the then leader was put in place, in great anticipation, I thought it was easy then -- that was in 1990 -- to use as a premise the private member's bill and from that expand accordingly. That was in 1990, as I said. We didn't hear anything about employment equity of any substance until about 1991, when I think the minister of the day announced some consultation process.

Again, of course, you, in your own right, in your own ideology, wanted to consult the people in the community. We waited and waited and alas -- and I'm sure the minister of the day was very anxious to bring her employment equity bill forward, but what happened? It was not until June 1992 that we saw the first semblance of an employment equity bill.

I should tell you, I was extremely disappointed about this, because having waited so long, the legislation was rather weak. We could not even comment on it, because most things were left to regulation. The definition of the things and the action that will be taken were left up to regulations. So at the time, again, with the patience of the Liberal Party, my party, we waited.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): You were asleep at the switch.

Mr Curling: We fell asleep because there was nothing in the first bill for us to put our hands on to say, "Is this employment equity?" We were told that regulations would be forthcoming, and "Consultations are being done at the moment in order to bring about good employment equity legislation and regulation."

It was not until a year after, June of this year, that the regulations came about. Again we were extremely disappointed, because having read the regulation itself, I found it rather vague and rather incomplete. Some of the issues that we had hoped would give some light, some definition, some substance to the legislation are still not there.

1640

Of course, as you know, the regulation was released outside, so we had no time to debate the regulation. Today gives me that opportunity to address some concerns. I will then come later on to talk about some of the areas of the regulation which we are not happy with one bit.

We know that the purpose of the bill is to achieve equitable representation for women, natives, disabled persons and visible minorities in all job levels throughout the workplace by eliminating discrimination.

A rather interesting thing about which I expressed some concern earlier on is that the francophones were excluded from this. It is unfortunate that they were excluded from this Bill 79. I know that, of course, in employment equity for the public service the francophones are included, but I am disappointed that it was not addressed here in this one. I understand that at a later date some legislation will be in place to address the francophone employment equity aspect of the bill.

The fact is that I had hoped too that the francophone representative in the caucus of the government would have spoken out loudly about the inequities here in regard to the francophones, but we didn't hear a peep out of him.

Hon Mr Pouliot: What am I supposed to do, beat them up?

Mr Curling: He may have said, should he beat them up if they are -- it seems to me he's indicating then that he must have spoken and somehow they did not even listen to him. It's unfortunate, because the Minister of Transportation, who is a francophone representative, expounds in the House when he's asked questions in the House, defending his ministry, sometimes adequately and most of the time not sufficiently to justify the questions we ask in the House.

I presume that if his performance is the same as he has defended the Transportation ministry, I would say the francophones are not properly represented then and are not being heard at the cabinet table. Hence, I'm not surprised at all that the francophone community is excluded out of this. I don't intend to see any progressive legislation in defending the francophone situation. I'm disappointed that's not in the legislation.

People in this province and in this country have waited so long for things to be addressed or their concerns to be addressed in a tangible manner. They have seen failures of equity situations addressed in the Human Rights Commission from the point of view that the backlog that is there has shown justice is being delayed two to three years, which falls under the same minister; as I say, under the same minister.

It is unfortunate that people who are waiting to have their concerns addressed would have to be waiting in the same respect with this legislation that we see here. We're going to see backlog. We see a big bureaucracy. As a matter of fact, what I see from this legislation is a creation of a bureaucracy. In the minister's own words, "at a cost of about $31 million," to create this Employment Equity Commission. Those are the figures, Madam Minister, that I've heard and seen from your presentations.

What's going to happen is that the backlog will be very much there too. I want to warn people out there who are looking forward to this employment equity bill and this legislation coming into place that the first case that would ever come about, I assume, will be somewhere in about three to four years' time. Before anyone can bring any cases of employment equity concern before the commission, as you know, it may be 18 months or two years after this legislation is in place, and that was said from 1992. Now it's 1993, we are now in second reading and we have seen a regulation that is pretty weak in itself.

As a matter of fact, let me speak a little bit about the regulation from a processing point. I understand that in the process, when the regulation is being introduced or presented to the committee, it will be there as evidence, but we cannot amend it.

This is a very important piece of legislation, one of the most important pieces of legislation that may have come through this House. Human rights legislation is very important legislation. None of my colleagues on the opposite side are able to make any amendments to that regulation, which we see at the moment as pretty weak. It's unfortunate that when it is presented in the committee, we are only able to use it as a reference. That's not good enough, Madam Minister. If you are progressive and your government is progressive, I think you should put that regulation there for us to put our amendments forward, because we would have many, many amendments to this regulation, if that would be accepted.

I hope that even when it comes forward for acceptance, when it comes forward to the committee for any assessment, it will not be done like Bill 48, where we'll be pushed for time allocation. Then if we have regulation amendments, what will happen is that we'll have to take your amendments as read. I'm sure you will have amendments to your regulation. Hence you call it your draft regulation. You will have amendments to that regulation, and you know perfectly well why that is so. Many of the interest groups today are telling you that this is not a good regulation, and furthermore, it doesn't even strengthen the weak legislation you've put forward. Therefore, amendments will be coming forward as soon as they put pressure on you, and I hope you respond and bend to the pressure or the concerns of those groups. Their concerns are very important and very legitimate.

The difficulty we have with this NDP legislation begins with the stated purpose of the bill, which is to ensure that every employer's workforce, in all occupational categories and at all levels of employment, reflects the representation of each of the designated groups in the general population. You know that is impossible to achieve, because employment equity isolated just in the workplace, or equity alone, cannot bring about that kind of representation. You have to make sure that the other equity aspects are being dealt with, such as in the colleges, in the educational field, that those things are being looked after.

There is a definition I want to quote from here which is very important. In this report, which I'll come back to later, of the Task Force on Access to Professions and Trades in Ontario, there was a submission made by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, speaking about what role the government should play, and I quote:

"It is the public policy of the government to provide all persons in Ontario with equal rights and opportunities and to facilitate their full contribution to life in Ontario. The right to equal opportunity must be balanced against the right of members of our society to be confident that the services they receive, particularly in matters which involve their physical wellbeing, are rendered by qualified and capable individuals."

1650

The concerns people are talking about, merit itself, would be really addressed, because it is the responsibility of government, all governments, to make sure that the potential and the abilities of the people are being recognized in all aspects, through professional organizations, through the educational institutions. Therefore, when they arrive in the workplace there will be no question about merit.

My point, Madam Minister, is that you have to make sure access is being looked after in the professional field before we start to legislate employment equity, because there are many, many people now who are qualified but not recognized. As stated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, it is the responsibility of the governments, whoever they are, to make sure these things are looked after.

That is why the Ontario Human Rights Code is such important legislation. I read from what it states here, which is so important to the discussion. It said in 1981:

"The Ontario Human Rights Code plays an essential role in any full consideration of the rights and concerns of individuals trained outside Canada and attempting to gain access to their professions or trades in Ontario.

"From our perspective, a review of human rights legislation in this province is significant in two ways.

"First, some disappointed candidates who seek admission to or certification by a profession or occupational association rely on the code's provisions for remedies. It is therefore necessary to consider how the code is being applied and whether the mechanism is satisfactory.

"Second, although the issues raised in relation to foreign-trained professionals and tradespeople attempting to enter the Ontario workforce can be characterized in large part as employment issues, a human rights dimension clearly exists. The Human Rights Commission was created along with the code and charged, among other things, with the duty to forward the policy that the dignity and worth of every person be recognized and that equal rights and opportunities be provided without discrimination that is contrary to law."

The fact is that there are people in our community who are systemically being discriminated against and are being shut out of that system. You have to deal with that. Bringing about legislation like this not only insults what the people are fighting for, but it should make sure they are looked after in those institutions and recognized for their qualifications.

The argument is that if you discriminate against an individual because of where the individual is trained, it is a discrimination against origin; that debate has been made in the Human Rights Code for a long time. Some have been failing, but I think as soon as they continue to knock at the door, they will win the case about discrimination against origin and the case can be made.

The point I'm making, Madam Minister, is that having employment equity like this in isolation is extremely ineffective. It will not resolve the problems we have in the workplace.

We believe employment equity must guarantee equal access to employment opportunities and of course it must be free from arbitrary obstruction. We have to deal with all the barriers that are there.

We in the Liberal Party oppose the use of hiring quotas. As soon as the government hears "quotas," it runs for cover. It's funny that they didn't do that in the past, because they were talking about quotas; our good friend Mr Silipo used to speak about quotas, and we can show you evidence of the time he talked about quotas. Now they don't talk about quotas.

The legislation fails to clearly distinguish between what they call "goals and timetables" and quotas. We know that the wide-ranging powers that have been given to the employment commissioner and the Employment Equity Tribunal make the imposition of quotas a very real possibility, because if you ask an employer to put a timetable and goals of what they want to accomplish and who they will employ, eventually it moves into quotas.

But of course they will dodge that. I remember the minister being asked about that in the House, to define that. If I recall, she said something of the nature that if an outside group imposes a number on the employer, it becomes a quota, but somehow, if they are determining goals and timetables themselves, it's not a quota. Eventually, what happens is that it evolves into a quota situation. As they would say, you can run but you can't hide from the fact that it is a quota situation. We are against quotas; we want to make that very plain. Become very explicit and define what you mean by quotas and timetables and goals.

We know too, and you may have noticed it, that this legislation puts a great emphasis on paperwork. We know the bureaucrats who have drawn this up are expert in that. A whole lot of forms and details and a lot of paperwork will be involved. Just think about being an employer: They'd have to be making out all of these paper reports. The emphasis here seems not to be on people; the emphasis seems to be on paper, to make all of these reporting processes. Again, the fact is that the people who want the equity aspect to be addressed are not being addressed. The public is left wondering if employment equity becomes a numbers game.

Our party feels that Bill 79 is very much overbureaucratic. In order to comply with the proposed legislation, Ontario employees will have to deal with a massive amount of detail. Just to comply with the regulations will require employers to allocate much of their limited time and resources to administration, when maybe they could direct their resources to training, another aspect. The employer will be called upon for extensive record-keeping. Of course, it will take away the employer's ability to provide development and anti-discrimination programs which they could concentrate on.

As I read the regulations, they talk about the role assigned to bargaining agents. I think the role you're assigning to bargaining agents will make it more costly and more complicated, especially where there is more than one bargaining agent. For example, just imagine where there are four bargaining agents, unions, in one employer's jurisdiction; therefore, they would have four different people at the table representing individual unions. The employer would then have to assign four people from within his group to sit at that table too. Of course, those who do not belong to the bargaining unit, non-union people, are not represented at the table. I think it is said in the regulations that they will be consulted. I feel that they don't have proper representation; I don't see why they themselves could not have people at the table. But again, it is to bear more favour to the unions themselves, and I think people outside of the unions should have a moment, an appropriate time, to be at that table.

1700

The legislation fails to clarify or clearly explain what is meant by "joint responsibility." I couldn't find out what that means, and that joint responsibility is for implementing employment equity. The reason I point these out is because I hope the minister will change her mind about the draft regulations and that we will get an opportunity to make changes and make amendments to the regulations.

I know just going through this in detail is rather boring. The human part of it is the part that concerns me, because the fact is that we see this, and as I go through the regulations in the legislation and I see where the people and the issues are not addressed properly, the people want to get down to: "How can we participate in this province? We have ability." How can we get around from the fact that people are accusing those who want an access, an entry into the workforce, are being regarded that they have no qualifications when in the meantime the government itself is inefficient and incompetent in looking after those other concerns?

The legislation does not provide time frames or even guidelines for the resolution of disputes.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I do not believe there is a quorum present in the chamber.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Shall we ascertain if there is a quorum in the House?

Acting Table Clerk (Mr Franco Carrozza): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is present. I recognize the member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: I'm glad there are more people coming in to hear the concerns of the people of Ontario on this long-awaited bill.

As I said, one of the many concerns we have is that the legislation does not provide time frames or even guidelines for the resolution of disputes between the employer and the bargaining agent. If an employer and a bargaining agent cannot agree on an employment equity plan, it is said that the matter is to be referred to the commissioner, and there's no guideline with respect to how long this commissioner may take to resolve such a dispute.

Earlier on, I mentioned the long wait that people seem to almost get accustomed to in the Human Rights Commission and other areas and the courts, that justice is being delayed and so therefore their justice is being denied. But again here we are not having in the regulation to say when and how much time will be taken by this commissioner to resolve this dispute.

I want you to just think for a moment about the human aspect of it, because whenever we're dealing with legislation it seems to be rather abstract that this individual, who out of concern made an address to the Human Rights Commission, and the Human Rights Commission may feel that it is not something that they should address because it has an employment equity aspect to it and refers it to the Employment Equity Commissioner. The Employment Equity Commissioner takes his or her time, which is not legislated or stated in the regulation, and then they wait again. These are people who have lost their jobs, they've been denied promotion, and they have not been a part of that process, who are waiting for this bureaucracy to get its act together for a long time. Therefore, justice being delayed again is justice denied.

People are very sceptical. They don't believe that this government, or governments as a whole, are dealing with the issue of equity.

The role assigned to the commission and the tribunal I feel will lead to the creation of the same kind of backlog that we see all over, and I ask the minister again, seeing that they refused us to make the appropriate amendments to the regulation which would have taken care of that, to look at that to find out how best we can address that issue of that long delay that always seems to be confronted by those who are putting their case before those commissions.

The commission, it's said, has been given the job of policing thousands of Ontario businesses with little direction in terms of how to perform this function. I gather that those who are brought into this process are about 80% of the businesses, all those who have more than 50 employees. Therefore it's a huge job, and I'm just wondering who's going to police it. Of course you will say the commissioner or the commission will police it. I don't know how they're going to do this. I know of course you're asked to make a plan and then you're asked to submit a certificate after that plan. So people could be violating the act all along, even violating their own plan and people are being shut out, and there is nothing that is descriptive enough to tell me how you're going to police that. What is particularly troubling is the absence of any kind of time frame for any of these activities. It's not there.

A part that was rather interesting in this, Madam Minister, is that the commission will also be responsible for human rights complaints that involve an employment equity plan, which I mentioned earlier on. This duplication, at a time when your government has come in here and talked about social contract and saving all this money: You have a Human Rights Commission that is empowered to do the things that it should be doing about discrimination, and then you're going to set up another bureaucracy outside of that, which you say you deny, at $31 million, which is completely unnecessary and could be carried out by the Human Rights Commission.

As a matter of fact, which I will get to -- maybe I should mention that immediately. I would like to just bring to your attention, Mr Speaker, Achieving Equality. When they talk about the reform of the Human Rights Commission, as a matter of fact the idea that I'm giving you is no new idea, no new idea one bit, the idea of looking to reform the Human Rights Commission to make it more efficient.

I know you recall the Cornish report, Mr Speaker. As a matter of fact, if I hit mine, there's no dust on it. If I ask the minister to hit hers, I'm sure there's dust on it. Not a peep out of this minister since this report has come out to say whether or not what she has paid for out of taxpayers' money to reform the Human Rights Commission to address inequities in the system, which she asked for, and none of the recommendations have been addressed. None. Not even looked at.

1710

I asked the minister at one stage if she had an opportunity to read this.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Have you?

Mr Curling: I have read it in detail. Some of the things in there I don't agree with, but some of the things in there I feel make a lot of sense. One of the things in there that makes a lot of sense to me talks about what the task force recommends. "The task force recommends that a permanent, full-time equity rights tribunal be established to deal with human rights, pay equity and employment equity cases."

This is saving. When that government over there talks about saving, here is an area that you don't have to establish a big bureaucracy called Employment Equity Commission again. Some of the issues and the concerns that you're talking about could be addressed through this tribunal, but the fact is of course that these task forces are being commissioned just to keep the people quiet for the time being, "Because we're studying it."

Now the study is over. If you don't like this, Madam Minister, what you should do is call in Mary Cornish and tell her and tell the people that the recommendation will not be followed, or some are good or some are bad -- but all that money to waste. I emphasize, not that I agree fully with these task force recommendations, but there are things in here that could help you to save money and stop wasting taxpayers' money by creating this great Employment Equity Commission that will not get anywhere and will take four years down the road before we even address any of the concerns.

I feel, of course, that the people are living in hope, feeling that it will be addressed. It will not be so. So I ask you and I plead with you for those who are shut out of the system: Strengthen the Human Rights Commission, "strengthen" meaning give it the resources that it needs. It's good law. I read it earlier on to tell you how important the Human Rights Code is and that it can use that kind of force, that kind of legislation to deal with the inequities.

I can't see how the Employment Equity Commission will be responsible for human rights complaints. Let me take you through this, because you can identify with that. An individual comes before the Human Rights Commission and that individual has some concerns, so he puts his case forward. The Human Rights Commission looks at it and tells that individual, "I think it has something to do with employment equity, although it has some human rights concerns." They pass it over to this commission, this bureaucracy. The bureaucracy looks at it and the tribunal looks at it and they say, "We want to see if the people have made any reasonable effort." Again we don't know what "reasonable effort" means. They wait and they wait, no time frame, as I said, and "reasonable effort" is then considered: "Yes, I think that employer has done his or her best to address the plan they put forward there, but you may have a human rights case. Take it back to the Human Rights Commission."

Give me a break. This individual who has either been denied access or promotion, then has to wait for the case of the human rights with a huge backlog -- three or four years sometimes is the wait there -- tell me, is that justice? Is that fair to those individuals who have been shut out of the system so long, and then to address this you set up a bureaucracy of $31 million and still the case cannot be -- all you've done is passed it around with some paperwork. That's not fair.

I appeal to the government and I appeal to the minister. The Minister of Transportation asks me what more he can do. He's spoken to them and he didn't get the redress of the francophone community. I say to every backbencher, just as you were whipped into shape with Bill 48, some of you to tears because you don't believe in it and still voted for it, why don't you use some sort of principles now and say, "I believe in the human aspect of it and this will not work"?

Weak legislation is worse than having no legislation, because what you're going to do is make believe that this legislation is effective, and it is not. It drags them through a process of years, just to find out if an employer has addressed the concerns of its equity plan. It's not good enough, because women cannot wait any longer, the visible minorities that have been shut out cannot wait any longer, the disabled community waiting for access cannot wait any longer for the bureaucracy to be set up.

Today I heard the minister for trade -- what's the new portfolio? They keep changing it. Ms Lankin had announced about having new curtains being bought as a job creation program and thought that was a huge announcement in the House today, while people are waiting with the qualifications and have been shut out of the process. I appeal to you, the backbenchers there, that if the ministers around the cabinet table are not making any progress on this, you can make some progress on this, because I know that you are all honourable and intelligent people -- I hope -- concerned, compassionate, caring and understanding that people want to have access to employment and are being denied because these barriers are put up.

I spoke of barriers in this House many times. I addressed my concern to the Minister of Labour, who is supposed to bring a law into place about all of those employment agencies, some of which continue to discriminate. He promised, but alas, we saw and we continue to see no progress and no indication that he will do so.

You're bringing this legislation in and saying to us, "We are progressive," with the words of the minister who says she's delighted to share with this House one of the most progressive pieces of legislation that goes nowhere or a progressive commission that will address the concerns that will take years --

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Where was employment equity from 1985 to 1990?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Your colleagues did you in from 1985 to 1990.

Mr Curling: Some of the colleagues on the other side will speak loudly about, "Where were you?" or "Where was the Liberal Party?" Let me tell you: If we ever entrenched this into partisan rhetoric over there, you know what would happen? The people who are shut out will continue to be shut out and bureaucracies created.

The fact is that some of the studies that are being done -- let us adhere to them. As I speak without any partisan leanings, if we did neglect the access report, the task force on professionals and trades, and then this government comes into place and has the opportunity to applaud, which it did, this study and said it would implement it, my God, if the Liberal Party did not address it, why is the government not addressing it today? Have they fallen into the same rut? Are they catering to interest groups like the unions that, on the basis of this, have found out --

Laughter.

Mr Curling: -- as they laugh a bit -- that there are some things where you cannot only have basic interest groups you cater to as a government, but you serve all people, regardless of the interest groups? Because when we look at how they have addressed the issue of employment equity in regard to the trade unions, which I will discuss later on, that is another matter.

1720

I can remind you, if you have forgotten, that the construction industry is exempt from this employment equity, saying it is too complex.

Hon Ms Ziemba: No, it is not.

Mr Curling: The minister shakes her head and says, "No, it's not." I hope, in her response, that the construction industry is a part of this.

Furthermore, Mr Speaker, just to inform you, and I know that you know, but it's such an important part of the legislation that has been violated, you know the seniority rights are protected in the employment equity bill here for the unions. Are we going to address equity in a fair manner or are we just going to make sure that when negotiations go on with employers, with the unions, certain tradeoffs happen? Maybe Madam Minister will explain to me if there are any tradeoffs that went on with the unions there.

This bill only deals, as I mentioned earlier on, with employment equity in the workplace. It doesn't touch on any other thing, as I mentioned, about access to schools and education and training, which is an extremely crucial part in ensuring that people obtain the requisite qualifications to enable them to apply for their choice.

You may recall, Madam Minister, as I bring to your attention, Vision 2000. It talks about how important the role of the colleges is. It talks about implementing educational equity, because to bring this in place in isolation of educational equity is not making any progress at all.

It states here, "Providing equitable access for diverse communities means reinforcing the colleges' commitment to equity, strengthening their community development focus and identifying ways to increase participation of a wide range of students, both adults and youth, by being flexible, innovative and open to change as possible."

It is important that the access is there. My background: As you know, I spent 14 years at a community college as a director of student services responsible for orientation and graduation. Seeing the students come in from the time they spent their two or three years through the process, I have watched programs that have limited certain individuals from coming in. I have watched people who were forming a line -- take for example, if we don't deal with the systemic discrimination, we aren't going to address the issue of equity.

For instance, I will give you a story. I was standing in a line one day at the college. A young man from Trinidad of Asian extraction was standing in the line and he was in the ESL program line. I asked the young man what he was doing in this line for the ESL program. He said, "I was told by my instructor," or the course director, "to form that line to take his course, take English as a second language." I asked the young man, "Is English your first language or your second language?" He said, "English is my first language." I said, "Why are you lining up here then?" He said, "I was told to join this line because that is what I should get in order to do my first year of five credits."

To explain, let me tell you what happened about systemic discrimination and perception, because you see, this individual as I said was of Asian extraction, and they felt right away that he didn't speak English, that English was his second language. I have seen cases of students who have taken English as a second language -- a waste of his time or her time. I'm telling you, we have to address those concerns in the colleges about who comes into what, what curriculum we have, what programs they are placed into. Having the legislation of equity in the workplace alone will not help.

I just want to quote one aspect from Vision 2000. It talks about quality and opportunity. It said, quoting from it: "We have included in our proposal mandate for the Ontario college system a commitment to education equity which has been defined as follows: Educational equity involves the identification and the removal of systemic barriers to the educational opportunities that discriminate against women, visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, people living in poverty or members of other groups which have been identified as being underserved with respect to their needs for post-secondary education. Educational equity also involves the implementation of special measures and the application of the concept of reasonable accommodation when these are necessary to achieve and maintain a student group which is representative of the communities it serves."

What we find is that even in the educational institutions, it is not reflected when it comes to the courses. The fact is that putting the burden on the employer to say, "You must employ this group or this group or that group," when in the meantime there are discriminatory practices and systemic discrimination happening in the other areas, in the areas of the educational institutions, in the areas of the professional associations, which was an extensive study, which again the government refused to implement -- this itself would release within the employment field many people who are professionally trained and many people who are able to perform and be worthwhile as individuals in our community.

Denying that is denying the presence of human rights. So I say to you, Madam Minister, if you yourself could work much harder in implementing the task force on access, you would be almost at the door to have better employment equity in the workplace, because what you would have done is you would have released qualified people, where the professional organizations have controlled for a long time who gets in, and who can be of service to the community at large.

I mentioned earlier on about the guarantee of union seniority rights. It effectively ensures that the promotion within an organization would be sealed off, that it's going to protect all those union jobs, a matter of seniority. Thus, the bill only addresses access in the workplaces and not access in higher-level ranks within an organization or company. Can you imagine, they invite you home and they tell you, of course, that you can come on downstairs but you're not allowed to go upstairs.

It is unfortunate, and I will bring this to you and I want you to see the relevance. Many times, the decisions are made in the upstairs area where the higher level of the bureaucracy or the higher level of the importance of the organization is. Once these people are pressured down in the lower level, they cannot be meaningful. They have no self-esteem because they feel basically that they don't have a rightful place, even with their qualifications.

Many, many people who have these qualifications are prepared and ready to serve, as they could. Therefore, I say to the minister that the protection of union seniority rights conflicts with the objectives of employment equity, as it constitutes a barrier to mobility within the organization.

You know, at first when I had seen the legislation, I spoke to the minister and she asked me for my comment on it. I said, "At a glance, it looks like an admirable and positive bill, but upon scrutiny, it's apparent that it guarantees very little to those it should be serving."

1730

What the designated groups need is legislation that, when it is applied, will produce the real change that is so long awaited. It needs teeth in the legislation. When we didn't see it there, you said a regulation would bring that forth. I am concerned that depending only on the regulation is telling us that they are not really serious about employment equity. That is why the legislation is so weak and you left everything to the regulation.

Those are only some of the reasons I couldn't support this employment equity legislation that is proposed by the NDP government.

My colleague Gerry Phillips, when he was the Minister of Citizenship, worked pretty hard to bring about strong legislation. We are committed to employment equity, but we are not at all supportive of weak legislation and poorly drafted regulations. This regulation is cumbersome, unnecessarily bureaucratic and contains too many vague or very ill-defined provisions.

Let us take the example of section 12. It says: "Every employer shall make all reasonable efforts to implement the employer's employment equity plan and to achieve the goals set out in the plan in accordance with timetables set out in the plan." Let me explain how I understand it. I think it is understood in this manner: You ask an employer to look at itself and take a survey within its group and take the survey that is comparable to the area that has been submitted to the organization, and say, "Make a plan and tell me what you can do." You say, "Well, I can do this in five or six years," or in three years or whatever the case would be.

Then there will be a re-examination if a case comes about in that employer. Then this commissioner will see if they have made some reasonable effort, which of course is not defined. It is not defined what "reasonable effort" would be, unless of course the minister is going to come forward later on and define and put some time frame into that process.

This phrase has little meaning; empty wording which lacks legal meaning. Hence, I strongly believe, unless you can convince me otherwise by amendments to the regulation, that it will mean real change, what is really needed in this society.

Of course there were a lot of fears in the community, especially among the employers, who felt it is going to be quite onerous; the employers really feared that what is going to come down will be impossible for them to implement. Again, though, the regulation seems to put a tremendous cost on the employer.

The required survey is based on self-identification. I have a little problem with that self-identification. The results of the survey will be obviously skewed, as you know, if an employee refuses to respond to the survey, and they can do that; they can refuse to respond to that survey. While employees are not required to answer the questions, they must return the questionnaire to the employer. If you have a form and it asks you in your workplace to say whether you're a man or a woman, to say whether you're black or white, to say whether you're whatever, disabled or not, and you refuse to answer that but send the questionnaire in, the count then cannot be whether you're francophone, because you did not put it in, so the survey will be rather skewed. You must address that, Madam Minister, to find out how you're going to deal with that.

There are no penalties for non-compliance. I did not see that in the legislation or the regulation. There is definitely an emphasis, as I said, not on people but on paperwork. It lacks that. It lacks the fact that, how are we going to address the concerns of the people?

In regard to the employment equity plan, and I'm looking at part IV, it requires employers to set -- and I mentioned it earlier on, and the minister got rather edgy about that -- numerical goals for representation of each of the designated groups at every level of the workforce. Well, I could have read the minister wrong; maybe she's comfortable with the fact that there are numerical goals they must have.

The employer is required to look at the composition of the working age population -- again, they have to put in the working age of that population -- which is in a particular geographic area in order to develop these goals. Again, if that person in your organization did not put their age in there, it could skew the statistics.

We are concerned that it is up to the Employment Equity Commissioner to determine whether or not an employer has made this so-called reasonable progress in fulfilling that goal I spoke about earlier on.

I did mention about the biased way in favour of organized labour. I want you, Madam Minister, to take a very close look at that and see if we're favouring the unions in this respect. I spoke about the seniority rights there. It seems to me, and you can correct me later on, that unions are given approval rights at every step of the process set out in the regulation. When I read it, in the event of a deadlock between an employer and the union, the matter is referred to the commission.

This will prove costly and time-consuming, especially as there are no time frames. I asked you earlier on to keep in mind the individual who's waiting for all of this to be resolved while their job is at stake, their mortgage is at stake, their kids' education is at stake; an employer did not adhere to the legislation, and they're waiting for the commissioner to see if it has made any reasonable progress.

I mentioned, and I want to emphasize it again, that it is public policy of the government to provide all persons in Ontario with equal rights and opportunities to facilitate their full contribution to life in Ontario. I want to spend a little time on this, because this is the part that really troubles me. I am upset, if I dare say, that the long wait of all those designated groups, the long wait they've had to see that they would be addressed appropriately, has now been denied because of weak legislation and very weak regulations. It seems to me that we're more concerned about dealing with the unions and more concerned about paper process, and those individuals who are here, who have been locked out of that process, are then waiting again for that.

1740

I've known people who have come to my constituency office in Scarborough North regularly. Every Friday I go and I know every member in this House has had people come to him or her and speak about the fact that they're being discriminated against in different ways: age, origin of their birth, their profession, where they were trained, and somehow they feel that governments over the years have not addressed that issue.

I applauded the government when it was moving on pay equity, and then when I look closely, they haven't done very much. They have postponed when this will come into place. Again, of course, and I say this very strongly, when this bill was passed in this House, pay equity, where it was addressing equal pay for work of equal value, had lost its definition along the way and only dealt with one designated group: women.

The fact is that now we set up a Pay Equity Commission that is skewed to be gender-specific, and other people who are being denied equal pay for work of equal value are looking forward to this bill, where they will address the inequity and find again you have come short.

So here we have a whole bunch of commissions and equity commissions being set up, and still you're not able to include all. The anti-racism strategy that you set forth: You have met once, I gather, at the round table, and I presume the discussions are going round and round but nothing is being done.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That's an easy cliché. That's not fair.

Mr Curling: The minister stated in the House it had met once, and they wait and they wait.

The disabled community is completely concerned that somehow it has not been addressed there. It has not been consulted one bit about the fact that, as I said, the anti-racism round table strategy or what you call it --

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- you people believing all this.

Mr Curling: Those who sit at that table are extremely dedicated people who want some change. But I will tell them, don't put your hopes up in this process. It will not address the concerns because it will be left, just as the access report that has been done and not implemented, just as the Cornish achieving equality report was never looked at by the minister. She has yet to confirm that she has studied it and responded and looked at it in a sense that she will address the concerns here and either say that it's good or bad, or 10% of the recommendations are good, but nothing is done.

Just as the same anti-racism group of people, dedicated, loyal, concerned, committed people, will sit around that table thinking they're going everywhere, anywhere, and just as the round table, the discussion will go round and round.

It's against the law to discriminate. There are so many employment equity officers within the public service and what have you all over the place that what we have done is created more bureaucracy. But I just want you to look within the system and see how much progress has been made. If I am saying I have no faith in that anti-racism committee that you have struck, it is because of experience, experience in the things that you have done and that people have waited so long to have their concerns addressed. So your employment equity legislation here that has waited so long, that you were so ready, it was very, very discouraging to find out it had no teeth in it.

So I have no hope in that. I find, of course, it's a piecemeal approach. The comment, as I said, was chosen with respect to equity issues. The word I would use here is "appalling," and I need not go over why I think it's appalling. I've shown you some of those studies that have not been addressed.

Let me again address to you some of the concerns of my constituents, and I use them as an example because I am confident, I am sure, that you're getting the same type of constituents within your riding, those who are coming before you and saying, "Somehow I don't see that I am progressing in any way." They're losing their home, and when you sit down and talk to them that they have no homes and they're losing their homes and what have you, they get into it and say, "I've been denied to participate in this community."

To deny people to participate is at great cost and a great lost to our society: cost in the effect that of course our welfare costs will go up because the people are denied work, and dehumanizing because the fact is they don't feel their self-worth. "Here is a society to which I want to contribute, and they won't let me in. They tell me about the systemic discrimination. They tell me that I don't have Canadian experience," or, if they are disabled, that there is no access to the place, or that somehow people take the point of view that they will not intermix properly in that community, and we know that understanding of culture is an important aspect of it.

I just want to address the fact about education versus enforcement, because we all feel that if we educate our society we would solve all our problems. Let me tell you, I never once ever believed that we can wipe out racism. As long as we have human beings and as long as people have power over the other, we will have people who feel that they can be racist to another group because of power itself. But of course we can all work here towards eliminating, as much as possible, racism. So if we educate people, I think that will be reduced considerably. But we must have tough legislation and enforcement to find out the violations of those people who violate the Human Rights Code so that they can be fined heavily, and if, as a matter of fact, some people continue to do this kind of stuff, if they require a licence, their licence can be suspended or the fines be such that they would find it impossible to conduct their illegal act of discrimination.

As I said, I'm not convinced that we're going to wipe it out, but we as legislators have that privilege, that power, the opportunity to make legislation effective, to bring about changes. In the meantime, having legislation without education is a meaningless thing. It's going to be rather costly.

So we must have each in its place, but education must continue. That's why when we try to have human rights carried on, whether as an advocacy or an enforcement commission, whether we have to put the resources there to educate our masses, they can have a better understanding and a better acceptance of people. It runs from the aboriginal people, who are our first nation people, who are even denied their own full participation in our society, to the immigrants who are coming from different parts of the world, who bring a rich culture and professional skills that are so needed in this society.

1750

As we open up our walls and our doors and expand our economic base to Mexico and the United States, to exclude other people is a costly process for us. So while we educate, if we do find those people who are then denying those opportunities, I emphasize that education is not enough. We have to have strong legislation. That is why I feel that your legislation here, being so weak, will do more damage to the process while people bring their hopes up. It comes at a time -- we can't talk about it in a recessional time because we have to be rather careful about how we spend our money.

As a matter of fact, now is the time to do it or the backlash will be very bad. This is not a threat itself, but the backlash will be very bad. Crime goes up because people are frustrated. There are times when people will undergo an economy that is not even beneficial to the government because it's not reaping its taxes. Families break up because of that.

As we throw our partisan lines across the floor, it's not helpful. As we create legislation and make legislation, we must go beyond the fact of getting away from the rhetoric, "the first in history," "the first province ever." Those things are not important. The importance is that we address the concerns of the people.

As the member for -- her riding slips me -- mentioned, it's a comfort. They don't need comforts any more; they need legislation. They need practical legislation that in itself will bring about concrete changes that bring people the self-worth they will produce, because people who are not working and people who are denied access cannot contribute to the economy, cannot contribute to their self-worth. We have seen it. We have seen it all over the world where people have been shut out.

I have visited many countries. When I was in Germany, when I was the Minister of Skills Development, looking at their apprenticeship program and finding out how the Turks were working along with the Germans there, one of the biggest problems they were having there was an understanding of the Turkish culture and way of life. What has happened is that we see the results today. They did not take enough time to do that and the backlash is of great cost to the people in Germany or in Berlin today.

We have a country with many immigrants. We say this is a country of immigrants. But we talk about recent immigrants who brought skills here. I regard this country as one of the greatest countries in the world. What can we do? We can destroy it by having poor legislation as we have here. We can destroy it by having people be denied to participate. If we don't seize that opportunity now, we're slipping into a rather terrible condition where you'll be dealing with some of the social issues that are extremely costly.

My children were born here. They are still asked, "Where are you from?" Somehow the education itself -- they feel they have to prove themselves more into our society, into their country. As I said, education is important. People carry that further, not asking you where you're from, but denying your right to work. Studies after studies have shown that they have been shut out of the workplace. Studies have shown that employment equity cannot stand on its own. Studies have shown that you cannot address only equity in the workplace, but you have to address equity in aspects of professions and equity in the academic institutions, because of the people in need, and the employer needs to pull from a resource that is qualified.

Quickly, I just want to address some of the backlash we have seen in the past. Take, for instance, some of the firefighters' areas where they have shown that the only persons who were accepted within that institution in certain areas were white males. Something must be done, because it is peculiar that we feel only white males can fight fire. But that wasn't the problem. The problem was the fact that those who were there were employing their brothers and their uncles. Therefore, we've got to break that down. The fact is that we do have qualified people in other ethnic groups and in another sex, females, who can fight fires just as well as white males. They are qualified too. So these are just symptoms of what is happening.

The last point I want to address, and again, I will address it head on, is the fact that when employment equity was coming in, the sceptics were saying: "I'm a white male. I will be denied jobs in the workplace because it's going to be skewed in order to give them to the designated groups. As a matter of fact, they will not be as qualified as I am."

I want to see a law in place that will treat everyone fairly. Those designated groups are not asking for favours; they're asking to be treated fairly. When you take compromising positions with unions on seniority, you have weakened the law. They're asking, as I said, to be treated fairly, that when a black male or an Indian female or a disabled individual comes for a job, he or she is judged according to his or her ability. Provisions must be made for that access within that workplace. They're not asking for special favours; they're asking that barriers that are systemic in nature, discrimination, be cleared. They are saying the responsibility lies with the government to make that happen, and the government is not doing that. When the government got an opportunity to do that, what it has done is brought about weak legislation, bad regulation, which makes it worse. As I said, in closing, a weak law is worse than no law. I urge my colleagues to address that to begin with.

We are ready to cooperate. I and my party are ready to cooperate to amend that regulation. If you think we don't mean it, say it to me in your response, Madam Minister. Say you're prepared to put the regulation in committee for us to amend it, to make it a better law for you. If you want the praise, you can take it. It doesn't matter. Take the praise that you were the first government in this province to bring about employment equity legislation that is progressive, with the cooperation of this party. I'm sure my colleague in the third party is prepared to have the best employment equity legislation, but as it stands, we cannot support this legislation because it does not go far enough to make sure that all concerns are being addressed.

The Acting Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1759.

12 juillet 1993