Journal des débats 1993-nov-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): After enormous public outcry, the NDP government finally agreed to do a certain impact study, even though a limited one, of ferry fees in eastern Ontario.

Lawyer Brooke McNabb was appointed to meet with the public and prepare a report for the minister. I understand that Mr McNabb has now submitted his views to Mr Pouliot. However, nothing has been made public by the ministry as yet.

I call on the Minister of Transportation to release Mr McNabb's report at once, so the people in eastern Ontario can judge for themselves whether this report does indeed reflect what was said at the hearings and, more important, what recommendations he's making to the Minister of Transportation and to the government.

The ferry fee issue is a very important matter that won't go away by keeping it under wraps, Minister. You made the mistake once already of proceeding without consulting with the public and without letting them know. Don't repeat the same mistake twice.

Minister, I call on you to release Mr Brooke McNabb's report at once and to let the people of eastern Ontario study the matter and discuss it, so that they can continue to have an impact and an input into the decisions of the government.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Delegates to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture's annual meeting, presently in progress, have been discussing a range of agricultural issues. There is much to consider and of concern. Whereas agriculture was ignored by the Peterson government, it has been under outright attack by the NDP.

There is much discontent and disappointment. Tonight, Mike Harris, the leader of the Progressive Conservative caucus, and my colleagues will have the opportunity to hear directly from the OFA delegates.

The Ontario agricultural budget is less than it was in 1990. Had all ministries been subject to proportional cuts, we would have no budget deficit right now. The NDP has frozen farm property tax assistance, which the Liberals actually tried to dismantle. Government red tape, taxes and procedures are choking our food producers. Workers' compensation rates are up.

Bill 91 will further squeeze low farm incomes. Small farm processors will automate to create fewer jobs because it doesn't pay to hire. The Minister of Labour was told in no uncertain terms at the OFA cabinet panel last night what it thought of Bill 91.

Government initiatives are now an incentive to smuggle tobacco. Environmentally safe energy from waste is not acceptable to this government, but the loss of farm land to dumps is. There is precious little sense left to this government. It's a serious situation. Food producers need support.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Continuing on from the beginning of telling people about some of the programs we had -- I started a couple of weeks ago -- I'd like to continue with some of the programs about violence against women.

The NDP government supports zero tolerance of violence against women, and since taking office the government has supported this commitment with significant funding and program support. Our initiatives now span government.

A women's centre in a community may be the first place where a battered woman feels safe enough to disclose her situation. The NDP government has begun stable, annual core funding of $50,000 for each of 22 women's centres across Ontario, more than $1 million total, so they can operate without fear of closing.

The NDP government made the $30 million a year wife assault prevention initiative a permanent program. In total, the NDP government spends almost $75 million a year to prevent wife assault and over $20 million to prevent sexual assault.

Some examples of NDP government spending to prevent wife and sexual assault:

Transition houses and family resource centres provide emergency residential services for assaulted women and their children. There are 99 such facilities across Ontario.

Community agencies provide counselling for these women and for male batterers. Funding is available to make services more accessible to aboriginal, immigrant and racial minority women and women with disabilities.

I'll continue on my next time up.

BRUCE RUTLEDGE

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): This past Saturday evening I attended a retirement party for Bruce Rutledge. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food would be aware of his retirement. Mr Rutledge was one of those dairy inspectors whose employment was terminated as a result of the minister's decision to eliminate onsite inspection.

The event was filled with mixed emotions. While all present were pleased to offer their congratulations to Mr Rutledge for 30 years of distinguished service to the farm community, we also knew that this man should not have been forced into retirement at such an early age by the Agriculture minister.

As well, during the event, which was well attended by persons involved in the dairy industry, it was obvious that not all is well on the farm, so to speak, on the matter of reduced inspections.

Farmers are upset that the minister did not consult with them before making the cuts, and they still feel uninformed about the impact. Many do not even know how many inspectors are truly left to help them. They are also waiting for the minister to follow through with an earlier promise to add one or two inspectors in eastern Ontario.

PHILIP DORVAL

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): First-class firefighter Philip Dorval, a 21-year veteran of Mississauga's fire and emergency services division, is one of seven Ontario firefighters who were decorated this year with the Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery.

It was an honour for me to attend last week's ceremony at Queen's Park where firefighter Dorval received his medal from Lieutenant Governor Henry Jackman. On behalf of the residents of Mississauga, I am happy to congratulate firefighter Dorval and express our admiration and gratitude for his service to our community.

Firefighter Dorval received the Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery following his heroic rescue of a woman and her two children from a blazing house in the middle of the night. After he rescued the mother and the baby, the front of the house was completely engulfed in flames. Even so, firefighter Dorval climbed in another window where he found an unconscious four-year-old girl. Tragically, the child later died in hospital.

Firefighter Dorval undertook a daring rescue without concern for his own safety. However, this modest man refuses to take credit for his heroism, saying it was teamwork and all in the line of duty.

Events like the rescue for which firefighter Dorval received his bravery medal remind us that it takes a very special person to be a firefighter. At this time, I would also like to thank all of the other Mississauga firefighters who risk their lives in order to save ours and are always there when needed.

1340

WHITBY SKILLS TRAINING CENTRE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Last week I had the honour and the privilege of attending the opening of the skills development centre in Whitby, an affiliate of Durham College.

To those who spread doom and gloom about this government, they should have been there that day to see the enthusiasm on those people's faces and, having spoken to them, to hear the joy that they expounded as they go forward in a new career.

I had the opportunity to speak with the president, Gary Polonsky, during that occasion and I said to him that the problem in Durham East, in my riding, is that an awful lot of people who want to go to university can't afford to go because it costs too much to travel and it costs too much for the accommodation. Mr Polonsky said to me, "We can make Durham College a university without it costing the government a penny."

Today I stand in my place and appeal to my colleagues in cabinet: Let's make Durham College a university. Let's do it. It's not going to cost any money. The people I represent will have the opportunity of getting a university education without the horrible expense of travelling to a university somewhere else, the cost of renting accommodation and being away from their families. This gives ordinary people in my riding a chance to get a university education. When my career is over here, I look forward to doing that in the Durham university myself.

HATS FOR HUNTERS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I want to bring to the attention of the members of this Legislative Assembly, and particularly the Minister of Natural Resources, a practice that appears to go against all the principles of job creation that are espoused here.

I have here in my hand a hat that is given to Ontario hunters in exchange for bear, moose and deer hides which are used by our native leather goods industry. That in itself is a good practice and one I am sure all members support. However, the hats that our hunters are given in exchange for these hides are made in China. That's right: China.

This has incensed a great number of hunters in Ontario. In fact, Paul Weese, a concerned hunter from Northumberland, was outraged at the thought of an Ontario government buying hats made in China to give to Ontario hunters. He rightfully asks: How does this create jobs in Ontario and how many jobs? Is there not anybody in Ontario, or even Canada for that matter, who can supply these hats? The Minister of Natural Resources has cut back drastically on staff, whether it be conservation officers or ministry field staff. How can he justify these cuts to Ontario residents and purchase hats from China, subsidizing workers there?

So, with hat in hand, I would ask the minister to stop this practice now and find a made-in-Ontario solution.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 47

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Last week the NDP shut down the debate on Bill 47, the photo-radar bill, and instituted a flawed process of committee hearings. This Legislature is being forced to vote on this bill today and the committee is being forced to deal with the technical review of the bill in a mere two days.

Given the barrage of letters and phone calls that I know the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and the Attorney General have received, I find it offensive that this government is refusing to allow public input. I urge the government committee members to support my motion for meaningful public hearings. A reluctance to allow public input demonstrates that this government will stop at nothing to impose its latest money-sucking scheme on Ontario's taxpayers.

If the primary selling point of photo-radar is not its potential for revenue generation, then the NDP can take the time to address the public's concerns in meaningful public hearings rather than ramming this legislation through in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

Failure to hold these hearings sends a clear message to all Ontarians that this government does not care about safety but is motivated first and foremost by the pursuit of cold, hard cash.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Decisions made by this government, decisions that will in whole or in part affect the people of the province of Ontario, are made with the greatest amount of consideration to all of the facts and information available. The short-term and long-term effects of any particular piece of legislation are also considered.

Bill 48, better known as the Social Contract Act, 1993, is a case in point. Bill 48, An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program, was not embraced by the public sector unions, to say the least.

Given the serious financial circumstances that the province has found itself in because of a worldwide recession and ensuing private sector unemployment and related revenue shortfalls, it became absolutely necessary to manage expenditures, the largest part of which are salaries and benefits of employees in the broader public service. The Minister of Finance asked to negotiate a $2-billion saving not out of desire but because of necessity.

The very difficult decisions made by the Premier and the Finance minister as they grapple with the province's finances to find the right balance from time to time will not be popular. The intent of this bill is to save jobs, not eliminate them, and to do that by negotiating a reduction in salaries and by other cost-saving measures.

In the short term, it has been unpopular to many of those affected. In the long term, it will be beneficial, not only to those affected, as it reduces the chances of layoffs, but it ensures that the services so much in demand during these difficult times are maintained now and in the future.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

SPECIAL REPORT, OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table a special report of the Ombudsman on the cases of Mr E.F. and Mr S.M. I would invite all members to welcome the officer of the House, the Ombudsman, who is seated in the Speaker's gallery, here to present her report.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TENANT PROTECTION / PROTECTION DU LOCATAIRE

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I am pleased to introduce today a residents' rights bill to extend tenant protection to residents in unregulated care homes and apartments in houses.

Right now, not every tenant has the same rights under our laws. Some tenants have protection, others do not.

Il y a des milliers de locataires qui, jusqu'à présent, n'ont pas eu droit à la protection assurée par les lois de cette province. Dans de nombreux cas, ils ont souffert inutilement en raison de ce manque de protection. Ce groupe de locataires comprend les résidents des maisons de soins non réglementées, des maisons qui offrent un logement locatif et toute une gamme de services de soins et de services de santé, et les locataires qui vivent dans des appartements aménagés dans les maisons privées et qui sont présentement illégaux dans la plupart des régions de l'Ontario.

There are thousands of tenants who up until this point have been denied the protection of the laws of this province. In many cases, they've suffered needlessly because of this lack of protection. This group of tenants includes the residents of unregulated care homes, homes which provide rental accommodation and a range of care and health services, and tenants living in apartments in houses, which are currently illegal in most parts of Ontario.

Today, I am introducing legislative amendments to a number of acts to end this inequity. Our government believes that all tenants should enjoy equal protection and security under the law.

Most of these amendments reflect the key recommendations of the Lightman report, which was an inquiry into unregulated care homes conducted by Dr Ernie Lightman. The results were outlined in his excellent report, A Community of Interests. I'd like to take a moment to introduce Dr Lightman to members of the Legislature. He's accompanied by his very proud daughter, Naomi. Would they stand.

1350

Care homes are not licensed nursing homes, nor are they formally registered or regulated as licensed nursing homes. Right now there are at least 47,000 adults living in these homes across Ontario, mainly frail, elderly people, as well as former psychiatric patients and people with developmental difficulties.

In his investigation, Dr Lightman found that care home residents are very vulnerable to abuse ranging from arbitrary eviction, unsafe living conditions and inadequate care to lack of privacy, sexual abuse, and other problems relating to health and personal safety.

Because they provide an element of care in addition to providing rental accommodation, most care homes have not been covered under the Rent Control Act or the Landlord and Tenant Act. With the amendments I'm introducing today, residents of care homes in Ontario will have the full protection of both these acts. First, residents will have a security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act. In other words, no more people will be thrown out on to the street with only a bag of their belongings.

The Rent Control Act will apply, as of first reading today, to the portion of monthly charges which covers accommodation. The amount paid for care, services and meals will not be covered by rent control because this varies so widely from home to home, resident to resident and, from time to time, for individual residents.

Under rent control, care home operators will also be required to register their charges for care services, the rents charged and the number of occupants in each unit with the rent registry. This will increase the power of municipal and provincial inspectors to ensure that care homes meet provincial safety and maintenance standards and to improve overall living conditions for residents.

In addition, the Rent Control Act will now require that operators provide tenants with a detailed information package outlining what care services are being provided, at what price, and when increases will occur, and describing staff qualifications. A requirement of 90 days' prior notice for any increase in care service costs will also be enforced through the Rent Control Act.

While care costs per se will not be regulated, the Rent Control Act will provide significant consumer protection and empowerment in this area. We will also continue to monitor care service costs. If we see them rising dramatically, the act will allow us to move to regulate them through a change in regulations under the act.

Our proposed amendments to the Rental Housing Protection Act will prevent the demolition or conversion of a care home without the approval of the municipality.

These are perhaps the most important of the reforms recommended by Dr Lightman, changes which tenant advocates and organizations representing senior citizens and mental health consumers are vigorously supporting. We're proud to be putting them into effect with the amendments I'm proposing today.

I'd like once again to express my thanks to Dr Lightman for the excellent work he has done in this policy area.

Tenants living in apartments in houses are vulnerable in another sense. More than 100,000 of these apartments are now illegal due to zoning bylaws. These bylaws keep tenants from exercising their rights to a safe, secure unit. They know that if they complain about poor maintenance or a safety issue they run the risk of being evicted from their illegal apartment. In our bill to protect residents' rights, we're now also including the amendments to the Planning Act and the Municipal Act that were previously announced as Bill 90. Since those amendments will be dealt with in this bill, I am now withdrawing Bill 90.

As I've told the House before, allowing apartments in houses will enable home owners to create one apartment in their house, provided it meets reasonable health and safety standards.

These apartments will generate jobs for construction and renovation workers and give potential home buyers the income boost they may need to become a home owner.

We know there's a need for apartments in houses. That's why so many of them exist all over the province. And, as last year's Environics polls showed, more than 70% of residents of Ontario are in favour of allowing apartments in houses.

This legislation will also improve municipal investigation and enforcement powers by making it easier for municipalities to get a search warrant to investigate suspected property standards violations.

Interested municipalities will also be given the flexibility to enter into long-term agreements with home owners who want to install garden suites, or what we'd call normally granny flats, on their property. These are small, portable, self-contained units, usually installed in a back or a side yard. Garden suites are a solution for many seniors who, as they grow older, find it difficult for various reasons to cope with a large home. They can also help people with disabilities live independently with a little support close by.

This initiative reflects a lot of public input. The ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing received over 1,300 briefs and staff from the two ministries met with more than 60 groups. Both ministers also met with many councillors across Ontario. We listened to what they were telling us and we have made some changes to the draft legislation.

In closing, I'd like to underline the valuable contribution of Dr Ernie Lightman, who has fought long and hard for the changes being introduced in this legislation, and I'd like to thank him for his dedication and his excellent work.

I'd also like to thank community organizations, such as the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations, the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, the Coalition for the Protection of Roomers and Boarders and the Inclusive Neighbourhoods Campaign, for their hard work. Representatives of these organizations have also joined us here today and I'd ask them to stand and be recognized by the House.

These people continued to expose the plight of people whose living situations are the reason for these amendments, and I'd like to thank them for their compassion and their caring. This bill is about residents' rights. These are the people who championed those rights, and all of Ontario owes them a debt of gratitude.

In closing, I would like to express in advance my regret at the fact that earlier today, when there was a briefing held including members of the groups I have introduced to you, operators of care homes were not invited, nor were they specially invited to attend an earlier press conference. When I learned of this, after the press conference this morning, I asked my staff to contact representatives of those care homes and we are arranging a special briefing for them on this legislation.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Let me first of all start off my comments by also paying tribute to Dr Lightman and his excellent work and the report he prepared for the Legislature and the minister; also to thank the community organizations that assisted the minister.

Dr Lightman is aware of some of the concerns that were expressed by our party around the recommendations he made. I'm going to elaborate on those in a minute.

But let me just say that what concerns me first of all is the effort of the government to lump legislation together in omnibus legislation. It makes me wonder if the government's engaged in a strategy that looks like a hurry-up offence: I mean, get everything approved, and it all comes at the end of a legislative session. It doesn't give us an opportunity to examine legislation in an appropriate, timely fashion. I just say this to the minister and to the government as a whole: We need the proper amount of time to go through and examine this legislation in careful detail. There are a number of aspects of this that obviously need to be examined more fully.

1400

But with regard to the section of the bill that deals with Dr Lightman's recommendations, let me say that we have concerns regarding the care component and how that is dealt with under the Landlord and Tenant Act. It is our opinion that having a care component and forcing this to be registered with the rent registry forces staff whose expertise is with things like maintenance costs to deal with things like proper care, and that sort of thing is not compatible with their level of expertise. They're going to have to make decisions about care, whether care is being adequately provided.

In fact, why is it that the ministry needs to know what operators are charging for care, if it doesn't enter into rent review, the sort of thing that's going to be examined at the appeal stage? Why are they planning to do this with information and how is it relevant to the accommodation component? How does one fit with the other if it's not essential that the other be brought in under this entire regulatory process?

By applying the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act, you're using a one-size-fits-all right across the entire province and right across a spectrum of housing that's out there. It doesn't take into consideration what individuals' choice might be regarding the kind of accommodation they now have. It just simply does away with that completely.

The other real concern we have is around emergency provisions. If there is an emergency, what access rights do care givers entering into a unit have? We understand that there's some nebulous, vague reference to receiving permission beforehand in writing, but that's not spelled out very clearly. I think care givers might be hesitant and reluctant to enter into a unit where there is an emergency. That is something we need to do further work on, and I think the minister has to more clearly spell out where that entitlement is automatic. That's not clearly spelled out in the statement she made today.

The other thing that really concerns me is the fact that the legislation takes effect on first reading, introduction of the bill. That is very draconian. The provisions of the bill take effect as of first reading. I think that is a very difficult thing to comprehend and to accept. For most people it's very draconian, it's not democratic. It's even worse than the way Bill 4 was handled previously by the minister. Bill 4 was at least passed first and then took retroactive effect. This is not the case with the bill that she's introduced today.

I have a number of concerns with regard to Bill 90. As we've stated before, we think this could have been accomplished in the way that we had set out our initiatives in the previous administration, our policy statement which affected municipalities in carrying out intensification. That was our policy under the previous Liberal administration, which certainly went a long way to accommodating the accessory apartments. It now looks to be simply a de facto situation where there is no room for municipalities to have any flexibility around that.

These are the concerns that we submit to the minister. I will be looking forward to a further examination of the legislation when we're given an opportunity in committee.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In rising to respond to the statement by the Minister of Housing, I would just like to say that I've never before been briefed by staff in the morning and been asked to return my notes to them. There is such a paranoia in this government that they wouldn't allow me to keep the notes they had just briefed me on.

We're very concerned, and actually I'm sure Dr Lightman is also concerned. I think someone of Dr Lightman's qualifications, being the knowledgeable professional he is, must be very disappointed today. Everybody wants his report to be addressed in legislation and he's now been connected with a bill that nobody in this province wanted.

This is, in our opinion, sleazy blackmail. It's sleazy to put together Bill 90, one of the government's more controversial bills, which has met with the disapproval of most municipalities and many ratepayers' associations, and the new legislation for regulating care homes.

People who have very valid concerns about Bill 90 but wish to support the new section of the bill concerning care homes are now between a rock and a hard place. Why put municipalities and residents in the position of having to oppose regulatory changes for care homes in order to oppose, as a right, accessory apartments? Why could we not have had two separate bills?

The PC party has consistently supported province-wide retirement home legislation. Several of my colleagues, including my leader, Mike Harris, have repeatedly raised this matter in the Legislature over the years. Successive Liberal and NDP governments have ignored the plight of retirement home residents for too long. I am perplexed as to why it has taken so long for the province to take steps to protect residents of care homes.

NDP members expressed great concern with respect to this matter while in opposition, and the Agenda for People promised to establish "in law quality of care standards for Ontario's rest and retirement homes." Today, more than three years after forming the government and one and a half years after the release of the Lightman report, we finally have some action.

In April 1989, the Liberal government received a report from its Advisory Committee on Rest Homes urging regulation of retirement homes. The Liberals chose to ignore the report, despite the fact that the year the report was released we heard of seniors at the Cross Wind Lodge in St Catharines being underfed and subject to physical abuse. We heard of a resident at Murphy Manor in Sarnia being found covered in faeces and with maggots in her shoes, and, finally, of some residents in Toronto being regularly fed hot dogs for lunch.

With respect to lumping rest and retirement homes under the Rent Control Act, I also foresee problems. In short, I am pleased that the government has the intention to proceed with certain elements involving the protection of residents, but I'm fearful that care may be compromised under rent control. While tenure will be regulated, standards of care will not.

With the exception, their regulations could later place increases in care rates under rent control. This is of concern for how do the wizards, the rent control officers, become experts on appropriate charges for health care? Another area of concern for operators is the non-payment for care services is no longer grounds for eviction.

The president of the Ontario Long Term Residential Care Association has said, "Some people need to be monitored throughout the evening or night, but housing legislation could prevent staff from checking on them." We are concerned about the fact that this government, which didn't have the courage to bring back its Bill 90 for debate on second reading in this House, has still not addressed our concerns about inadequate increases in assessment rates for homes with a second unit and inadequate infrastructure. Accessory apartments will not be licensed and will not be limited to owner-occupied homes.

The municipalities of this province, which are responsible for the building permits for renovations to increase units in single-family homes, which include everything from a single lot to a semi to row housing, still have the same concerns they had before.

The government has now descended to new depths in manipulation and is not calling these bills what they really are. It's an omnibus bill and we object to it.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' DISPUTES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. We are seeing this fall across the province an unprecedented number of teachers' strikes and job actions that directly affect students.

Teachers in Windsor public schools have now been out for some 12 days. Teachers in east Parry Sound have now been out for 31 days. In Lambton county, teachers have been legislated back to work.

You will be aware, Minister, that there are still 28 boards of education where no agreement has been reached for the 1992-93 school year and that there are 153 more agreements to be negotiated for the coming year. There is a very real concern that we are going to see more and more strikes across this province and that more and more students are going to be hurt.

Minister, I ask what you are going to do to ensure that we will not see hundreds and hundreds more school days lost over the next year.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I wouldn't want the Leader of the Opposition to exaggerate the circumstances currently under way in the province, and I certainly won't understate the difficulties that exist in negotiations across the province, but I think what we need to do is to reinforce the fact that these solutions and negotiations have to be successful at the local level. I don't think it solves the problem that the leader has referred to by saying that there is some magical provincial solution to negotiations that are taking place at the local level.

If the leader of the opposition party has a magical solution, is suggesting changes in legislation, then I'm all ears. I'd like to hear what her suggestion is. That would be very useful and I'd be more than willing to listen to her positive suggestions that might come forward finally today.

Mrs McLeod: I don't believe I am in any way exaggerating the kind of concern that exists in boards where they are currently experiencing strike action and the effect that has on students, or the concern that indeed we are going to see more and more strikes across the province because of the unprecedented situation that has been created by your government's legislation.

Minister, there is no doubt at all that the social contract legislation has fundamentally altered collective bargaining for school boards and their teachers. Your legislation imposed a whole series of terms and conditions on school boards, and there is no one who knows how the legislation is supposed to work. No one understands how the social contract legislation fits with existing collective agreements or with the collective bargaining act for teachers, or, for that matter, with the Education Act. The result is that teachers and trustees have been pitted against each other as both try to struggle with understanding the chaos and the confusion you have now created.

Will you not admit that it is indeed your social contract that has created this situation and will you accept your responsibility for creating the chaos so that you will now act to start to sort it out?

Hon Mr Cooke: The fact of the matter is that even the teachers' unions are not suggesting that the social contract legislation is responsible for some of the labour disputes that are taking place in this province. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. It may be politically advantageous for her to make accusations that everything and anything that's happening in Ontario is the fault of the social contract, but the fact of the matter is that's not the case, and the teachers don't make that case either.

But I would like to suggest that what the Leader of the Opposition is doing here today again is saying one thing here and another thing outside. I'd like to remind her of a statement that she made when she was on CFRB on August 25. I want to quote this, because she is talking about local solutions:

"By having done that, we said to government, 'You have the responsibility to sit down and bargain with your own employees to bring about those reductions and let other public sector employees and employers do the same thing'"; in other words, negotiate at the local level, not a provincial solution.

Now the teachers and the boards are trying to solve some of the situations at the local level, and the Leader of the Opposition comes in here today and says, "We want a provincial solution."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Cooke: Which is it? Is it what you said before or what you said today? Make up your mind. What's the Liberal policy today?

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: I thank the minister for reminding all members of the Legislature just how consistent this caucus and this leader have been on this issue. Let me say to the minister and to the Premier, who keeps saying, "Local solutions. You wanted local solutions": Exactly. That is exactly what we argued for. We believe --

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): You wanted to cut expenditures by $8 billion.

The Speaker: Would the Premier come to order, please.

Mrs McLeod: We believe collective bargaining can work and that is why we oppose the social contract legislation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I understand why the Premier gets concerned when we say that as important as the restraint is, we had some faith that the collective bargaining process could effectively bring about those restraints, and we continue to believe that.

We predicted that the unworkable terms and conditions of the social contract would create chaos as they were imposed on local collective bargaining situations, and what we are seeing this fall is truly unprecedented. There are more serious problems with collective bargaining between teachers and trustees than at any time before in the history of this province, and all of the evidence points to the social contract as the cause of this.

In all earnestness, I say to this minister: You have created a problem. You have a responsibility now for solving the problem. You simply must not let the students of this province get lost in all of this, and I ask you today if you will commit to sitting down with teachers and with school boards to clear up the misunderstandings about the social contract and what it means and how it's supposed to be implemented, and start to sort out this mess before more students across this province pay the price for your mismanagement.

Hon Mr Cooke: We are sitting down and we are talking to teachers and we're talking to boards, but the Leader of the Opposition refers to chaos in the system. I'd like to ask the Leader of the Opposition what kind of chaos does she think --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: They don't want to hear this. They never want to hear what their leader says outside the House. What kind of chaos does the Leader of the Opposition think she'd be seeing in the schools and every other public service if we followed her recommendation? I quote again from the CFRB interview of August 25, "There's no doubt in our mind that prior to the last budget, the government needed to find not $4 billion in expenditure reductions, but $6 billion in expenditure reductions."

That would have meant 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 job losses in the public sector, chaos in the education system. We don't need a lecture from that leader about chaos; her prescription would be a destruction of public services.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, Leader of the Opposition.

1420

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I think I should ask as a point of order: If I'm asked a question, do I have an opportunity to respond?

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: That's unfortunate, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the table add two minutes to the clock. Second question, the Leader of the Opposition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll refrain from further debate about my willingness to accept the responsibility for both my statements and my actions and make my second question to the Minister of Labour.

Minister, I want to return to our questions about continuing mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board. You will be aware that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has recently written to both you and the Premier concerning comments that have been made by the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, Mr Di Santo, regarding the expansion of Workers' Compensation Board services.

The chamber of commerce is alarmed that the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board would even consider at this point in time adding a range of new costs to the current system. Mr Di Santo has spoken in favour of a number of expanded services, including almost doubling the number of people who are covered by workers' compensation and extending benefits to include stress.

Minister, I ask you, what will these proposed new services cost, what will they do to premium rates and what will they do to the WCB's unfunded liability?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Surely the board would not be doing its job if it was not looking at concerns that may be there over stress or over other services. None of them have been endorsed. They are out for discussion, and I think that's part of the job of the board, to try and assess what the effects, what the problems may be in the workplace, and that's exactly what it's trying to do. I would say that the board officers would be wrong if they weren't looking at future problems the board may face.

Mrs McLeod: The Workers' Compensation Board management is not doing their job if they can't answer the most basic questions about what the costs will be of their proposals to expand service. That is the basis of responsibility, and this minister surely knows this fiasco of mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board is just continuing week after week. Surely we don't have to go back and remind him of the $11-billion unfunded liability or the fact that this unfunded liability grows by more than $2 million day after day. That is evidence of the inability to manage the current costs.

The minister will be aware that instead of controlling the costs of existing services, the Workers' Compensation Board has imposed 25% rate increases for many businesses. The Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation is today predicting that these rate increases will be a killer of businesses and of jobs. It is safe to say that the idea of adding stress as a benefit is only going to drive those rates and that unfunded liability even further through the roof, and that this will certainly cost more jobs.

Minister, I ask you: How can the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board seriously consider extending benefits to include stress when he cannot even manage the costs of the services that are now provided?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There are a number of things that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't like to look at. One is that there has been a substantial reduction in the general operating costs at the board. They have been cutting down the administration costs substantially. Two, she keeps coming up with 25% increases, and she knows that the increase this year, whether or not she accepts it, is 3% -- that's the average across the board -- and that for the increases there are also decreases because they've done a reclassification, which started two years ago and is just in the process of being put into place now. I'm sure the member should know that or should realize that's part of what we're doing at the board at the moment.

Mrs McLeod: I ask the minister what realities he's prepared to look at. Will he look at the reality that any increased cost to the Workers' Compensation Board, and certainly adding stress is an increased cost, is going to drive rates even higher? Will he look at the reality that the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation today has called for the resignation of Mr Di Santo for forcing rate increases through the Workers' Compensation Board board of directors?

The minister has repeated the fact that Mr Di Santo has said that the average rate increase is only 3%, but the employers' council says the truth is that increases of more than 25% will hit 27,000 firms across the province.

Minister, the employers' council has called the rate increase an attempt to mislead the people of this province. We have repeatedly raised our concerns about the management of WCB misleading the auditor and misleading the members of this House on the finances of the WCB. Now they're being accused of misleading the public, and again there is no confidence in the WCB.

Minister, will you not now finally act? Will you deal with the management of the Workers' Compensation Board? Will you review the rates, put a moratorium on any expansion of services, and will you now call for a royal commission to review the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't think we have ever ruled out the possibility that we might go at some stage to a royal commission, but I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition across the way that if you go down the road of a royal commission at this point in time, you're not going to resolve any of the number of immediate problems, a lot of which are on our plate because of Bill 162, which this party opposed and you people put in place when you were the government.

TEACHERS' DISPUTES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Mr Minister, east Parry Sound elementary, east Parry Sound secondary and Windsor elementary school boards are currently on strike. Lambton has been legislated back. Windsor secondary will be out at the end of the week. Last evening, Leeds-Grenville elementary voted against its contract. York region elementary and Brant county are threatening. What is your explanation for this unprecedented number of strikes or pending strikes in this province?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I don't think it would come as any surprise to the critic for the third party that there is a difficulty in the system because there are fewer resources available. The system is adapting and discussions and negotiations have become very difficult. It's also clear, and the member alluded to this herself last week in an interjection when she referred to the fact that some boards of education -- and I use her term, not mine -- are stripping contracts. The critic will know that some of the boards of education are going well beyond what was ever contemplated in the social contract.

I think we all need to encourage boards of education and teachers to sit down and negotiate collective agreements that reflect the realities of 1993, but also respect one another and don't go in an unrealistic, silly way to provoke damage to the public education system in the province. I would say to the member that in some cases in the province that is what's happening, and we all need to encourage boards to be more realistic and fair.

1430

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would say to the minister that all that may very well be true. However, it's no coincidence that there are several boards and several groups of teachers across this province in the same situation. But I want to deal specifically with the elementary panel in east Parry Sound.

The minister is well aware that this past Sunday mediation talks between the parties and the ERC involved as a mediator broke down for the fourth time. We are now into the 34th instructional day lost to the students in east Parry Sound elementary system because of this dispute. What are you going to do to resolve this dispute and, most important, put the students back in the classroom where they belong?

Mr Cooke: I, along with the member, am very concerned about the circumstances in east Parry Sound and for the students in east Parry Sound. I had a meeting again yesterday with representatives from the Education Relations Commission. I still believe, based on the information and the reports to me with regard to last weekend's mediation, that there is a possibility of a settlement, and the member will know some of the very specific circumstances in the mediation last weekend.

I still believe that negotiated settlement can be achieved between the board and the teachers and will be doing everything possible with the Education Relations Commission to see that that comes about. Some options and some plans were discussed at the ERC. I don't want to negotiate in public but, believe me, I am as concerned as he is and I do believe it can be achieved at the local level.

Mrs Cunningham: What we're talking about today is probably as a result of what wasn't contemplated before the social contract talks were started. That's what it's all about. It's not about quotes on a radio station; it isn't about exaggerated circumstances. What we're talking about today is children and their right to be in school. That's what this whole issue is about.

Your social contract legislation has clearly forced a breakdown in the collective bargaining in many boards across the province. Mr Speaker, can you believe this government has caused a breakdown in the collective bargaining process? This government? It's a joke. It's their problem and they have to solve it. My question is clearly this: What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think I've indicated to the member, and to the member for Parry Sound in particular, that the Education Relations Commission is in contact with the parties. We discussed some options at a meeting I had last night with representatives from the ERC. We'll do everything we can to achieve a local settlement.

But in the end we accept the responsibility as well to protect the education for students in this province. Whatever action is necessary to protect that right to education, this government will take its responsibility seriously, I can assure the member of that.

PROVINCIAL FEES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. In the last few years Ontario has been introduced to a whole new language. User fees are "copayments," unemployed people are "displaced workers," discriminatory hiring practices are "positive measures," taxes are "revenue enhancers" and fees and licences are "non-tax revenues."

Premier, in an effort to bring the public up to speed on the NDP dictionary, could you explain to us just what is a non-tax revenue and how much of these pocket-picking initiatives have they cost taxpayers since your party took office in 1990?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will defer to the superior knowledge and understanding of this issue of my colleague the Minister of Finance.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Don't tarnish your image.

Hon Mr Rae: What do you mean, don't tarnish my image? I haven't got an image.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): What are you implying about my image?

Hon Mr Rae: At least he's got one.

Mr Bradley: They still like you at the OFL.

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party in his question implies that there is a precise definition of non-tax revenue. In my mind, a non-tax revenue is largely a fee for a service delivered, precise service delivered or product delivered.

For example, there are many services or products that the government has delivered that I think are substantially underpriced. I'd be surprised if the leader of the third party would disagree with me; however, life in this chamber is full of surprises.

Mr Harris: We were trying to get a handle on just how much they had increased, and we didn't get an answer on that from the Treasurer. I doubt many taxpayers in the province of Ontario think government services are underpriced. I really doubt that. When they add their tax bill all in, very few tell me they think they're getting value for money.

Mr Speaker, through you to the Treasurer, I requested of just one ministry, Consumer and Commercial Relations, a list of non-tax revenues that have been introduced, administered or increased since 1990. I just received that list. It contains 426 items. Treasurer, your spending appetite has turned into a feeding frenzy on businesses, on charities, on individuals and on organizations, both profit and non-profit.

I'd like you to listen to some of the creative ways you found to grab even more cash since you came to office: kick boxer registrations, up 1,000% since you've taken office; the fee for water slide inspections, up 100% since you've taken office; even charities that host casino nights to try to raise money for charitable purposes. Treasurer, these are tax hikes, pure and simple. They are revenue grabs. They take money out of the hands of businesses, of individuals, of charitable groups, and the impact is just as damaging.

I'd like to ask you this. When you bring in a budget, we hear the big news of the tax increases, but we do not hear throughout the year all these revenue grabs by the way of increased fees and services. Can you tell us how much money is involved and can you tell us who's in charge, who's in control, who controls these wildly increased fees and the total impact that they have on our businesses in Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm surprised to hear the leader of the third party rant and rave against a price being charged for what are largely non-essential services. For example, if the leader of the third party says that kick boxing registration is something that should be paid for by everybody in the province as opposed to the people who are utilizing that service, ie, the registration of it, then I'd like him to stand in his place and say so. Is he saying that there should be, for example, no entrance fees for our provincial parks in the province? Is that what he's saying? Is he saying, for example, on licence fees, that there should be no charges for drivers' licences and licence plates and that everything should be rolled into the tax base?

Well, I don't agree with the member and I can tell the leader of the third party that that is not the way in which we intend to conduct business. We intend to conduct business in such a way that when there is a service that's being provided that is not an essential service for the entire province, there's nothing wrong with having a fee that represents more than it traditionally has of the cost of delivering that service.

Mr Harris: I'm interested that the Treasurer seems to imply that probate fees, that a $50 fee to businesses to register so that you can get a list and sell the list and the address out -- that these are non-essential.

Treasurer, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations took in $1.3 billion last year. When we think of that ministry, we think of LCBO and these types of things, but over half of that money came from these so-called non-taxes.

Our task force on cutting red tape and growing small business has heard the same thing in every single community, large and small: We're overregulated, we're overlegislated, we're overtaxed, we are overburdened. We are overburdened by eight and a half years of a government appetite to get other people's money.

Will you assure taxpayers of this: that there will be no more increases in the fees that are being served in this so-called non-tax revenue? And will you agree to do this: for every fee that is being charged now that is proven to be in excess of the cost of providing the service, will you roll them back to the amount of money that is required to provide the service? Will you agree to do that?

Hon Mr Laughren: When we were looking at the non-tax revenues of the province and a list of services of revenue-enhancement potential or possibilities, it was drawn to my attention when I asked about interprovincial comparisons that Ontario's source of revenues from non-tax revenues is one of the lowest in all of Canada. We are not out of line with charging for the services or products that government delivers.

If the leader of the third party thinks that there's a free lunch out there and that all of these services and products can be delivered with no charge whatsoever to the government, then he is taking the taxpayers of this province down a very strange path, because I want to tell the leader of the third party, there is no free lunch.

1440

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier now that he's in the fourth year of his mandate. The Premier will recall that the very first major pronouncement made by his then Minister of the Environment concerned the refillable ratio of soft drink containers. On October 15, 1990, 15 days after taking power, your government's Environment minister, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, told the Recycling Council of Ontario the following, and I quote, and she'll be interested in this, she won't want to prompt you. It says the following:

"I am appalled by the failure of the soft drink companies to fulfil the reporting requirement under the container regulation. Starting now I am going to enforce that regulation very stringently. We are going to restore the refillable ratio to 30%. That is the letter of the law, and I will hold the industry to it. I am giving them six months to get their house in order and then after April 1, 1991, we will start enforcing the refillable ratio and charging those who fail to meet it."

I ask the Premier the question, what is the refillable ratio now, three years after your government's ultimatum to the industry to sell at least 30% of the product in refillable containers? If it is less than 30%, how many prosecutions have been initiated by your government as you vowed?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The Minister of Environment and Energy is away and I know he's going to be returning to the House shortly, but I would say to the honourable member that I can't give him the answer to the first question.

The second question I can say directly to him that the Minister of Environment, with the full approval of his colleagues, has authorized some very intensive negotiations with the soft drink industry and those are under way right now.

Mr Bradley: Let me refresh the memory of the Premier and his forgetful government. During his stewardship of the environment, the refillable ratio has plummeted to 3% this July -- in July of this year, the month when most soft drinks are consumed, 3%. The only statistic lower than his government's performance on the refillable ratio is his government's record in prosecuting the industry which has ignored the Environment minister's orders. It is zero.

The situation is this. There has been absolutely no compliance with the regulation in more than three years he has been in power. Neither has there been a charge laid since he came to power. Premier, why is your government kowtowing to the soft drink industry at the expense of the environment?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not aware of having kowtowed to anyone lately or certainly not successfully, but I would say to the honourable member in response that as I've been reminded by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, the discussions include all of the grocery product manufacturers, and I'm hoping they will reinforce the commitment of the industry to recycling, which has already been substantial and will produce the result that will benefit the economy and benefit the environment.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. In an article that ran in Saturday's London Free Press a number of health care professionals expressed their fear regarding the impact that your blitzkrieg on health services will have on this province. Dr Ron Wexler, the medical director at London's University Hospital, is quoted as saying:

"So far, nobody's died because of the social contract, but I can't promise that won't happen down the road. I can see the day coming when we're going to wake up and there's going to be no more room to manoeuvre within the system."

Minister, what steps have you taken to guarantee that people will not be dying from your social contract legislation and from your slash-and-burn health care policies?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I was quite frankly shocked when I read those comments and the quotes the member has read to the House. I think it is that kind of scaremongering that frightens people and makes them forget that we are spending $17 billion on our health care system and that that will maintain critical and essential medical services. The social contract is about protecting services and preserving jobs, not about destroying the health care system.

In the article the member quoted, another member of the medical profession went on to deplore the fact that she could no longer have her patients in for blood pressure tests every three months. A blood pressure test does not have to be performed by a physician and charged to OHIP. It's that kind of misuse of the system that has led us to the increases in expenditures and to the need to make some changes and some rationalizations, which is what this government is attempting to do.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, I remind you that Dr Wexler works on the front lines and he knows of what he is speaking. The responsibility for any lives lost because of social contract or your health care policies will be yours and yours alone.

There's a real possibility that patients will not be able to find an intensive care bed at London's University Hospital when more than one quarter of its ICU beds are closed. Fourteen hospitals in Toronto are being forced to make extraordinary cuts in December and January to accommodate your social contract. Humber plans to close ICU beds. Mount Sinai plans to close ICU beds and will close an additional 250 beds for more than two weeks over Christmas. Princess Margaret will be shutting down almost half of its beds. Providence says the 12 Rae days will have a negative impact on the quality of services. Scarborough General will close almost half of its acute care beds and will have reduced services for radiology, fractures and cardiac testing. Toronto Hospital will close 250 beds and designate 18 days for reduced activities.

Minister, other than telling people not to get sick over Christmas, why have you done nothing to put an end to this insanity? The hospital sector is in chaos and patients are going to die if you do not act immediately to withdraw your slash-and-burn policies. The system is crying out for coordination, for management, for some commonsense policies. Minister, I ask you, when will you finally provide the prescription for your gravely ill health care system?

Hon Mrs Grier: Coordination and management is exactly what the system needs and coordination and management is what, for the last three years, for the first time, the system has been receiving.

I would say to the member that his categorical denunciation of hospitals across the province does a disservice to hospitals that have come together, that have coordinated, that have planned and have indicated, as they submit their operating plans to this ministry, that they will carry on providing services with no effect as a result of the lack of money we have been able to increase into the system. There are some hospitals that are doing it better than others, but I ask him to be careful because a number of hospitals are managing the situation in a way that will enhance their services in the future and nobody in this province will be denied critical care over the Christmas season.

1450

UNION REPRESENTATION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Labour has a reply to a question asked earlier by the member for London North.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member for London North raised the question of whether or not a proper organizing drive had taken place at the Randall Klein plant in London and whether the difficulties over that organizing drive were as a result of Bill 40. I want to make it clear that Bill 40 would have made no difference in this case whatsoever.

The Labour Relations Act since the 1970s, and under her government, I might say, has made it that if 55% or better of the workers sign cards, they can be automatically certified. The Ontario Labour Relations Board itself reviews all applications for certification and reviews any evidence of misrepresentation by the union. This has been the practice of the board for a good number of years now.

In this case, the board held one day of hearings here in Toronto to review the allegations by some of the employees that the union had misrepresented how it gathered and signed the union cards. The board then ordered that a further hearing be held before it would rule on it -- usually it's automatic -- to decide whether or not the union should be certified. The employees then withdrew their case and did not appear at a second date that was set up. The result of that is that the board went ahead and certified the local union at Randall Klein.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I can appreciate the response, but I think the minister missed my point yesterday. With all the changes that were made during the Bill 40 hearings, one of the great cries on behalf of workers and managers in all businesses was a secret ballot. If in fact we had a secret ballot, nobody could have hidden the cards and stuffed them in without permission of the employees. That's what we were talking about and that's the problem.

The problem in this firm is that the workers, after three days and $1,700 a day, could not, nor could the managers in a small business, afford the legal fees to wait for this board to drag these hearings on for weeks and months. They ran out of money at $1,700 a day and they simply walked away from it, like other businesses, other workers, other managers in the province, because he did not deal with these kinds of issues during the Bill 40 hearings. That's the problem. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't think that's the problem at all. The member's own government didn't decide that they needed an automatic vote. In this case, there was one day of hearings; a second day was scheduled. The workers backed out of the second day and did not proceed with it.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before the next question, I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a former member for Ottawa Centre, Mr Richard Patten. Welcome.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): My question is to the Minister of Labour. This morning, my colleague from Mississauga West and myself met with members of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. They were meeting regarding occupational health and safety.

One of the issues they are concerned about is comprehensive regulation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to improve the safety of firefighters and to prevent injury and death to firefighters. Minister, as you will know, as recently as this summer, a coroner's jury recommended such a comprehensive regulation, and that's building on coroner's inquests in the deaths of Captain Charles Kieswetter, Acting Captain Gary Kennedy, firefighter Harry Chevalier and others.

Minister, will you commit to implement such a comprehensive regulation before any more coroners' juries have to investigate the unfortunate deaths of firefighters in this province?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): We're in the process, as we have been in health care in a number of areas, of looking at regulations for health and safety legislation. That is currently being looked at. I can't tell the member when we'll be ready to move any further, but it's on the agenda.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): That's unfortunate, because the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association has been asking your ministry and this government to establish health and safety regulations for firefighters for some time. In fact, members would be interested to know that there is only one health and safety regulation that applies to firefighters today, and that is that they must wear a helmet. Imagine that. That's the only health and safety requirement for a firefighter in going to fight a fire, that they must wear a helmet.

The firefighters association, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters have recently agreed to develop a joint proposal for health and safety regulations for the Minister of Labour to implement.

On behalf of those firefighters, the associations and, most importantly, on behalf of their families, will you sit down and draft regulations immediately to provide consistency and safety for all firefighters in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member is not remembering that we have brought in health and safety regulations in a number of areas --

Mr Mahoney: And you're making a mess of them.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Mississauga West.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- and we are in the process of further discussions. I have met with the firefighters myself. But I would ask the member where he was for five years when he was in office.

SEASONAL DECORATING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Premier, not as important as the one from the member for Simcoe West, but an important question. I have a copy of a directive from Management Board. This directive says: "As discussed previously, you are requested to ensure that decorations in the public spaces, such as lobbies of government buildings or exteriors, conform to a seasonal theme rather than Christmas iconography." The memo goes on to say, "This request is not up for debate." In other words, Christmas is being banned from government offices. Can you tell me who authorized this policy that would ban, for example, nativity scenes from government offices?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm aware of no such policy at all, and I'll ask the minister of Management Board to respond to it.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The Premier is correct: There is no Management Board policy in this respect at all. The situation which the leader of the third party refers to was a decision made by a local building manager, who was trying to be sensitive and respond to a number of complaints that were received last year. But there is no policy in that respect and as a result we've directed that the display be reinstated.

Mr Harris: The Management Board memo states it's their office's responsibility to provide an example for other ministries to follow. Would you agree with me that instead of trying to rewrite tradition and history in this province by banning one religion's holiday traditions, government offices should be encouraging the celebration of many traditions that exist in Ontario? Have you canned this policy once you found out about it, and have you directed all ministries to ignore or disregard or ban this kind of directive in the future as well?

1500

Hon Mr Charlton: It's an interesting question that the member opposite raises and the perspective he raises it from. There are a number of things that have to be taken into account. First of all, I've said that we've directed that the display in this case be reinstated this year. Secondly, there is no policy. Thirdly, what I did earlier today was to issue a statement which essentially said that the people who happen to work in the location are best suited to make the decisions about these kinds of things, because they in fact likely represent the very cultural and religious differences etc --

Mr Harris: I think he said leave it up to the local people.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The leader of the third party seems to be having some difficulty having me agree with what he's requested, that in fact these kinds of decisions should be inclusive not restrictive, and that the employees who work in government buildings should be consulted and represented and reflected.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Exactly three years ago, in fact in the throne speech I have here, this government made a commitment to the women of this province. It said: "This government will deal resolutely with violence against women and children. It is time now for society to come face to face with this reality."

Last week Statscan released a report that confirmed what most women know: Half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incidence of violence since the age of 16 -- let me just continue for a moment -- and one in six currently married women report violence by their spouse and one in two previously married women experienced violence from a previous spouse.

Minister, these statistics verify what we know too well, that violence against women is shockingly high. What kind of response is the ministry giving to this report?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I'm glad that the member asked the question, because of course there have been some criticisms raised of this Statistics Canada report.

It's important for all of us to understand that this is the most extensive survey of its kind that has been done; 12,300 women, randomly selected, were questioned during this and these results were based on questions that were based on Criminal Code offences only. So we now know that we are talking about an enormous number of women who have been subjected to Criminal Code offences of violence.

Our government currently spends over $92 million a year on women's anti-violence services. They provide shelter services, advocacy services, public education and that sort of thing. We've just completed a major consultation process on how to focus those funds in an effective way to meet community needs and we're anxious to know how the new federal government will respond both to this report and to the report of the panel on violence.

We stand ready to continue to work with all levels of government and all community groups to try to deal with this very serious problem.

Ms Harrington: We must continue our commitment. On a personal level, I believe it is important for each of us as a member in this House to be leaders in our own communities and not to be afraid of addressing this issue. For instance, in the last couple of years I've handed out pamphlets at bus stops during the week of December 6. What more can each of us do, Minister, to help this cause?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Continuing to break the silence around violence against women is extraordinarily important. It's important for each of us to take a stand wherever we know violence is occurring and to have the courage to speak out to our friends, our neighbours, our family members, anyone who may be perpetrating violence or anyone who may have been victimized by violence, to offer our assistance.

We will be having a pamphleting campaign again during the week of December 6. I expect that we will be commemorating that day in this House.

I also would remind people that I understand the white ribbon campaign, which encourages men to speak out against men's violence against women, will be operating again this year. It will provide an opportunity for men to participate and to be counted in terms of the efforts to end violence against women.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): A question for the Minister of Health: Ottawa-Carleton has one of the lowest survival rates for heart attack victims in North America. A recent study showed that our survival rate was 2.4%. In cities where they have paramedics, the survival rate ranges anywhere from 20% to 30%, so long as they have the other three links in the chain of survival; that is, a 911 telephone response system, a high percentage of citizens who can perform CPR and early defibrillation.

Ottawa-Carleton has the first three links. Now we want paramedics. We want the kind of paramedics we're paying for in Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa. Madam Minister, do not underestimate the importance of this issue to the people of Ottawa-Carleton. Action Paramedic and I have to date collected 27,000 individually signed petition cards, but we've only just begun. Our petition card has been published in the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Sun. We expect many, many more cards shortly. In due course, I'll deliver to you in this House many, many thousands of petition cards on behalf of the 750,000 people of Ottawa-Carleton.

My question is, how can you, Minister of Health for all of Ontario, justify paying for paramedics in Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa while refusing to pay for them in Ottawa-Carleton, the second-largest metropolitan centre in this province?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I am certainly very much aware of the petition campaign in Ottawa and of the fact that many people, when asked if they would like paramedics, are signing cards and petitions and saying they would. But I'm also aware, as the member has outlined, that the first three links in the emergency response chain are very important and need to be there if paramedics are in fact to be effective, and also of controversy within Ottawa, with some respected physicians questioning whether this is the most-needed health addition to the Ottawa area's health services. Before moving to approve paramedics in Ottawa, we want to carefully look at whether paramedics generally make sense, because the jury is still out.

The other three cities he has mentioned were pilot projects initiated by another government long before I became the minister. No evaluation or data collection component was part of those pilots and so there has never been an effective compilation of data or conclusion as to whether or not this was the most effective way of saving life. I want to make sure we have all those facts before we make the final decision.

Mr McGuinty: The minister's talking about a study. I can give you all kinds of studies that support that paramedics save lives. The reason they've got paramedics in over 50 Canadian cities and in hundreds of US cities is because they work. That's the reason they've got them in Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa. It's because they save lives.

The principle behind paramedics is very simple, Madam Minister. If you or I, heaven forbid, should drop right here on the spot as a result of a heart attack or should we stop breathing, something is going to become rapidly apparent to us: Time has become critical. Studies show that if the ambulance people don't get us going right here on the spot, they're not going to get us going. Paramedics, like the ones here in Toronto, would treat us right here on the spot. But in Ottawa-Carleton our ambulance attendants take us to the hospital for advanced life support, and in Ottawa-Carleton we'd die en route.

There's no reason whatsoever to study this issue. Remember what we're asking for here. We're not asking for more equipment, we're not asking for more ambulances and we're not asking for more personnel. We're just asking for training for our ambulance officers. The people of Ottawa-Carleton want ambulance-run paramedic services like the ones enjoyed by the people of Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa.

1510

Are you going to give us paramedics or do you feel that a life in Ottawa-Carleton is less valuable than a life in Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa?

Hon Mrs Grier: I reject the conclusion of the member's question and I would say to him that it is not a helpful way in which to debate what is a controversial issue.

While he says there are tons of studies saying that paramedics are the answer, there are lots of other studies. And there are lots of other cities where if the 911 isn't effective, CPR isn't performed quickly and the response time isn't immediate, the paramedic is less useful than he is in a system where all of those three links are in place. I would point out to him, for example, the city of Seattle, where they believe that by teaching all of the adult population they could reach to do CPR they save more lives than putting in the paramedics.

It is not quite as simple as merely providing the training. The kind of paramedic aid that is being requested from Ottawa is that the paramedics administer drugs on the site when they get there. Again, there are many controversies as to whether that is the most effective aid to give people or whether you want better to get them as quickly as you can to a hospital. On the basis of facts and conclusive data, we will make policy decisions, not in the kind of ad hoc, hodgepodge way it's been done in the past.

YOUTH MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Labour. It concerns the student minimum wage. When this government took office, the student minimum wage was $4.55 an hour. As of January 1, the minister has told us, he intends to raise the student minimum wage to $6.25 an hour, an increase of 37%.

Last week, when our small business task force was travelling through southwestern Ontario -- and we travelled through Guelph, Stratford, Kitchener, Waterloo, London and Amherstburg in Essex county -- we consistently heard the message that the minimum wage is too high and that the government's arbitrary increases in the minimum wage are damaging business confidence and destroying job opportunities in Ontario.

If the minimum wage is too high, it becomes a disincentive to hiring and job creation. In other words, the higher the minimum wage, the fewer the number of jobs that are going to be created. We heard from Joe Colasanti of Colasanti's tropical gardens in Ruthven in Essex county. Normally he hires dozens of students. He trains them from scratch and gives them an opportunity to gain work experience. The student minimum wage, as it increases, means that he'll hire fewer students. Your increases last year alone cost him $100,000.

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

Mr Arnott: My question is this: Will the minister commit to freezing the minimum wage at today's levels, at least until the economy improves, so that more students will have the opportunity to obtain employment next year?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member surely knows that we've gone through the consultative process we go through and met with the various groups and announced in this House some time ago that the minimum wage would increase. It will be $6.70 on January 1, and that's the intent of this government.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a very important matter, a matter I must bring fully to your attention. It is a charge I make not lightly. I will try and give you all of the evidence before you rule. My charge is that the Minister of Transportation has been misleading this House.

The Speaker: No. First, before he wades deeper into the wrong end of the pool, let me caution the member that the language he has used is unparliamentary. If the member has a point of order -- that is, that there is something out of order -- then of course he should draw that to my attention. I know, however, the member does not wish to use unparliamentary language.

Mr Turnbull: Indeed, I don't want to use unparliamentary language. I will retract the word "misleading" and I will suggest that the minister has been bringing terminological inexactitudes to this House. The evidence that I speak of --

The Speaker: I am trying to be patient with the member. The member knows he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. I ask the member to tell the House what is out of order.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I will read a very brief extract out of the latest edition of Topical, dated November 19, which is the government's own publication. The article starts:

"The Ontario Public Service has entered a 'brave new world' when it comes to operating in an entrepreneurial and businesslike way, an assistant deputy minister says.

"Ministries have a significant opportunity -- "

The Speaker: The member knows full well there is nothing out of order. He is not referring to anything in the standing orders.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition:

"We, the undersigned, striking east Parry Sound public school elementary teachers and their supporters, petition the government of Ontario and demand action now to bring about an end to the collective bargaining chaos in this province;

"That government action should include: one, the suspension of the 60-day rule in the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act which allows boards to strip contracts for the period of the social contract; and, second, prohibition of the use of replacement workers during a teachers' strike similar to the recent amendment to the Labour Relations Act."

This is signed by some several hundreds of persons from the east Parry Sound area.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Petitions? The member for York Mills.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, I would ask you to hear fully the charge that I make before you make this ruling.

The Speaker: The member tests the patience of the Chair tremendously. When a member rises on -- first, would the member please take his seat. If a member says that he has or she has a point of order, the assumption is that there is something out of order. Now, we are in the midst of presenting petitions. If the member believes that there is something which we are now doing which is not in order, I wish he would tell me forthwith.

Mr Turnbull: I would ask you to fully hear what I am saying for you to be able to make a ruling, sir. The minister has in this House repeatedly stated that photo-radar is not a tax grab. In Topical, this same deputy minister, talking about revenue generation by the government, says: "A good example is introduction of photo-radar systems in Ontario, part of the integrated road safety program involving" --

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. There is nothing out of order. The member obviously has a difference of opinion and we have debates in this House that often have differences of opinion, but there is not a single thing out of order. We are in the midst of presenting petitions. Are there any more?

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it. We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact in our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are defined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now, but since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code, may include sado-masochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of religion, race, sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

"Bill 55 would make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 45 is also an attack on freedom of religion against historical Christianity which does not condone homosexuality.

"We have moved away from a position where homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45 and Bill 55."

1520

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition to the Legislative Assembly and to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the previous federal Conservative government intended to dispose of surplus lands around the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the last federal government's plan of sale;

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

"Therefore, that the provincial government of Ontario request that the new federal government of Canada initiate a public review by panel of the federal Minister of the Environment to ensure that the disposal of these will protect the rural resources and the community of residents therein."

I've heard of people getting eviction notices, and I hope they convene this meeting very soon.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario who live in your riding and attend the First Baptist Church in Dunnville, ask that you convey to the Premier of Ontario, the Attorney General of the province and to the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice our concern with the legislation known as Bills 45 and 55.

"We are concerned with the change in the Human Rights Code to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and with the deletion of the words 'of the opposite sex' from the definition of 'marital status.'

"We're also concerned that Bill 55 could prohibit our freedom to talk about our views on homosexuality and legitimizes a particular conviction/behaviour and silences debate concerning sexual orientation with criminal consequences for such debate. We believe that these bills make the government more intrusive than is justifiable in a free and democratic society."

I have signed it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

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

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, 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'm happy to add my support to this.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here from many constituents in my riding concerned about job loss, people like Terry and Shannon Everest, Janet Debosey, Marc Belcourt, David Roy and Eric McBride. They ask that I present this petition on their behalf.

"Whereas we feel the Canada-US free trade deal has done immeasurable damage to the economy of the province of Ontario, causing the loss of more than 450,000 jobs in Ontario alone; and

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

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal with whatever means possible, and we petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal now, and we particularly exhort the new federal government to live up to its commitment to preserve jobs in our province."

ST LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION

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

"Whereas the St Lawrence Parks Commission has closed a number of parks; and

"Whereas if these parks would remain open, it would boost the economy of eastern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation does not support single-source leasing at this time;

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

"To permit private sector leasing of the above parks for revitalization of eastern Ontario."

That's signed by many municipal people in eastern Ontario and I've also signed the petition.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Markham.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I've been trying to get on here for -- anyway, this is a petition signed by about 500 people from the riding of Markham. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition signed by thousands of Ontario citizens that says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas criminals can currently derive profit from the sale of recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas criminals can also derive profit for interviews or public appearances; and

"Whereas this can cause suffering of crime victims and that of their families;

"We, the undersigned, demand that private member's Bill 85, Proceeds of Crime Act, 1993, be passed into law."

I've signed my name to that as well.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 187 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas criminals can currently derive profit from the sale of recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas criminals can also derive profit from interviews or public appearances; and

"Whereas this can cause suffering of crime victims and that of their families;

"We, the undersigned, demand that private member's Bill 85, Proceeds of Crime Act, 1993, be passed into law."

I have signed this petition.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from people like Perry Comeau, Valerie Hall, Christina Schropp, people who are concerned about job losses in our province:u

"Whereas we feel the Canada-US free trade deal has done immeasurable damage to the economy of the province of Ontario, causing the loss of more than 450,000 jobs in Ontario alone; and

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

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal with whatever means possible, and we petition the House of Commons, with a newly elected federal government, to honour their commitment to the people of Ontario in stopping this deal now."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no Conservative support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I'm affixing my signature.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West.

Interjection.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): If you're going to spend time here, you should spend it with those you never see.

The Speaker: Petitions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Does the member for Etobicoke West have a petition?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, I do. I apologize.

1530

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas criminals can currently derive profit from the sale of recollections of their crimes" --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Try that again, Chris, "concurrently."

Mr Stockwell: No, it's not. It's "can currently," not the place in Mexico.

"Whereas criminals can also derive profit from interviews or public appearances; and

"Whereas this can cause suffering of crime victims and that of their families;

"We, the undersigned, demand that private member's Bill 85, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1993, be passed into law."

I will sign my name to this as well.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, I'm sorry; I must return to my point of privilege. I'd like to quote from the --

The Speaker: It's now a point of privilege.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, Mr Speaker, this is a point of personal privilege. I want to point you to sections 21(b) and 21(a) of the standing orders. I would just like to quote from that.

Section 21(b) says, "Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately."

Section 21(a) reads, "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

My point of privilege, sir, and I ask you to this time hear me fully, because you can only determine the validity of my claim by hearing what I have to say:

Repeatedly in this House, the Minister of Transportation in debate, both in questions that I have asked him and that other members have asked him, has stated that the photo-radar bill, Bill 47, is not a revenue grab. He has always suggested this is revenue-neutral.

However, Mr Speaker, in a government publication --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If the House would come to order, I would be able to hear the member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, the evidence that I'm reading is a publication which speaks for the government. It is the Topical publication put out by the Management Board secretariat and it is dated November 19. I will read you two very brief excerpts.

The first one reads, "'Ministries have a significant opportunity to offset some expenditure control pressures by focusing efforts on generating revenues,' said Ron Vrancart, Ministry of Natural Resources."

The Speaker: What is the point of privilege?

Mr Turnbull: It goes on, and in the middle of the article, Mr Speaker, it reads:

"A good example is introduction of photo-radar systems in Ontario, part of the integrated road safety program involving several ministries that was announced in this year's budget.

"It will take some time to get the technology in place and train the police to use it" --

The Speaker: What is your point of privilege?

Mr Turnbull: -- "before fines can start being levied and collected."

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Yorkview to come to order, and the member for Mississauga West as well.

I would ask the member to very quickly get to what privilege it is he believes that he has lost.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, my point of order is that repeatedly --

Interjection: Privilege.

Mr Turnbull: My privilege has been violated, Mr Speaker, by merit of the fact that the minister has consistently said this is not a revenue grab. This clearly is evidence that it is a --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member has tried the patience of the Chair too far.

Mr Turnbull: What are we supposed to do? We're going to vote on the bill now.

The Speaker: Reports by committees. Introduction of bills. The member for Markham.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): In standing in defence of the member for York Mills --

The Speaker: Would the member for Markham please take his seat. No. The member allegedly had a point of order, and then it was a point of privilege, and then it was a point of order. I dealt with it. The matter is finished, and we are now at introduction of bills. The Minister of Housing.

A new point of order? The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, the standing orders of the assembly under section 21 state: "Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately."

The view that I would like to present to the Speaker, with deep respect, is that the member for York Mills has an issue that requires listening to by the Chair inasmuch as this bill that he's talking about is coming up for second reading today.

The Speaker: The member for Markham knows that there is no point of order. The member for York Mills had a disagreement with something which was printed, had a disagreement on a policy issue, and of course that's a matter of debate. That's what this chamber's for. But there is nothing out of order, nor has he lost any privileges.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES IMMEUBLES D'HABITATION

On motion by Ms Gigantes, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 120, An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les immeubles d'habitation.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1537 to 1542.

The Speaker: Ms Gigantes moved that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property. All those in favour of Ms Gigantes's motion should please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Ms Gigantes's motion will please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Cordiano, Cousens, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole, Runciman, Sola, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Speaker: The ayes being 61 and the nays 31, I declare the motion carried.

When Speakers make mistakes, we should own up to them too. I neglected to allow the Minister of Housing her rightful opportunity to make a brief statement with the introduction of her bill. My apologies.

TEACHERS' PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS

On motion by Mr Silipo, on behalf of Mr Cooke, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 121, An Act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act / Projet de loi 121, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le régime de retraite des enseignants.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): These amendments, which are of a technical nature, are put forward with the agreement and support of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, our partner in the Ontario teachers' pension plan. This bill proposes an amendment that will give the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board clear authority to repay to the government special payments that the government has already made to the plan.

The partners have agreed that these payments may be replaced by gains disclosed by a January 1, 1993, evaluation of the fund. The bill also proposes to revise the method of calculating the amounts of the special payments that remain to be made to liquidate the unfunded actuarial liability of the Ontario teachers' pension plan as of January 1, 1990.

While this proposed amendment changes the way payments are calculated, it does not alter the government's commitment to pay off this liability.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice / Projet de loi 47, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'administration de la justice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I must remind the House that, as stated in the resolution passed by this House earlier, when Bill 47 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

Those in favour of Mr Charlton's resolution will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The division bells rang from 1549 to 1554.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of what was said by the member for York Mills, I wish to inquire of you whether or not this is a money bill we're voting on.

The Speaker: The traditional response is maybe yes, maybe no.

Mr Pouliot has moved second reading of Bill 47. Those in favour of Mr Pouliot's motion should please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Pouliot's motion should please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Offer, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Runciman, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Speaker: The ayes being 60, the nays 40, I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to an earlier order of the House, this bill is referred to the standing committee on general government.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You will know that I raised the issue last week about this very problem we're about to embark upon.

We are now in the middle of dealing with a bill called the Environmental Bill of Rights in the committee to which Bill 47 is referred. The difficulty is that we had some kind of consensus reached among the three parties that we would work and continue the clause-by-clause and finish the Environmental Bill of Rights before we rose at Christmas.

My concern now is that an agreement among the three parties has been broken by the intervention of this particular motion and it now appears that the House is asked to do two mutually exclusive pieces of business in the same committee. In my view, it has been the premise upon which this place has operated that the Legislative Assembly should not and does not tell the committees how to structure their business and, in fact, when they're endeavouring to do the business in a committee which is already occupied doing a bill of government's important agenda, that they not be interrupted.

My view, sir, is that not only has the business of the committee been interrupted, you have allowed, by the introduction of this motion, which I believed at the time was out of order and which I still now believe is out of order, to intervene in a way which we have never, ever contemplated being able to intervene before.

1600

The mere fact that the motion purports to take place under the auspices of a particular standing order is not in itself enough to curtail the authority and the independence of the legislative committees to set their own agenda. In fact, from time to time, Mr Speaker, you have reminded me when I stood on issues that are related to the business of the committees that you are unable to intervene and the House is unable to intervene to change that schedule unless there is a report from the committee asking for the direct intervention of the Chair.

It seems to me, therefore, Mr Speaker, that now that the hypothetical which I alerted you to last week has taken place, that is, that a bill and an agenda which are already being dealt with in the committee have been set aside by this particular motion, you must now be confronted with the prospect that the standing order was used inappropriately and that it in fact did something which you have never allowed the Chair to do.

If you allow this House, Mr Speaker, to put this motion into play -- ie, putting photo-radar into that committee when it is in the middle of doing the Environmental Bill of Rights, which was there on agreement of the three parties to be there and to be finished before we rise at Christmas -- you are setting a precedent and allowing us therefore to bring to you, by motion duly brought under the standing orders, to change the business of each of those committees.

While you may in the end be sustained in your ruling, or at least the House may vote against the motion brought by us, it appears that you are now prepared to accept that any member can come to the House to ask that the House direct a particular committee to cease and desist from doing special pieces of business and intervene to do business the members themselves would like to have performed in that committee. Having accepted this motion, I think you have now set the precedent that this chamber will be able to restructure the business of any committee at any time so long as we bring a motion that is within the ambit of any of the standing orders in this place.

That being the case, Mr Speaker, I think you should consider this particular item at this particular time to see, now that the hypothetical has occurred and is now real and practical, whether or not you are prepared to accept that this House will establish the business of the day, by motion, for each of the committees, even though they are in the middle of a process which has been unanimously agreed upon among the House leaders and therefore among the caucuses.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I have a further procedural concern to that of my colleague from Bruce, and that is that it's my understanding that the general government committee is currently in the midst of a vote in the committee itself on Bill 26. As a matter of fact, it was an amendment that was posed by my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel. I believe the committee had recessed for 20 minutes -- a 20-minute delay was requested, as is permitted under the rules -- and is actually in the midst of a vote.

If this time allocation motion were to be followed exactly as is worded and the next two days that the general government committee sits it will deal with photo-radar, in fact you will be interrupting -- not you; I don't mean that personally, Mr Speaker. The time allocation motion would be interrupting a vote, the middle of a vote, on another piece of legislation. I certainly think we need your guidance with respect to that matter.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: Just to elaborate further on what the member for Parry Sound said, the difficulty is that the general government committee did pass a resolution some time ago -- I can't recall the precise date -- where the clause-by-clause discussions with respect to the environmental bill would be for one full day -- beginning one full day. It didn't say one full day but beginning one full day, beginning the day of this past Thursday.

Those proceedings, those considerations by the committee on the Environmental Bill of Rights are still under way. In fact, as the member for Parry Sound said, there is a motion that is currently before that committee, which I made, that is now about to be voted on with respect to the committee.

Because the Chair of the committee, Mr Brown, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, adjourned the proceedings to this coming Thursday, the difficulty that is now happening is that this motion before the House, which we have just voted on, is quite clear that once second reading has been completed this bill must be dealt with by the general government committee on the next two proceeding days. Now the general government committee is in the middle of a vote. They are about to take a vote and they are being overruled essentially by this House. It puts the committee in a very difficult position.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: During a meeting of the subcommittee of the committee on general government, it was agreed unanimously that a motion should be put forward for debate by the full committee that insufficient time had been allocated to the debate of photo-radar and requesting that the government allocate more time. In point of fact, that was to have been debated at the next regularly scheduled date, which was last Thursday.

It was by mutual agreement between all members of the subcommittee that this would be handled as the first item of business in the afternoon session last Thursday. However, Mr Wiseman, the member for Durham West, made a motion to suggest that this should not be handled until after dealing with the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Moving forward that question of ordering our business for the committee will intrude upon the two days that have been allocated, which we've already stated is insufficient, but will further intrude on the ability of the committee on general government to consider the clause-by-clause of this very complex piece of legislation, the photo-radar bill.

Mr Speaker, in making your ruling, as well as the considerations that have been brought forward with respect to dealing with the motion that is on the floor of the committee, I would ask you to further rule as to whether there should be a delay and an extension of sittings in the light of the fact that the committee, under the aegis of the member for Durham West, has stopped the considerations of the subcommittee in their tracks and therefore doesn't allow for any ordering of the business of the subcommittee with respect to photo-radar.

The Speaker: First to the member for Bruce, I appreciate the concerns he brings to my attention. I think all members will realize that the House can direct committees to do certain things at certain times. The House, by way of motion on November 16, decided that the standing committee on general government would meet to consider Bill 47 on two regularly scheduled meeting days immediately following the second reading stage. The motion is very clear and what has to happen is that the bill then goes to the committee.

Now, at the same time members will know that routinely, when second reading debate is completed on a bill, the House decides to which committee that bill should be sent. Beyond that parameter, the member for Bruce will acknowledge that I have expressed some concern from time to time about the role of committees and their opportunity to act in the fullness of what a committee should be able to do in a parliamentary system. But the House prevails and the House makes its decision as to where something will go. It can order committees to do certain things.

To answer the question of the member for Parry Sound, for that committee it may be problematic, but I take it that what supersedes everything else, including a vote, is the order of the House. The committee will be inconvenienced to some extent; I appreciate that. But at the same time, the House has made a determination, notwithstanding any work that may have been done by unanimous agreement of a subcommittee.

Subcommittees are struck to try and develop an orderly way to conduct committee business, and often, in fact most times, they are very successful. The committee may have reached unanimous agreement about how to proceed. The House has imposed its will. It's not for the Chair to determine whether that is a good thing or not a good thing. The House has determined the direction it shall follow and the direction a committee shall follow.

I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by the member for Dufferin-Peel and the member for York Mills, as well as by the two honourable House leaders from the third party and the official opposition.

1610

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I apologize for not giving you advance notice. I try to do that normally. I'm really trying to seek some guidance from you with respect to a concern I have regarding a breach of my privileges as a member. I would ask you not to rule right away. I'm really seeking your guidance and I'm prepared to provide you with some written argument or additional written information after, if you so require.

It arises in June; I think it was June 9 of this summer. I wrote to the Solicitor General regarding having access to a thing called a media report, a ministry document which is a collection of clippings from newspapers across the province that the ministry collects and collates and provides to people within the ministry and others. I saw it because it was made available to me.

I then made a request to the minister for access to that publication. There was some months' delay before I got a response. Subsequently, I got a response from a staff person in the minister's office which said -- and I'm paraphrasing here; I apologize -- in essence, that the cost of clipping and collating was so prohibitive they couldn't photocopy another set of the pages to provide to me.

I think this is a privilege issue because I think it relates to both the free speech rights that I have and the right-to-vote rights -- and I ask you not rule right today -- because it is public information. It's not any private information. It's not government information. It doesn't have any of those particular elements.

I know that similar media information of that kind is provided by other ministers to the critics. I am the co-critic for that portfolio and I think it's important for me in my job as a member to have access to information of that kind, which is publicly available, in order to do my duty. By denying me access to information that is available, I think my privileges are being breached. I'd be prepared to provide additional written argument if you so desire, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for St George-St David might not be aware that this issue has been raised on previous occasions in previous parliaments. Indeed, it has been a consistent ruling that it is not a loss of a member's privileges where the member has not received items for which a government agency has noted that there would be a considerable cost involved.

I understand and share the member's concern that all members should have, as much as possible, complete access to whatever information is required in order to fulfil their duties. However, in the circumstances which he describes, it has not been found in the past to be a loss of privilege. I know this is disappointing news to the member for St George-St David, but none the less that has been a consistent ruling.

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Government notice of motion number 14.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 6(b)(i), it says that this motion may be moved on the basis that we are now in the last eight sessional days in the month of December and June of any year. I ask you to note that in fact this motion indicates that these are the last eight sessional days, including part of November, and it is not therefore provided for in the standing orders that this motion may be moved at this time. Quite clearly, on the face of it, (b)(i) says "the last eight sessional days in June and December." I ask you to rule that this motion is therefore out of order.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce: Indeed I was aware of the inconsistency in the standing orders. He is absolutely correct that the standing order, as worded, says the month of December and the motion that's on the order paper indicates two days in November as well as six days in December. I will allow the motion to stand. However, the two days in November are not considered part of the motion. They are not considered for the purpose of night sittings.

Mr Elston: I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr Speaker, but we have been consistently told that you are going to enforce the standing rules as they are. The motion is totally out of order. We have not therefore been given notice of a valid motion under standing order 6(b)(i). We have been given notice that the motion is to consider November and December late-night sittings.

You are not, sir, free to interpret this standing order conveniently to take away two of those days. To be quite honest, Mr Speaker, you must restrict yourself to what it says in this standing order. If the motion does not comply with the standing order, it is out of order and it cannot be severed by your ruling. It must be placed again another day and you are not, sir, in my opinion, able to sever it for your convenience or for the convenience of the government.

It is not, Mr Speaker, my view that you can allow this motion to proceed at this time, that you must ask for us to be given notice of a proper motion. I'm going to insist that you enforce this standing order on the letter, as you have enforced standing orders on the letter against the opposition parties.

I cannot, sir, understand how you could take this unusual step to protect the government when its motion clearly does not comply with the standing order that is here on the face of this book. You are always telling us that we must have specific words. There are no better specific words than under 6(b)(i) which says: "During the last eight sessional days in June and December, a motion to extend the hours of meeting during the remaining days in each period provided for in clause (a) may be proposed, with notice, by a minister of the crown."

Well, it's proposed by the minister -- I'm pleased to admit that -- but the eight sessional days specified in the motion, of which we have notice and upon which we would be putting a great deal of our time, indicate that this is not in order and does not comply with the standing orders. This means we are being asked to consider a motion which is totally different than the one contemplated by 6(b)(i).

You, sir, I understand would like to help these people out but you cannot and must not allow them to get away with proposing a motion that is not contemplated under standing order 6(b)(i).

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have listened with some interest to the point made by the honourable member for Bruce and I must say I think he has a valid point. I think the standing order is quite explicit in that it refers to two months only, be they June and December. I would quite agree that it cannot apply to eight days if those eight days include two days in the month of November, nor could it if it applied to two days in May, I would suggest to you. So I think indeed the member for Bruce does have a very valid point.

Hon Mr Charlton: The opposition House leaders raise an interesting point. I suggest to you, sir, though, that they also very carefully in their comments pointed out the internal inconsistency in the standing orders.

The order not only says in December, the order also very clearly says "the last eight sessional days" --

Mr Elston: In June and December.

Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct, but it is an internal inconsistency based on the calender that's set out in these standing orders.

I think, Mr Speaker, it's your responsibility to interpret the intent of that section, which is to allow for late-night sittings on the last eight sessional days, in the spring and in the fall, based on the calendar that's set out in these standing orders.

The Speaker: To the three House leaders: First of all, members will recall that prior to the change in the standing orders, where we sat one week later in December than what the standing orders now call for, eight sessional days would always fall within the month of December. It would be impossible for them not to fall within that time. When the standing order was changed to move up a week, the corresponding change was not made, obviously, in the standing order to which the member for Bruce refers.

I listened carefully to both the member for Parry Sound and the member for Bruce, as well as the government House leader. He raises a very interesting point and in a moment I'm going to consider it further. I wish for all members to know that every decision that is made from this chair is made to serve all members equally. The convenience of the Chair has nothing to do with it nor any other factors. We will stand recessed for 10 minutes.

The House recessed from 1622 to 1632.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The House will recess for an extra five minutes.

The House recessed from 1632 to 1637.

The Speaker: I've had the opportunity to review the matter which was brought to my attention by the honourable member for Bruce and the honourable member for Parry Sound, and both of those members are right. The motion is not in order, and I will call for the next order of business.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have any opening remarks?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. This bill primarily will implement the income tax changes as announced in the previous budget. It also does some administrative changes to the legislation in terms of ensuring that our legislation will be consistent with some of the changes that have come about as a result of federal changes. It also will permit taxpayers to electronically file the Ontario portion of their annual income tax return.

As I said, the primary focus of the bill is the increases that were announced in the last budget. Many people obviously are not happy about paying more income taxes. No one takes a great deal of pleasure in paying more income taxes, but I want to remind people that this was part of our strategy to get a handle on the deficit. The three-pronged strategy of course included the social contract in terms of dealing with those who work in the broader public sector, for a saving of $2 billion. We also had the expenditure control plan, which further reduced government spending by $4 billion, and then the other side of that of course was a $2-billion increase in tax revenue and in non-tax revenue, fees and licences etc.

A significant portion of that came from income tax increases, and there are several reasons. First of all, we all know income tax is one of the most progressive forms of taxation we have. This government has certainly made a commitment in trying to deal with tax issues and the tax increases that have been necessary to sustain our levels of services and maintain our strong commitment to job creation. We've tried to do that in a very progressive manner.

Certainly we've seen some studies that have analysed the tax increases that clearly indicate that this government has done that. In terms of tax increases, those who earn more have received higher increases. There's been a significant number of people at the lower end who don't pay any Ontario income tax because of changes we've made to the tax reduction program. We have made the tax system and the Ontario portion of income tax far more progressive than they have been in the past.

I look forward to the comments being put forward by other members. I would suggest that in the normal course of events opposition members will say this is so awful because there are tax increases. As I said, no one likes to pay tax increases, but we have a very good level of services. We have very strong public services in this province. We want to try and maintain them in this difficult economic period.

I will remind people that government revenues did go down three years in a row. That has not occurred to any other government since the Second World War, so when opposition members are saying, "You shouldn't have done income tax increases," that's fair enough. Then they have an obligation to explain to people quite frankly what the alternatives would've been.

I know particularly that the Leader of the Opposition has clearly said, I believe on a CFRB radio program, that her solution is that she would've made more significant cuts. She would've got more out of the social contract. She would've wanted that to be $4 billion not $2 billion.

It's quite interesting that while we haven't heard the Leader of the Opposition say that here in this House, she has certainly tried to say that to other people, that this should be --

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): We're a minority opinion.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Kimble, explain away your $14-billion debt. Short-sighted, narrow-minded, socialist pap.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. There is a period, questions and comments, where members can voice their opinions.

Mr Sutherland: I look forward to hearing comments from the Liberal Party as to whether it agrees with its leader in the comments she made on a CFRB radio program that she feels we didn't go far enough in the social contract. Of course, we know what the third party has been saying all along, that it would've just cut and slashed and burned. We were not willing to accept that approach. We wanted to maintain services.

As I've said, these are very difficult times for everybody. We understand they're very difficult times for the public at large. They don't take any pleasure in having to pay more income tax. We have tried to do it in a very progressive way. We have tried to make a commitment to get our operating spending under control, and I think we've done that. We've made a commitment to get the deficit under control. We've also made a commitment to maintain services and to continue with the most significant job creation efforts we've seen in this province.

I don't need to remind you that one of the reasons the new federal government was elected was because of its commitment to job creation. From all reports, they're indicating they may spend $400 million a year in the province of Ontario. I want to remind people and would remind everyone here that this government is spending almost 10 times that amount, 10 times the amount the federal government is committing to this province. It should be made clear that we are the leaders.

This government is the leader in job creation in this province through the many different programs, the Jobs Ontario Capital program, the Jobs Ontario Homes program, the Jobs Ontario Community Action program. They're very successful.

During constituency week, I toured some of the Jobs Ontario Training programs and only heard compliments from employers about the success of this program, employers who said they have not used a government program for 20 years because they've been so turned off about how ineffective past government programs had been. They're using the Jobs Ontario Training program because it is designed for them. It meets their needs. They can develop a training program that meets their specific needs in their factory, in their plant, in their workplace.

It's through those programs and through those efforts that we're continuing to make a commitment to, that we're continuing to fund. Some of these tax increases will go to pay for it, to get people back to work. Because it's very clear that if we're going to move out of these difficult economic times, we obviously have to get people back to work. We have to build the infrastructure, which we're doing. We have to upgrade the skills of the workforce, both those who are still employed and, of course, those unfortunate people who have been unemployed and who are on social assistance. If we're going to have a long-term successful recovery, those are the things that we need to do.

In order to maintain those commitments, we had to, as I say, take a three-pronged strategy: control some of the other operating spending, do the social contract and, despite the fact that no one likes to pay more, increase income taxes so we're able to do that.

I think I will just close my comments by saying that I think we took a very balanced approach in our way of trying to deal with these difficult economic times, and a progressive approach certainly on the income tax side. But this has been the goal for us: to try and get this message out to people. I understand many people are very unhappy out there. I think all of us hear that in our constituency offices: the frustration, the kind of desperation among some. There are those who want to try and blame those people who are unemployed, who say that somehow it's their fault.

We know what the record is in this province in terms of our efforts at job creation. We know that the previous federal government did not provide the same level of support to this province as it did to other parts of the country. It's very unfortunate that this has occurred, but there's documented evidence now in terms of how the past federal government treated us. Going forward with the free trade agreement, combined with higher interest rates, combined with a higher dollar, had an extremely negative impact on this province, far more than any other province.

At the same time as all that is going on, what did we have? We had the federal government saying: "Ontario, you are a 'have' province. We're going to cap your transfer payments at a 5% increase." I believe the numbers indicate that over the time that the federal government has been doing that Ontario has lost some $20 billion.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we should have a quorum here if this government is planning on introducing and debating a tax bill that's ripping the money right out of the taxpayers' hands. We should have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford.

1650

Mr Sutherland: I was talking about the significant job creation efforts of this government in this province during this very, very difficult time. I was talking about how the Jobs Ontario Capital program has worked very successfully in terms of helping our infrastructure. I know in my own riding the Jobs Ontario Capital program helped significantly.

I see the Minister of Community and Social Services is here. When he was the Minister of Education, he approved a Jobs Ontario Capital grant for a school in my riding, Tavistock Public School. In this school, the population had grown tremendously. It only had one set of washrooms. They had clearly outgrown the school and the number of portables. Because of the Jobs Ontario Capital fund and money specifically allocated for education, for projects that could be done in this fiscal year, that school is getting a renovation that it has needed for a long time and may not have gotten for several years otherwise.

That shows you again how the Jobs Ontario Capital program is working. It's putting people to work in the community of Tavistock. All those parents and people in the community who had come to see me and ask for help in getting their school renovation now are seeing that happen much quicker than they had even anticipated. I look forward to attending the opening of that some time in the spring.

Jobs Ontario Community Action is just a tremendous program.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A quorum call, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was talking about the very successful Jobs Ontario Community Action program. As you know, the government made a commitment to community economic development in a couple of ways, first of all with the Community Economic Development Act, Bill 40, which will allow new mechanisms for community economic development; we also made a firm commitment through the Jobs Ontario Community Action program, which is $300 million over a three-year period. We fast-tracked $31 million of those dollars, and I was very pleased to announce at the end of July a grant of almost $1 million to my community for a Jobs Ontario Community Action project.

The town of Ingersoll, two years ago, had a fire in its downtown core area. Since that time, the downtown has unfortunately deteriorated and some more businesses have left. Because of this fire and the fact that they haven't been able to rebuild on the fire site, you have this big hole in the downtown core. That's obviously not very attractive for customers and shoppers.

The town had responded to this by being ready, by being prepared. They had put a committee together, they had a consultant and they had developed a downtown revitalization strategy. As a result of this Jobs Ontario Community Action grant, they will now be able to implement that downtown revitalization strategy. We gave close to $1 million. The town will match that with close to $1 million to implement this downtown revitalization strategy, improve the roads, improve the infrastructure and hopefully allow some type of arrangement to occur for development to take place where this fire occurred and caused a great deal of difficulty.

I also want to say that the opposition sometimes says we're not very effective in managing things and we can't get things done quickly. Well, the comment from the town was that we caught them a bit by surprise, because they'd never seen a program come together this quickly and announcements made and money forwarded to a community as quickly as the Jobs Ontario Community Action dollars were. So we responded very quickly in terms of helping the town of Ingersoll. They are now in the process of carrying out the different projects that were highlighted under their Jobs Ontario Community Action proposal.

Not only is the town going to benefit -- the actual jobs created right now are certainly very helpful -- but the long-term fact is that the downtown core will be revitalized. It will look more attractive. New businesses will come into the downtown core. That's obviously going to create more employment in my community, and of course as new businesses come in and more people continue to shop in the downtown core, we'll see a long-term spinoff effect. That is one good example of how the government can help support private industry, can help support the creation of longer-term jobs, through this grant to help improve the downtown core of Ingersoll, which will result in more businesses starting up there and will result in more employment and will strengthen the retail base in the town of Ingersoll.

So we see some new ways, new methods, not methods that the third party had come up with, not methods that the opposition party had come up with, but real methods that this government has come up with that respond to the needs of local communities through Jobs Ontario Community Action, real programs and real methods that respond to the training needs of local companies.

During constituency week, I toured a couple of companies, a couple of manufacturing companies actually, in my riding that are using Jobs Ontario Training. One is CMW Manufacturing. They make parts for truck axles and truck brakes. They make them for all the major truck manufacturing companies: Mack Truck, Freightliner, Kenworth, and they have now just reached a deal with a Japanese company. They have found that the Jobs Ontario Training program has helped them to develop a new and very effective training program and their company is expanding and they will be looking at taking on more people. I was pleased to tour their operation. They are in the process of moving to larger facilities to meet their growing demand and their new market, but they're working very effectively.

Another company I went and toured was Whitelaw Machinery. They are a very old and well-established company in my riding. Actually, they've been in business going back to before Confederation. They make the rollers and the grinders for flour mills and they take them and regrind them once they get dull so they'll grind more effectively. They have taken on Jobs Ontario Training individuals and that is helping them, because they have now expanded into the American market and are doing very effectively in terms of exporting into that market. Jobs Ontario Training is helping them.

After touring a couple of these plants, what I also did was meet with some of the participants. These participants talked about the fact that some of them hadn't had a lot of training, had not had a lot of formal education, and how the Jobs Ontario Training gave them new hope, gave them new opportunity, got some of them off social assistance. It gave them that sense of pride, that sense of self-worth that all of us and all members of our society want to have.

Jobs Ontario Training is working very effectively in my riding and I know it's working very effectively in many other ridings. I know when you talk to many of the participants, they get quite discouraged about the negative comments they hear about the program from some members of the opposition.

We also know, besides the Jobs Ontario programs, the very effective wide range of Jobs Ontario programs that this government has implemented to respond to the difficult situations.

We have also come up with new, innovative ways. Of course, as you know, Mr Speaker, we finally have Bill 17 passed, the Capital Investment Plan Act, which will create new ways for the infrastructure to be developed in transportation, in water and sewage, in creating construction jobs, in telecommunications etc. Those are new, innovative ways. They will allow the government to go forward with infrastructure quicker. They allow for a greater role by the private sector in helping to develop them.

1700

We can think about the transportation area, the Highway 407 project, which I know many members wanted to see done much quicker. Because of the way the capital plans work now, each year you must have a new allocation before going ahead with the next section of construction. Of course, there are large demands on the transportation capital budget across the province, and if we put all those moneys into doing the 407, we may not have as much money for the other parts of the province.

Through the new Transportation Capital Corp, we'll be able to set up a system that will allow for an ongoing source of revenue coming in to ensure that construction can go forward at a much, much quicker rate than had been carried out by any of the previous governments and that will allow the 407 construction, which will allow and support many other types of economic development to go on in those areas.

We certainly know those people and certainly heard from the good members who represent some of the Durham region and the Oshawa area. They have certainly been advocating for Highway 407 to go through at a much quicker rate.

Those are more examples of what we're doing in job creation, how we're changing government, how we're making government more effective and getting it to work in a different way, in modern methods, methods that respond to communities, that respond to companies, that respond to their training needs, that respond to individuals' needs.

I just want to say that I think we're doing a very good job in terms of that. We're developing a progressive taxation system. I know people aren't happy with it, but that is necessary.

I'd like to move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford moves the adjournment of the debate. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The motion is therefore carried.

Orders of the day.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'd like to propose a motion that the House sit beyond 6 o'clock this evening.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: There's nothing out of order. The question has been asked. The motion has carried.

Mr Sutherland: I think for the most part I've talked about the types of things that this government --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is he continuing the debate from last speaking?

The Deputy Speaker: He had adjourned the debate. He stood after the motion, and then I called orders of the day. Therefore, the proceedings are absolutely normal.

Mr Sutherland: Continuing from where I left off, as I said, I tried to highlight what this bill is all about. It does involve income tax increases. No one is particularly happy with that, but it does allow us to maintain our services. It does allow us to make significant -- and I mean significant -- investment in Jobs Ontario projects in capital, in training, in homes, in all those areas; in Jobs Ontario Youth as well. Those are the types of things that we need to put people back to work, to improve our infrastructure, to upgrade the skills of those individuals.

As I say, some people may not be happy with that. The long-term impacts of the type of moves that this government is doing and the type of investments we're making in people and communities is very significant in the long-term health --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think there's a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum?

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Speaker, I'm going to wrap up my remarks. As I say, significant investments in Jobs Ontario -- capital, training, youth, homes, community action, those types of things -- are going to make our province stronger, make our infrastructure stronger, make our constituents better-trained individuals so that we can respond and grow as we come out and we have economic renewal occurring in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): If the government really had to collect more money from the people, the first thing it should do is become accountable to us on the way it's misappropriating and misspending money. Possibly the honourable parliamentary assistant could elaborate on what the government has done to address some of the concerns people are raising.

There is welfare fraud. Social assistance fraud across the province is rampant. The auditor has said there's $750 million there. If you were to even touch some percentage of the existing social assistance fraud, that would be less money you have to raise through the increase in taxes.

Health card fraud: How much is that costing Ontarians? There are one million more cards than there are people. Who is it who's coming in to collect this service? How many people are coming into the country and taking advantage of our free health care system? Why don't you do something about that misappropriation of funds?

Putting up bilingual highway signs: How much did that cost, and why did that money have to be spent right now? We're talking about people in Ontario who don't even understand the signs on the highway, and now you've made further changes there. Why don't you start facing up to moneys the government is spending that don't need to be spent? There's no one in this House who's coming clean on saying how much money it is you're putting out the back door on things like that.

Why don't you tell us how much money you've given to people like Robin Sears? How much was he taking and spending in a month? Once you're into the trough with the New Democrats, you can just go out there and spend any amount of money without accountability.

Michael Decter, one of your great big shots who came into the province of Ontario: How much money did he blow while he was a deputy minister? Carlton Masters: How much money did you waste on that person?

When I look at you coming into this House and saying, "We need more money," you need more money because you're stealing it from the people of Ontario. You're misspending it. You're misappropriating. You're rotten, you're wrong and you can't come and say you need it, because you haven't begun to correct the problems. You're creating more problems than any --

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Questions or comments?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'll try and do this a little better than the last speaker, without --

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't know how any person can say he's any better than any other member in the House. We're all in a position in this House that we are created equal.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Markham, please take your seat.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, he just blew 30 seconds of my time, but I'm not going to dwell on it.

First of all, I want to commend the member from the government side in terms of what he said. He talked about progressive tax. He talked about infrastructure. He talked about Jobs Ontario. He talked about how the government is spending the money. I tell you, when you hear the negative comments that are going to come from the other side in a couple of minutes, they're upset because the money, government money, is going to create work. They're upset that it's going to the average person out there. They're upset that it's going to the construction worker, the person with the boots on. They're upset because the government money is not going to the rich.

1710

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There are rules in our standing orders that say you cannot impute motive. The member has imputed motive, suggesting that we as a party are upset that construction workers are going to get money. That is laughable.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, please, please.

Mr Mammoliti: Again, another 20 seconds were blown off my time. I think it's done on purpose. They're upset because government money is not going to subsidize the rich. If that were the case, and if my colleague were to speak about subsidizing the rich, they would not get up, as they're doing today, on points of order. They would not get up, as they're doing today, to complain --

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have some concerns that the honourable member is again imputing motive. I would ask him to rethink his position.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.. There's no point in raising points of order all the time. If you don't know what a point of order is all about, I'll take the time and explain it to you. I know you know what a real point of order is all about. The member for Yorkview, I give you another five seconds.

Mr Mammoliti: We're not giving to the rich; we are creating work. The member from the government side spoke very clearly on how the government is doing that. They're upset we're not subsidizing --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I hope the House will cooperate and will try to maintain order.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): It's those five seconds that really got me, you know? They really got me.

If I may try and respond to the member for Oxford, I know it's not an easy job being the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer, because you get the dirty job of introducing bills like increases in your income tax. I realize all of this.

But when you look at Bill 31, and you look at section 4 of the bill and it says that the rate of Ontario personal income tax will increase to 58% for 1993 and subsequent years, this is wrong. It's actually 61%, from 55% to 61%, because 3% of the increase in the personal income tax was retroactive from January to July and another 3% from July to December. We're talking of an increase from 55% to 61%, and that's an 11% increase, not a 3% increase.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Mr Grandmaître: Now, you're ruining my time.

Mr Stockwell: -- I think we need a quorum here.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

Mr Grandmaître: I need five seconds.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

Le Vice-Président : Monsieur le député, vous avez 22 secondes.

M. Grandmaître : Alors, peut-être que je pourrai faire du bon sens dans 22 secondes. Let's go back to what the member for Oxford was saying was a "progressive tax." How can you call a retroactive tax progressive? This is a regressive tax. This is what I call it. I know that you have a difficult time to explain why this retroactivity. I realize that you have to try and sell this to people of the province of Ontario.

I realize my time is running short. The member was talking about the great job creation programs that were introduced, and all at the same time the deficit was increasing at a tremendous --

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Questions and comments?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The member for Oxford has indicated that the people are unhappy about an increased tax. I submit that is a mild understatement. The people in the province of Ontario are outraged by the increased tax.

You know, the sad thing is that the tax was intended to increase the revenues of the province of Ontario by $1.1 billion, and in actual fact now we see a publication just put out within the last few weeks, Ontario Finances, which indicates that the revenue from the personal income tax will actually be down. It's now forecasting personal income tax of $13.9 billion this year in the province of Ontario, whereas the original budget forecast $14.3 billion, so there's a loss in personal income tax of over $400 million.

Why is that? Well, it's no great secret. People are being taxed to death. The economy is going underground. When you add more and more taxes on, it becomes self-defeating. That's what we're seeing. We have had deputations before councils of this Legislature by, for example, the Ontario Home Builders' Association. They have indicated that 41% of home renovations are now being done underground; 17% of new home construction is involved with the underground economy. These are payments under the table.

Why is this happening? Because this government is bringing in new tax after tax. People don't think it's right and they won't pay it. In 1991 the rate was 53%, in 1992 the rate was 54.5% and in 1993 the rate is supposedly 58%, but in actual fact people are now paying 61% because it's all being collected in half a year. It's too much and the people won't stand for it and they won't pay it.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Oriole.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Doesn't he have a two-minute reply?

The Deputy Speaker: You're right. The member for Oxford, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Sutherland: I thank my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent. I'd like to thank the member for Yorkview and the member from one of the Ottawa ridings -- I forget the exact one.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just don't think there's a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the clerk check if there is a quorum.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is present.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: As I was saying, I'd like to thank the members for Yorkview, Markham, Ottawa East and Don Mills. I'll try and address some of their concerns.

First of all, to the comments the member for Don Mills made about personal income tax revenue being down, as reported in the second-quarter Ontario Finances, that number being down is not a result of these tax increases. That is the result of the receipts from the 1992 tax year that have come in far lower than were originally projected. That is why that figure is down. That is from the 1992 tax year, not the current situation.

The member for Markham talked about welfare fraud and health care fraud. I can only say that both ministries are dealing with them. We're carrying out significant reforms that are going to improve both systems: the launching of Turning Point as the key component for welfare reform. Significant efforts have been made in terms of health care reform to make it more effective and develop more community-based services, to make the whole system more cost-effective but also to enhance the services in many different communities, to make those services more effective. That's what the government has done.

Again, I want to say that spending in this province has been under control in the last two to three years. The problem has been that revenues have gone down three years in a row, which has not occurred since the Depression.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time's expired. Any further debate?

Mr Stockwell: Move adjournment.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Why? I'm pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill 31, which I think is a very important piece of legislation. The reason it's important is that it deals with the tax policy of the government as a part of the NDP's economic strategy for the province of Ontario. This bill was tabled in June 1993 as part of the provincial budget.

The reason I believe it is important is that the province at this particular time, as we know, is hopefully emerging from what has been one of the most difficult and deep recessionary times in recent memory.

I've said this on other occasions in this House. I had the opportunity last year to make the same point and I'm sorry the Premier and the Treasurer and the government didn't listen to me then. They obviously are going to hear the same thing today and I hope perhaps they will listen better today. In fact, I believe now is the wrong time to be increasing taxes in Ontario. The province is undergoing a very fragile economic recovery, one that must be nurtured if it is to be sustained. Instead, we know this government plans to attempt to take $1.1 billion out of the economy in new personal income taxes, because of the higher tax rates which are contained in Bill 31.

Removing the money from the economy at this time, taking $1.1 billion in the new and additional tax revenue out of the economy is, in my view, economic mismanagement of the highest order and will dampen not only consumer spending, but will hurt business confidence at this very crucial point in our recovery.

At this point, I would like to move adjournment of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole moves the adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1723 to 1753.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members please take their seats.

The member for Oriole has moved the adjournment of the House. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 0; the nays are 86. I declare the motion lost.

Report continues in volume B.

23 novembre 1993