Hansard Transcript 1993-Jul-20 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): A few weeks ago, amid great fanfare, the government announced a tourism strategy designed to bring tourist dollars into Ontario. While it looked good on paper, the reality in eastern Ontario is far from ideal. The St Lawrence Parks Commission has consistently failed to recognize the partnership that must exist with private enterprise.

Mr Don Besner of Maxville told me that he would like to lease Raisin River Park, since the parks commission decided not to operate it any longer. Other individuals have expressed an interest in running parks that were closed in past years, but have been stonewalled by this government.

Worried that valuable tourism opportunities would be lost and the park would fall into ruin, Mr Besner began to round up community support. Ontario Public Service Employees Union representative Ms Laurie Fish of Brockville told him that the union would rather see a park permanently closed than be operated by a private entrepreneur.

Last Sunday, as I watched, and reports are that, the OPP turned away approximately 1,500 tourists who wanted to use the parks system.

The St Lawrence Parks Commission is missing valuable opportunities to host tourism from all over by refusing to cooperate with business people who want to offer summer employment to students and bolster tourism in these tough economic times. I demand that the minister pursue negotiations to reopen the parks that are now closed by allowing private interests to play a role in their operation.

ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health and it concerns Mr Morley Clement of Orillia, who has endured considerable pain and discomfort for the past seven months because of his left hip, which must be replaced.

Dr Hugh Cameron at the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital here in Toronto informed Mr Clement that he does indeed require a hip replacement and a bone graft, but he indicated that the present government has the health care system in such turmoil that he simply does not know when the procedure can take place. Dr Cameron said doctors are now forced to book these delicate operations in 1994 and 1995.

Minister, on July 8 my colleague the member for Simcoe West warned you about the province-wide shortage of orthopaedic surgeons that has resulted in a crisis in the delivery of emergency health care services. On June 23, I warned you that your Bill 50, the health expenditure control act, will have a negative impact on the ability to provide and receive high-quality medical services.

Do you really expect that people like Morley Clement can get the health care treatment they deserve if this province-wide shortage of orthopaedic surgeons continues and if you are successful in passing Bill 50? Just what do you want me to tell someone like Morley Clement when pain and sleepless nights force him into a wheelchair if he has to wait until 1995 for his hip replacement operation? Minister, what am I to tell him?

SCIENCE NORTH

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): As you know, Mr Speaker, the entire Sudbury region has depended on science for a long time in terms of getting us back to the greenery. One of the places we are very proud we have in the Sudbury region is Science North, the two snowflakes located right on Ramsey Lake. It's a hands-on experience that's developed a worldwide reputation. Countries come to see how it operates so that they can reimplement the system in their own countries. I'm very proud of what they have done and how they represent us.

It is a credit to their staff, to their CEO, Jim Marchbank, and to their board of directors that they have operated within their budget every year of their existence. I commend them for that.

It is with great pride that we are becoming even bigger. Next June 19, on the 10th birthday of Science North, we will open IMAX in Sudbury. It has been announced that the province is giving the city $3.2 million. Science North will have to pay back $500,000. As a consequence, we will be an even greater mecca for northern Ontario.

I am very pleased that Science North is making Sudbury even more of a place to visit. I invite everyone to come up next June 19 and see our first show in IMAX and the rocks of Sudbury.

JOBS ONTARIO

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): The Citizens Action Group is a Hamilton agency which has helped more than 35,000 people find jobs over the past 20 years.

On June 4, the executive director of the Citizens Action Group wrote an article in the Hamilton Spectator which was extremely critical of Jobs Ontario. Surprise, surprise: Only one week after this article was published, Minister Dave Cooke pulled the funding from the Citizens Action Group because the ministry said it wasn't cooperative and it didn't meet its targets. I would point out that the minister's briefing notes made specific reference to the Spectator article when the recommendation was given to terminate funding.

The Citizens Action Group had complained in the Spectator that Jobs Ontario was only after quantity, not quality. To quote their executive director, "The more social assistance recipients we can jam through the turnstiles, the richer we get." He also said that Jobs Ontario is run by "a centralized, bureaucratized, paralysed and neutralized group who call the shots from Queen's Park." His estimate is that 75% to 85% of the people employed through this program are simply replacements, not new jobs.

His criticisms about the lack of proper financial controls are proving out to be all too true, as the Brantford incident has shown.

The ministry may attempt to muzzle this group, but the truth is now out about the NDP's much-ballyhooed Jobs Ontario program: It's an utter failure and a con job.

1340

LANDLORD-TENANT COOPERATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have been monitoring the situation at 1002 Lawrence Avenue East since January 1993. Recently, on a personal inspection of the premises, I saw firsthand that the landlord's harassment continues and poor living conditions still exist.

Consumers' Gas plans to turn off the service tomorrow due to arrears. North York officials are doing everything they can within the existing legislative framework. However, the actions of this apartment owner have demonstrated that existing legislation such as the Planning Act and municipal property standards bylaws take too long.

The tenants of 1002 Lawrence Avenue are pursuing the enforcement of their rights through the means that are currently available to them, but with frustrating results. Municipal authorities need to have the power to deal with these types of situations on an emergency basis. Several municipalities have secured private legislation enabling them to enact a vital services bylaw.

Today, I call on this government's cooperation in bringing forward province-wide legislation to enable all municipalities to enact vital services bylaws.

GIRL GUIDES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): On Saturday, July 17, I attended the 1993 International Jamboree of the Girl Guides held at Guelph Lake. Over 3,200 Girl Guides and guide leaders from around the world gathered at the camp, which runs from July 12 to 22.

This year's theme is "Living in Harmony -- Today's Challenge," and the guides set up a global village of tents, with each section of the camp formed as a continent. In that setting, the guides examined their role in relation to the advancement of girls and women, the environment, social responsibility and world peace.

The opening ceremonies were on Saturday and the guests included Anne Swarbrick, Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, and Dr Roberta Bondar, the first Canadian woman astronaut. Dr Bondar told the audience that she earned her first wings as a Girl Guide and talked about how the leadership and values she learned in guiding influenced her life. She recalled how she wanted to be a pilot when women weren't allowed to fly.

During their stay at the International Jamboree, the guides are helping with community service projects such as the local food bank, Meals on Wheels and an equestrian camp for children with disabilities.

The only thing marring this event was a sexist cartoon run by the Thomson Guelph Mercury that angered the guides, their leaders and some of the dignitaries. The guides have started a petition against this.

Thank you to the Minister of Culture, Anne Swarbrick, and the previous minister, Ed Philip, for supporting the Girl Guides of Canada. The self-esteem and leadership skills and the sense of responsibility this kind of program provides is so important to young women, given the kinds of challenges and attitudes that they continue to face.

MEMBERS IN HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AREA

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): The Liberal Party of Ontario continues to be concerned about the health and welfare of the people and the economy in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

There has been for some time an admission, I think, on the part of the six NDP members in that area that they cannot get their act together. Heaven knows that the local officials and council and other people in the area, for economic development reasons, wanted to proceed with the Red Hill Creek Expressway.

My leader, Lyn McLeod, has several times indicated that we are in favour of promoting the value of economic development in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

I guess that while the cancellation by Bob Mackenzie and others of the Red Hill Creek Expressway on what they described as moral grounds occurred, it has come to our attention, and it probably isn't a big surprise to any of us, that now the members, to detract attention from these grievous errors of economic planning, have turned on each other. Now the member for Wentworth North is attacking the member for Wentworth East in an unmerciful fashion, claiming that he is not carrying out his mandate as a member of the area.

While I would not on my own go into the press and describe the work habits of other colleagues, it seems to me that the member for Wentworth North has taken it upon himself to undermine the activities of the member for Wentworth East and in fact has detracted from his ability to carry on his duties as a member of the Legislative Assembly.

The Liberal Party regrets that the work in the Hamilton-Wentworth area has been compromised to such an extent and we deplore the attacks personally from one member to the other.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The Minister of Community and Social Services recently brought forward his government's proposal for social assistance reform in Ontario.

The question on the minds of many of our municipalities today is, where do we fall within this reform? While municipalities are eager to have the social assistance program revamped, they're equally anxious to play a role in this revision.

The municipalities, through the Association of Municipalities in Ontario, are pushing for bilateral discussions with the government in regard to the delivery of services and the funding mechanisms of this proposal. To date, they have not received a response from the minister as to how they will be involved.

Municipalities are not just another lobby group interested in these new welfare proposals; they are the other side of the funding and delivery equation. Joe Mavrinac, the president of AMO, put it succinctly in his statement when responding to the minister's announcement:

"Municipalities are committed to ensuring and improving the economic, social and public health of the communities municipal councils represent. We insist that discussions on who delivers social assistance take place between the two levels of government involved in the provision of services: the province and municipalities."

I would call on the government today to immediately begin bilateral discussions with its municipal partners in order that the delivery and funding arrangements be established before legislation is enacted. For once, have the government negotiate before it legislates.

OSHAWA-WHITBY FAIR

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): July 22 through 25 marks the dates of the 16th annual Oshawa-Whitby Fair, and we're all invited.

I say the 16th annual, but in fact it was started some 130 years ago as an agricultural fair, where friends and neighbours paused between the spring planting and the fall harvest to socialize and to relax.

Sponsored by the South Ontario Agricultural Society, you can still see its rural roots in the antique buggy and cutter display, the saddle and heavy horse shows, the horse pull and the oxen rides, as well as the horticultural exhibits. But you don't want to miss the giant truck pull, the monster mud bog or the demolition derby, and personally, I'm looking forward to seeing my friend Gord Mills perform in the laser karaoke night.

The Oshawa-Whitby Fair draws people from all of southern Ontario to its midway rides, to its baby show, to its pet contests. It's truly a show that has something for everyone. I have enjoyed myself many times at this event over the years. The camaraderie and geniality is contagious, as you'll see when you stroll through the grounds. It's reminiscent of the fairs of our forefathers. It also gives us the best from the exhibitions of today.

I hope to see many of my colleagues from Oshawa, Whitby, from all of Durham region and all of Ontario at the Oshawa-Whitby Fair.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My first question is to the Minister of Health. I think all members of this assembly remember well the day in April 1991 when your government concluded a framework agreement with the Ontario Medical Association which the Premier himself said was a landmark achievement, an historic first for the province of Ontario, and there was his expectation and that of the government that this would begin a new day of collective bargaining as between the government and the Ontario medical profession. That landmark agreement was signed a little over two years ago.

Yesterday, as part of that process, we had a finding from an Ontario Labour Relations Board umpire, M.G. Mitchnick, a finding which essentially says that the Ontario Ministry of Health in the Rae government has been guilty of bad-faith bargaining with the Ontario Medical Association.

My question to the Health minister in this labour government, having regard to this landmark agreement that was to have initiated a new day in government/ medical association relations, is: How did this happen? How in Bob Rae's Ontario have we come to a point where his own government, a social democratic or labour government, has been found to have bargained in bad faith under the umbrella of this historic landmark agreement that was touted just two years ago?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me respond to the member by saying that I find it regrettable that the Ontario Medical Association in its press release with respect to what was an interim finding by an umpire chose to interpret it as being a finding of bad faith.

Let me say to the member, who I'm sure has read the entire interim report of the umpire, that the quote that is used in the press release, which clearly says, "Let me acknowledge that the government has been remiss in not being at the bargaining table with the OMA," goes on to say, "Remiss to the present time," and then goes on to say that in response to his queries the government has expressed the availability and willingness of the bargaining team to meet on an immediate and continuing basis with the bargaining team of the OMA.

I'm delighted to be able to say to the member that this is in fact already happening, had happened prior to the issuance of the umpire's interim report, and that intense and active negotiations with the OMA are under way and I am optimistic will lead to a renewal of what, I agree with him, was in fact a landmark agreement in 1991.

Mr Conway: In my supplementary to the minister, and I want to be as polite as I can be. She is being disingenuous and incomplete in that response, because I have read Mr Mitchnick's judgement, and his fundamental accusation is not that the government has not been at the table, though he does touch on that subject. The fundamental charge that he lays at the Bob Rae government's door, and the basis for his charge that you've bargained in bad faith, is that you have not put all issues on the table. That's the fundamental concern that the arbitrator has found, and the decision on page 3 is very clear about that.

So my question is this: It's one thing for an NDP government to turn its back on its commitments around auto insurance, Sunday shopping and casino gambling, but we've now come to this. We've got a finding of bad-faith bargaining on behalf of the Rae government because it not only would not come to the table with the doctors but it refused systematically to put all issues on the table.

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

Mr Conway: My supplementary is, have you given direction to your negotiators to comply with Mr Mitchnick's directive that you're not only to be at the table but that all issues of compensation, inside and outside of the social contract, will be put on the table forthwith?

Hon Mrs Grier: The honourable member calls me disingenuous and my answer incomplete. I would remark to him that in fact there have been frequent occasions, if not today, when the same words could be used about him, but I'm not here to exchange those kinds of comments. I'm here to say to him yet again that it was not that the issues were not before both the OMA and ourselves; there were a number of tables, and I think what the umpire found -- an issue on which both the OMA and our own negotiators had already come to a conclusion -- was that it was important and more useful that all of the issues with respect to compensation of physicians be put on the one table.

So a single table with a number of task forces is now what is addressing these issues and negotiating a contract. That is what is happening, and because of the social contract, we had wanted to conclude negotiations on the social contract before getting back to the negotiations with the OMA.

As I say, we had all come to the conclusion, subsequent to June 4, that it was preferable to have all of the issues dealt with at a single table. The umpire has confirmed that this was the appropriate direction, and that's the table that I hope will come to a conclusion.

Mr Conway: Mr Mitchnick in his finding, a finding that your department in your labour government was guilty of bad-faith bargaining because you not only wouldn't come to the table but, more importantly, when you got to the table you systematically refused to put all of the issues on the table -- I will read, if it makes it easier for you, Madam Minister, that particular point.

He says, and I read directly from his judgement of yesterday, "I agree with the OMA that all aspects of the government's proposals with respect to compensation must be placed on the negotiating table at the same time -- whether or not the source of any of those aspects is the government's 'social contract' initiative, or its 'expenditure control plan,' or any other fiscal initiative which may form the backdrop to the current round of talks."

He indicates further that he expects that you will comply with that directive.

My final supplementary is, have you given your negotiators a clear mandate to comply with this directive? Because to date they have not done so and that's why you have been found to have been bargaining in bad faith, which must be an excruciatingly embarrassing charge for all of you people in Bob Rae's new democracy.

Hon Mrs Grier: It's an interim report, and I deny that the conclusion was bad-faith bargaining. I agree with the member that the conclusion was to confirm the conclusion that both the ministry and the OMA negotiators had come to: that it was appropriate that all of the issues dealing with the compensation of physicians be on the table at the same time. That is what is now happening. My negotiators have the authority to deal with all of those issues at the table with the OMA, and I assume that the OMA negotiators have the same direction from their directors, and that is where the issues will be resolved; end of question.

Mr Conway: The policy seems to be, it's all right to bargain in bad faith on an interim basis. Boy, have we come to that?

The Speaker: And your second question?

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My second question is to the Minister of Finance, and it takes up a dialogue he and I had a week ago today as to where Hydro stood in respect of the social contract obligations. The press of course today is replete with stories that there exists a tentative agreement as between Hydro and certain of its unions in respect of these matters.

My question is not to the Minister of Environment and Energy but rather to the Minister of Finance, because it's a social contract question, specifically this: Has the Minister of Finance seen and approved the tentative agreement at Hydro in respect of the social contract question?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): In view of the fact that the member for Renfrew North in his preamble referred to the negotiations with the OMA and the Minister of Health, I intend to include some of that in my response to him. For him to imply that the Minister of Health would indicate that bargaining in bad faith on an interim basis is appropriate is completely misleading, and I would hope that he would withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, I can see you looking --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I know that the honourable member would not suggest that another member is going to be misleading anyone, and perhaps it would be appropriate to rephrase his thought.

Hon Mr Laughren: Of course, Mr Speaker. The words just slipped out, and I withdraw them. It was the way in which the member accused the Minister of Health of something that she did not say that would lead people to certain conclusions that were inappropriate and unfair.

Now, what was the question?

Mr Conway: I have a lot of sympathy for these New Democrats, because this must be a painful day to face this kind of charge. For the party of Stephen Lewis and Ian Deans and Elie Martel and Donald MacDonald, in government, to be found guilty of bad-faith bargaining on so sensitive and timely a question must hurt indeed.

The Speaker: And the supplementary on your original question?

Mr Conway: My question to the Finance minister --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): That's collective bargaining.

Mr Conway: Well, you know, we find that whether it's collective bargaining or auto insurance or common pause days or other issues, these socialist saints are sinning at every turn.

Let me say to the minister, have you seen and have you approved the Hydro deal in respect of the social contract matter?

1400

Hon Mr Laughren: Concerning the member for Renfrew North's continuing tirade against the negotiations with the OMA, I would simply say to the member for Renfrew North that the Minister of Health gave an appropriate response and that his conclusions have nothing to do with the facts.

In terms of this government's refusal to implement public auto insurance, which he asked me about in his question, I gather, I can tell him that this government has done what it can do under very, very difficult fiscal circumstances. Those fiscal circumstances, I might add, are at least partly the result of the mismanagement of the economy by his government when it was in office for five years.

To deal specifically, if you'll allow me, Mr Speaker, with the question of the Ontario Hydro tentative agreement -- and I hope the member will discipline himself and stick to his question and not allow himself to be diverted with all these other matters, I say in a very friendly way.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): That's a lecture.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, that's not a lecture at all. I'm just trying to give the member for Renfrew North some friendly advice. No, I have not signed such a sectoral agreement.

Mr Conway: That is a helpful and final recognition of my questions in this regard, because I have in my possession information from both the Hydro corporation and some of the unions. These reports seem to confirm the following: that Maurice Strong and Sid Ryan have in fact won the day, that Hydro will be spared virtually any target, will be exempt from virtually all of the initial $100-million targets. Both management and the employees are now agreed that in fact some $80 million of the savings, so-called, will stay with Hydro and the other $20 million is going to go to a number of unspecified spending programs.

My questions are the following --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A brown envelope.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): That's what you asked for.

Mr Conway: Listen, this is the government's plan. We have a deal that appears to be no deal at all, because Hydro is going to be exempt, virtually, from any of the provisions of the social contract on the grounds that it has its own restructuring plan. I understand that.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this: In your original target you said that of the $2 billion worth of savings, Hydro would pony up $100 million. You are now going to presumably accept that you are going to lose at least $80 million of that. How and where are you going to make up that $80 million?

Secondly, are you prepared to entertain special cases, whether it's from the city of Hamilton, where the Premier has said that he feels that certain of those municipalities have made a significant contribution?

The Speaker: Could the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Conway: Are you prepared to accept a submission from the city of Hamilton or any other group in the province which can argue a similar set of special circumstances, as you appear to be willing to accept on the Hydro matter?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is really interesting that, I guess it was last week, the member for Renfrew North was on his feet urging that we couldn't possibly impose the social contract and $100 million of savings on Ontario Hydro, given what it'd already been going through and given its fiscal situation. Now, today, he's on his feet wondering how we could possibly exclude them from the social contract exercise. Here we have the Liberal Party once again walking down both sides of the same street at the same time. I don't know how they can do it, but day after day in this Legislature, the Liberal Party of this province is for ever contradicting itself, tripping over its own contradictions.

I can tell the member for Renfrew North that there has been a tentative agreement reached with the government negotiators and Ontario Hydro and the employees at Ontario Hydro, which is a CUPE-represented facility. I have not, however, read fully the agreement or signed it off as a sectoral agreement.

I do understand, however, that --

Mr Elston: Are you apt to turn it down? Did you bargain in good faith with them? Did you?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll let the member for Bruce --

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you don't want an answer --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Had the minister concluded his response?

New question, third party.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's a nice segue here actually, because I have a question to the Treasurer. I happen to have a copy of the proposed memorandum of understanding on the social contract, the plan for the municipal electric utility subsector. I was lucky enough to get my hands on this and I've been lucky enough in the last couple of hours to have a good read. To suggest that this is chock full of information would be a grandiose overstatement.

I will say to the Treasurer, by way of a question, that in this particular document, which I was lucky enough to get hold of -- since you haven't had time to read it, maybe I'll forward you a copy and you can have a good look -- in this copy of an agreement between the parties, do you realize there is not one specific financial target, there's not one quantifiable saving, there's not one actual deadline that anyone has to meet? So in essence, we have roughly 20 pages of blather, chit-chat and talk; not a dollar sign, not a nickel, not a cost of how much can be saved by implementing this particular contract.

Maybe you'd like to comment on that, because it seems to me this document is very, very, very short on specifics.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member for Etobicoke West is referring to the municipal utilities subsector of the municipal sector. In fact, there is, as I recall, $20 million in savings within that sector. I know the member for Etobicoke West and the rest of his caucus want the reductions to be much more severe than that and they want expenditure reductions to be much tougher than we are engaging in, the $2 billion. They want much more than that. But I think the $20-million savings that will be achieved through the municipal utilities sector is appropriate and, quite frankly, quite fair.

Mr Stockwell: I guess I wasn't clear enough in the question. The question was not the $20 million. We've all heard that figure bandied about. The question is, there are no specifics, there are no deadlines, there are no cost savings, there are no targets, there are no savings. It's just a bunch of words, Mr Finance Minister. There are no targets of any sort in this document.

The agreement's been cut and made. What I understand the government's position to be is, "We'll let the local hydro suppliers work on the savings." There are hundreds of local hydro suppliers. What are you going to do, audit every single one of them to ensure they're meeting the plan? Are you going to audit every local municipality? Are you going to audit every school board? You'd be caught up in thousands and thousands and thousands of audits.

You suggest there is $20 million in savings. The only term that could possibly be seen in here as a savings is that you talk about okaying layoffs. That's the only term in here that can be seen as a savings. Please tell me where in this document you can quantify $20 million in savings.

Hon Mr Laughren: The Social Contract Act is a public compensation document. The municipal utilities are a subsector of the municipal sector. The utilities have been given the target of $20 million. The member talks about there being no numbers and no dates. The number is $20 million. The date is for each year of the next three years, that is their targeted savings. So I'm not sure what the member for Etobicoke West is after more than that. It is a voluntary agreement and has been designated as such by me. That's the way the Social Contract Act is written, and the savings of $20 million will be achieved by that particular subsector.

Mr Stockwell: First of all, nobody is under the impression that you've designated this particular contract. You say you've designated it, and those people who are involved in these negotiations don't think you've designated it.

1410

Secondly, how are you going to quantify your $20 million in savings? You've got hundreds of local utilities out there who operate. You're saying, "Go ahead and save money." How are they going to quantifiably save their money? Who's going to measure the savings? You're saying you want $20 million out of these people. They haven't agreed to any terms and conditions that nail down how they're going to save the money. You've given them no deadlines by which they have to save it. You've given them no quantifiable number, other than the $20 million in a gross package.

The only way that they can save money, according to this particular framework, excluding everything else, the only way you talk about saving money in here is through layoffs. Explain to me how local utilities, through your pay pause day, which isn't even spoken about in this particular agreement, through all the rollbacks that we haven't even spoken about in this agreement, are going to go about saving money through this particular agreement, because everything you talked about in the previous four months isn't even mentioned in this particular contractual agreement.

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps I should clarify what the process is. When a subsectoral agreement is reached between the parties, then the negotiators for the government bring such a sectoral agreement to me for designation, and that's what I am in the process of doing almost as we speak, deciding. I think I said I designated it, and in fact I don't think I have. I have not actually designated that subsector, so I correct myself in that regard. The member is quite right.

But for the member to imply that because every t is not crossed and every i dotted in the subsectoral agreement on municipal utilities doesn't mean that those -- they've been given their target of $20 million. That must be achieved. They've been given the dates by which those savings must be achieved. That is the number and those are the dates during which those compensation savings in that subsector must be achieved. There's nothing mysterious about that. That's the way all of the agreements are going to written.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question to the Minister of Health. The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario is currently in a severe financial problem. The problem relates to losses in revenue from treating children who normally come from Quebec across into Ontario for treatment.

Historically, 80% of CHEO's budget comes from Ontario patients and 20% from Quebec. The province of Quebec has now implemented a repatriation program, taking most of its children back over into Quebec hospitals, and this repatriation has cost CHEO 13% of its revenue, somewhere around $10 million a year. Because of cutbacks in terms of treating these patients, they are left with a net shortfall of $5.5 million per year, or they're losing $15,000 per day.

As you know, this hospital has undertaken a very extensive review of its operations. They had a consultant's report on their operations which said that they were exemplary in terms of their utilization rate, in terms of their efficiencies and other kinds of things. I know your ministry doesn't like that, and when confronted with this, your ministry is saying that in addition to all of the other kinds of contributions they must come up with, they must come up with $2.5 million.

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

Mr Sterling: The president of the hospital is very, very concerned that your regional director has stated, and I'm paraphrasing his words, "Any fool can find a $2.5-million reduction from a budget that size." Do you believe that this is a legitimate response from your official to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me start by saying to the member that I'm well aware of the situation that the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the Ottawa General Hospital find themselves in as a result of loss of revenue because patients in the province of Quebec are no longer going to those hospitals. As a result of that shortfall in revenue, there has been an extensive review. That review was completed just last month, in June, and is currently under examination by officials within the ministry.

Let me assure him that the comment he quoted -- if it was made, I agree with him -- was at this point inappropriate because no conclusion has been reached with respect to how to deal with this funding shortfall. But I would remind him that in order to help the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, we have advanced $1.4 million to its operating funding. They're the only hospital in the province that was given that extra funding this year, precisely because we want to help them deal with the problem that has arisen.

Mr Sterling: You've given them the money because they can't meet their payroll. The problem is that they would have to close their doors today if you didn't forward that money, and it's a stopgap measure which you have been undertaking over the past two or three years as this problem has developed.

The 7% of the revenues which CHEO is now receiving from the province of Quebec will shrink further, because last week the Quebec government stepped up its efforts to repatriate the children over to their province.

In addition, the cases that are being left with CHEO are the most difficult cases. Typically, in one year there are 26 open-heart surgeries done at CHEO on babies or children from the province of Quebec. This costs the Ontario taxpayer, or the hospital in effect, $22,000 per patient. The province of Quebec is paying $7,000 per patient. The total loss to CHEO is something like $400,000 a year.

Now, you know, Madam Minister, that I have stated in this House that I'm quite willing to say to Quebec construction workers, "You can't come into Ontario unless you have equal access," but I'm not willing to say no to parents of sick Quebec children, "You can't come to CHEO in order to have your baby treated."

What are you doing to protect the children of eastern Ontario and the Ontario taxpayer from this abuse?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the member that I am well aware of the excellent services provided by CHEO, and the ministry's objective is to work with CHEO to resolve the budget differences that have been identified by the consultants' report. He's quite correct that the consultants believe there could be some savings; the hospital says there couldn't. That's being worked on. We have a draft report from the consultants at this point. It's being reviewed by the ministry and a final report is anticipated next month. When we have that final report, then I hope we'll be able to work with the hospital and negotiate a long-term solution.

Mr Sterling: I tend to differ with your interpretation of what the hospital interprets from the consultants' report as to what they can do to save money and what your ministry interprets from the consultants' report and the response. In fact, in a very angry response to your senior assistant deputy minister, there were several allegations made by your senior deputy minister which were confronted in the report with regard to utilization, with regard to lengths of stay etc, where the consultants' report does not agree with your senior deputy minister.

I spoke to the president of CHEO this morning, Garry Cardiff, and he is very, very concerned about this situation and the fact that your government is not seeking in good faith a permanent solution to this problem. He is so concerned that he is -- and there is speculation in the Ottawa community that this hospital, in part or in total, could in fact have to close its doors in three to four months' time.

The board is totally fed up with this government and is ready to hand over the keys to the province of Ontario if a solution is not found. Madam Minister, what steps are you going to take to make certain that the children of eastern Ontario are properly taken care of in this fine institution, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: I have to say that I think the member is a little unfair in the conclusions that he draws from what has happened. The ministry is fully aware of the shortfall in funding from CHEO. The ministry appointed consultants to review the operations of CHEO and to make some recommendations to it. In addition, the ministry has been discussing with the province of Quebec the change in its policy and whether there is any ongoing revenue or how its patients are dealt with.

Having received a draft report from the consultant, the ministry is meeting with officials from the hospital, and let me say to him again, as I said a moment ago, we expect to have a final report from the consultants in August and at that point we will know what direction to go in. But to suggest and to raise the alarm that this will mean the closure or the lack of service to the parents and children in eastern Ontario is not in fact the case and I think is premature at this point.

1420

APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Chair of Management Board, whose responsibility in government is the Ontario public service, and it concerns the social contract.

Somebody once said all politics is local and it's best to understand policy and these issues at a very local level. So I just want to talk a little bit about the social contract as it relates to the public service because Michael Decter, a deputy minister paid $135,000 approximately, is out there telling all of us in the province, and particularly everybody in the public service, that this is all about shared sacrifice, that we all have to pull in our belts and take a little bit less.

This involves hundreds and thousands of public servants, many of whom are at a senior level and many of whom have worked for the Ontario government for years and decades. I have now learned that in the very last few days the government of Ontario has appointed Michael Decter's wife, Ms Lucille Roch, as an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Community and Social Services at an estimated salary of $110,000 a year.

My question to the Chair of Management Board is: What kind of signal does this send to the men and women of the Ontario public service who are being told by Michael Decter and Bob Rae on the one hand that theirs must be a shared sacrifice, when on the other they now learn that Michael Decter's wife has just landed a plum job in the Ontario public service, a service that she has joined within the last six to eight months?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, the member should know that his comments are not entirely correct. The individual in question has been a member at an ADM level in cabinet office since 1991. It's not, as he would imply, a new plum thrown to someone out there as some kind of a reward. She in fact has worked in the civil service of this province and I would assume, although I didn't do the interviews myself, earned the position for which she was hired.

Mr Conway: That's very useful and helpful information, because she has just been appointed as an ADM at Community and Social Services. She came not that long ago. I didn't realize that she was brought in from Manitoba at that level. In fact, in my view, that even strengthens my case.

The Rae government has appointed its campaign manager as secretary of the cabinet. It brought in a bare-knuckled partisan like Jeff Rose to run a purely political operation as Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We've now got these two Manitobans in this public service, whereas hundreds and thousands of Ontarians are being shown the door as part of the shared sacrifice.

Now these people, whom I represent and whom we all represent, are being asked to accept that the Decter household, which is going to have over a quarter of a million dollars worth of public money, is somehow in a position to tell the rest of us about shared sacrifice.

What kind of signal is this and what kind of judgement is it, because, I've got to tell you, there's one household in this province where the wolf is not going to be making much progress, and there are a lot of people who would see Michael Decter --

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

Mr Conway: -- in a real conflict of interest.

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, the member for Renfrew North has tripped over his own facts and his own tongue. The individual in question to whom the member refers is not from Manitoba. She happens to be from Montreal.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: To correct my record --

The Speaker: When the House has come to order.

Mr Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Just to correct my record, let me be clear then, I apologize for not understanding that this is a family compact of New Democrats based in Winnipeg and Montreal.

Hon Mr Charlton: I guess I should just simply wrap up my comments by suggesting that with the eloquence with which the member displays his competence, his ability to call into question the competence of anyone else, I think, is very questionable.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Markham.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Conway: You're putting Ontario women out of work to bring in your New Democrat friends from out of the province. That's what you're doing.

The Speaker: Would the member for Renfrew North please take his seat.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): New Democrats first, everybody else last.

The Speaker: Would the member for Bruce take his seat. The member for Bruce is out of order.

Mr Conway: Do you want a list of people who have been shown the door?

The Speaker: Would the member for Renfrew North please come to order.

The member for Markham was waiting patiently to ask his question and he now has the floor.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The people who aren't patient are the taxpayers in the province of Ontario.

TAXATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The question is for the Minister of Finance. The question is about taxes and taxes and more taxes and how your government has, in the short time it has been in power, raised some 32 different taxes on the people of Ontario. The Liberals before they were kicked out of office had 33 tax increases in their lifetime. Now your recent budget has robbed us of $2 billion in more taxes.

So many taxes means that the Ontario family spent the first 200 days of 1993 working to pay for the cost of all levels of government, and having suffered the blows of government taxation, today marks the first day when Ontarians start working for themselves, having paid for the deficit and all levels of government. People can now take home a paycheque with no government strings attached.

The auspicious day is called tax freedom day, but it's hardly a day for celebration. In 1984, some 10 years ago, tax freedom day fell on July 5; today it's July 20, and each year tax freedom day moves closer and closer to the end of the year.

My question for you, Mr Minister of Finance: Now that you're in government, do you have a different position on tax freedom day than when you were in opposition?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Markham, not for the first time, has raised the question of taxes in this province. I would simply say to the member for Markham that the taxes people pay in this province deliver the services the people in this province want and I think have a right to receive.

I understand that he would wish that taxes would be lower and that services that people receive would be lower. I would assume as well that he would lower the standard of education, of public services, of health care, in order that we could all pay lower taxes. That's fine to say, it's an admirable statement of principle, but I can tell the member for Markham that I believe we have a tax system that's the fairest in all of Canada and that delivers the essential services that people in this province want.

1430

Mr Cousens: The people of Ontario look forward to the day, two years form now when you're out of office, to hear what your answer's going to be on taxes, because you had a different tune a few years ago before you became the government. Now that you're there, I'll tell you, the people in the province are frustrated, they're angry and they don't know what to do in the remaining two years that you're in office.

This morning our leader, Mr Harris, and people were out there telling people about tax freedom day. Commuters coming into Toronto were angry, genuinely angry at the fact that it's only today that they start making money for themselves. You've forgotten what you said and thought when you were in opposition. Now that you're in government, quite a different tune comes forward.

We asked you again and again, and the question is on the minds of everybody in our province, when will you stop the tax madness and commit yourself to structural reform of the government system and start to eliminate the millions of dollars of waste in the system that we see going on today?

Hon Mr Laughren: The message of this government has not changed. We said when we were in opposition that we wanted a system of taxation that was fairer than the Liberals or the Tories had. We said that in opposition and we are doing something about it.

Since we formed the government, we have taken over 200,000 low-income people off the tax rolls in this province. Secondly, we have imposed a high-income surtax on the people who have the most ability to pay in this province. That, to me, is tax fairness as well. Thirdly, we have appointed a Fair Tax Commission that will be reporting this year. It's on target, it's on budget and it will be making its final report this year.

I would say to the member for Markham that he's got a lot of nerve complaining about the taxation policy of this government when his government, in the 1981 and 1982 budgets, raised the provincial income tax by four points. My friend, count them, four points in 1981 and 1982.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This government, in its speech from the throne and its subsequent budget, announced a program to put Ontario back to work. My question today is for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

In my community a promise was made not too long ago with respect to the very valuable tourist industry that we depend on to create work and generate a lot of wealth and opportunity for people. The tourist information centre that we have there was proposed to be replaced with a new facility. With the present situation and the government's attempt to try to manage its finances, I was wondering if you might give us a status report on that particular project today.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I know the member for Sault Ste Marie to be a tireless worker in advocating on behalf of the needs of his community. I am quite happy to be able to tell him that in response to the advocacy he's done to my ministry to point out the needs of the tourism industry in Sault Ste Marie, the fact that it has the busiest travel information centre in all of Ontario and yet had terrible difficulties with the location and the accessibility of it, as a result of his work and drawing that to our ministry's attention, we are happy to be able to point out that the tender was awarded on June 30 to Chamberlain Construction in the amount of $1.25 million.

Chamberlain Construction has agreed with the request from our government to commit to the purchasing of local materials for the development of that travel information centre, as well as to hiring local labour to construct that travel information centre.

Mr Martin: I am certainly relieved, Minister, by that statement. The fact that this centre is going to go ahead will create a lot of work for some of the people in my community who presently are looking for work, and will help as we try to develop further the attractions for tourists to Sault Ste Marie and indeed Algoma.

I was wondering if you might be more specific on the exact location of the new facility and what the time lines are. When will it start, and when do you expect that it will be finished?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: There'll be 24 jobs created by the Jobs Ontario Capital fund to build that travel information centre. Construction is expected to begin in August of this year, with the completion date expected to be February 1994. The centre will be located at the southeast corner of Huron and Queen streets, one block south of the present location. In fact, the location will be highly visible from the International Bridge. The traffic flow will now be ideal, which had been a terrible problem at the present centre, and the travel information centre will be fully accessible to disabled persons.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I have in my hand a brochure that was released by the chairman of the New Democratic Party caucus, which includes information paid for by taxpayer dollars and distributed to every constituent in his riding. Additionally, because of the nature of this brochure, I assume that it is being sent by other New Democratic Party members to their constituents.

It claims that, "This government is protecting essential services that you value." It says here, "We're negotiating with doctors to control the costs of their services and to ensure services to communities where doctors are needed."

In fact we know, as of today, that the government is being charged with bad-faith bargaining with the doctors. While the Minister of Health in an answer to my colleague the member for Renfrew indicated that the bad-faith bargaining was only on an interim basis, I point out to her that the referee in the decision says, "The OMA framework and interim agreement on economic arrangements would appear to survive the legislation" -- that means the social contract legislation -- "and I find that the contractual provisions relating to that process must therefore be adhered to."

The government has, before this House, indicated that negotiations are continuing. The mediator, the umpire, has provided the government with specific directions with respect to complying with good-faith bargaining.

I want to know from the minister specifically what new initiatives, what new, clear mandates she has put on the table with her negotiators. Will she change her negotiators and put a new team into place, or what other steps has she taken in this area?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me assure the member that the team that has been negotiating with the Ontario Medical Association since the start of negotiations earlier this spring is continuing, is in place, and I have every confidence that it will in fact bring to conclusion a successful renegotiation of our agreement with the OMA.

The directions that they have been given are likewise unchanged, which are to negotiate with the OMA with respect to its fee schedule and the issues under the expenditure control program of the ministry, and to do that because we believe that if we are in fact to maintain and sustain the health system of this province -- a health system that I know is very important not only to the members of this House but to all the people of the province -- we have to manage it better and we have to control its costs. We do that by negotiating with the various partners and players, and we are now doing that with the OMA.

Mrs Sullivan: I want to reiterate that the brochure indicates that the government didn't introduce user fees or cut services, as other provinces have done. The brochure indicates, once again, negotiations "with doctors to control the costs of their services and to ensure services to communities where doctors are needed."

I point out that the government has introduced user fees to seniors on the drug plan. They've increased user fees by 32% to residents of nursing homes. They're introducing user fees to psychiatric patients in Ontario's hospitals. That is only the first step, because they're delisting services that are now covered under medicare.

Also, I quote the referee, who says that the government has reappropriated to itself by legislation the power to unilaterally determine the issues of the compensation. The truth is that doctors' services are not available in many communities, as the government claims. Hornepayne, Armstrong, Barry's Bay, Mount Forest, Geraldton, Rainy River and Moosonee have neither the doctors they need nor the hospital emergency services they need.

1440

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And the question?

Mrs Sullivan: The truth is that the statements in this brochure are lies. I'm asking the Minister of Health, if she is going to talk the talk, when is she going to walk the walk?

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre knows well that that's not appropriate language in the chamber. I ask the member to simply withdraw the remark and to place her question.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: What I said to this House was that the statements made in this brochure are lies. That is perfectly appropriate and in order.

The Speaker: To the member, while she is not making a direct accusation of another member lying, at the same time it is not language which is appropriate. There is, of course, a difference of opinion that appears to be quite evident. I would ask the member, in an effort to maintain proper decorum in this chamber, that she simply withdraw that remark and place the question which I know she wishes to ask of the Minister of Health.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, once again, I carefully considered my words. I indicated that the statements in this brochure are lies. If that is offensive to you and --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Out. Don't back down, Barbara.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, I point out to you that the statements that are made and the actions that are taken by the government are not one and the same. I am asking the minister again, if she and members of the New Democratic Party and her government are going to talk the talk, when are they going to start walking the walk?

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You're letting her off the hook.

The Speaker: The member for Nipigon --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Talk to me about decorum. She is off the hook. She is not withdrawing.

The Speaker: I realize there were some extraneous sounds on this side of the chamber. The member withdrew the remark.

Hon Mrs Grier: I have said in this House today, I think three times, that negotiations are proceeding with the Ontario Medical Association. They are proceeding actively and intensively, and I expect them to be concluded within the next 10 days. The appropriate place to have those negotiations is at that table. I'm not going to negotiate them in public with the member opposite -- particularly with the member opposite.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have another question for the Minister of Health. One of the differences between an ambulance driver and a paramedic is that a paramedic can revive a patient who has suffered a heart attack. In 1991, 342 patients suffered cardiac arrests in the Ottawa-Carleton area and only eight lived, out of those 342. In the cities where paramedics have the ability to apply electric shock to restore normal heartbeat, they have a success rate of around 30%, which would indicate that of these 342 patients, some 100 would have lived. Could you tell me why the city of Ottawa does not have paramedic services for the population of Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm certainly aware that a drive has been begun in the region of Ottawa-Carleton, led, I think, by the member for Ottawa South, to increase the number of paramedics who are available in Ottawa. As I have to say to the member and to the member for Ottawa South, there is some controversy as to whether the extension of paramedic services is the most appropriate way to achieve the best outcome in cases of trauma and accident. In view of that, there has been some consultation under way across the province, in which I hope the region of Ottawa-Carleton has been participating, with ambulance drivers, the unions involved, the hospitals and the physicians, in order to evaluate the various studies that have been done and to come to some conclusions with respect to what the policy and approach of the ministry ought to be with respect to paramedics.

Mr Sterling: I'm puzzled by why consultation is necessary when 50 cities across Canada already have paramedic services and the cities of Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa in this province have paramedic services. It seems to me that the time for consultation has passed and that it's time for protection of people in the Ottawa-Carleton area to be addressed. Do you not find it passing strange that the second-largest city in the province of Ontario does not have this kind of health care service?

Hon Mrs Grier: What I attempted to indicate in my first response to the member was that the matter is not quite as clear-cut as he puts it; that in some of the cities, in the United States particulary, where there are paramedics, there are differences of opinion and differing studies and evaluations as to whether the provision of paramedics, as opposed to an enhancement of emergency rooms and various other emergency services, is the appropriate way to go.

In view of that controversy, before coming to a conclusion on the request for an extension of this service, we have undertaken, in consultation with the stakeholders, to evaluate and review the various studies that have been done, and I'm not at the point of being able to give the member a conclusive answer to his question.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Minister of Health. Collagen is a protein that is used primarily for cosmetic surgery, and it's not covered under the Ontario drug benefit program. However, collagen has been a successful treatment for incontinence resulting from post-surgery complications.

A constituent of mine in York East, a senior, has become incontinent as a result of kidney surgery. The constituent's doctor recommends collagen treatment, and it's quite costly. The doctor has indicated that he has written to the director of the Ontario drug benefit plan in the past and has been turned down for coverage of this treatment under the plan.

If the Ontario drug benefit plan will not cover the treatment for seniors, how can the Minister of Health ensure us that this treatment will be made available to those constituents who would benefit from that treatment?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I thank the member for his question. I'm certainly aware of his interest in advocating on behalf of his constituent.

The procedure that he describes is a relatively new one, and the issue has been raised in discussions between the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Hospital Association. The position that the ministry has taken is that if this procedure is performed in a hospital, then the hospital should cover the cost of the collagen, as it's used as an implant, frequently as a substitute for surgery. I'm happy to convey that position to the member by this answer.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

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

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

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

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

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

Signed by 309 constituents, I endorse it.

1450

GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I too have affixed my signature to it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition with respect to the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

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

"We believe in the need of 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 hardship on many families.

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

HEALTH CARE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by a number of doctors and patients in the city of Toronto.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

I agree with this petition and have affixed my signature.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is a petition signed by three people from the town of Markham about the dumps.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas in 1991 without public consultation or notification to affected municipalities and residents and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and

"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and

"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143 which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives such as rail haul; and

"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992 with the full support of and endorsement from Jim Wiseman, MPP, Durham West; Larry O'Connor, MPP, Durham-York; Gordon Mills, MPP, Durham East; and

"Whereas the NDP named 57 candidate landfill sites on June 4, 1992; and

"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refused to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refused to consider the alternatives like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and

"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and the mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams Mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impacts on the northern economy; and

"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to GTA waste and operate independently from the Ministry of the Environment, but at the same time the IWA must adhere to Mrs Grier's ideology and her ban of waste alternatives such as rail haul and incineration; and

"Whereas the IWA and NDP government refuse to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remain firm on subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of a criteria-ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive areas, prime agricultural land and sites located near urban areas;

"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all waste management options."

I have affixed my signature to this with pleasure.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition that was forwarded to me on the letterhead of the Oxford County Medical Association, and it's submitted to me by Dr Miettinen, who's a medical doctor in the riding of Oxford. It calls upon the government to withdraw the proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/ government framework and economic agreement.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition with respect to the government's negotiations with the health care sector which reads as follows:

"Whereas the introduction of Bill 29 makes substantial changes to the Ontario drug benefit plan that would allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make unilateral and significant changes to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act through regulation and without consultation with seniors nor negotiations with pharmacists;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly to adopt the amendments to Bill 29 as proposed by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, which are affixed to this petition."

I concur with this and have affixed my signature to it.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the people of Ontario:

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

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"That the social contract in its present form be destroyed and that viable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

"That the government withdraw Bill 48 and, in place of this bill, that the government work cooperatively with public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services."

This petition is signed by some 38 constituents, and I have affixed my signature thereto.

INSURANCE TAX

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here signed by approximately 100 retired teachers in my riding, from Tilbury, Chatham, Blenheim, Thamesville and Merlin. Sorry, Chatham is in Mr Hope's riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the imposition of the 8% sales tax on group supplementary health insurance premiums is a regressive tax for pensioners, who pay 100% of the group supplementary health insurance premiums; and

"Whereas the individual pensions of approximately 10,000 retired teachers are less than $10,000, well below the poverty line, an extra-heavy burden will be imposed on them; and

"Whereas these retired teachers have served this province well for many years and may require extended health care, it is unfair and unbearable; and

"Whereas a retired couple with semi-private entrenched and dental insurance coverage pays a premium of $1,585 annually and the levying of 8% sales tax would increase this premium to $1,711.80;

"We, the undersigned members of the Kent district 3 of the superannuated teachers of Ontario, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to include the 8% retail sales tax on group supplementary insurance premiums where such groups are composed entirely of retired persons."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition signed by some 750 people opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping which reads:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping.

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

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to reclassify 51 Sundays as working days should be defeated."

I've affixed my signature.

1500

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have been asked by the residents of Ontario in my riding to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"In order to achieve school board accountability, to provide the Provincial Auditor with the right to do value-for-money audits on school boards and allow the school board auditors to open the books to the scrutiny of the public."

That was introduced by a member of my riding, Arleen Reinsborough. I've signed that.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition provided to me by Dr Gary Ing, who is the president of the Essex County Medical Society.

The persons who have signed that call on the government of Ontario to:

"Move immediately to withdraw the proposed measures made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition which reads as follows:

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

I will add my signature.

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition signed by 2,434 people in opposition to the new tax for the brew-on-premises beer and wine.

It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, believe that the new tax on brew-on-premise home brew is unfair, unwanted and unreasonable.

"We are concerned that it will eliminate jobs without increasing government revenue.

"This new tax is inspired by big, multinational brewing corporations whose only desire is to keep us from enjoying home brew. Scrap the tax before it begins."

I've attached my name.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 75 constituents in the riding of Sarnia who are also members of the Central United Church.

It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I present the petition.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Free and open collective bargaining for teachers has had a long and honourable history in Ontario. In order for change to occur, all parties must work cooperatively, not independently where one party would be seen as working unilaterally in their own interest.

"The current economic situation requires both the government and teachers to work together to find an equitable solution. The social contract will deny teachers their rightful salaries, slash jobs and eliminate valuable programs and services for students.

"We ask that the government restore immediately the principles of free and open collective bargaining for teachers. The government must also maintain its share of the funding for public education as defined prior to the June 9, 1993, announcement of reduction in payments to school boards."

I affix my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member for Markham have some explanatory remarks?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Just briefly. This is a very important bill that will affect many home owners in the town of Markham.

The Acting Speaker: It's a private bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): Mr Speaker, I wish to move third reading of Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Could the honourable member make sure he's in his own seat.

Hon Mr Farnan: I believe I've found my new location in the House. I apologize for the inconvenience.

The Acting Speaker: Could you now move the bill in question?

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

Mr Farnan, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved third reading of Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board / Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main- d'oeuvre.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before we start discussion, this item is a time-allocated item. The debate will end at 5 o'clock. The vote on this item will occur at 5 o'clock. We have an agreement, I understand, with the other two parties that any other divisions that are required as a result of matters that are dealt with after 5 o'clock will be deferred to 5:45 for a vote.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Farnan: I have some comments to make today that I hope will provide the members of this Legislature with a useful overview of what we have an opportunity to achieve with Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

I think all of us understand that with respect to this bill we are in a challenging but quite enviable position as legislators in that we are faced with an opportunity to create something truly ground-breaking, truly fresh and innovative for the people of this province. This is an important juncture in the life of Ontario, with a fragile but encouraging economic recovery on the way and with a rare convergence of views by the members of all three parties, and indeed with the federal level of government and other governments across Canada, on the crucial need to reform the labour force development system.

My colleague Dr Richard Allen, the member for Hamilton West, who introduced this legislation and whom I congratulate for his hard work and invaluable contribution to this bill, remarked how striking this convergence of views is. In his remarks to the standing committee on resources development when public hearings began, he observed: "Rarely has there been an area of public policy around which such a consensus has emerged. Everyone seems to agree that a well-trained, highly skilled workforce is absolutely crucial to the economic and social health of any society."

1510

I quite concur, and I know that many members of this Legislature, in particular our able and diligent opposition critics, have stated that clearly we owe it to the full range of our constituents, to the people of Ontario, to get beyond our partisan differences and use our legislative authority to put the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board in place.

This is no time to stand pat, to rely on time-worn and comfortable notions about the economy's cyclical resilience and to sit on our hands while we wait for the jobs to come back and the flow of investment to resume.

I believe we all understood this when Bill 96 was introduced. Frankly, throughout the debate we have heard in this House, the representations that have been made during public hearings and the briefs that were submitted to the resources development committee, we have all underscored the need to make sure we build skill levels in our workforce as an integral part of our work to encourage economic renewal.

I think it's also well understood why the status quo in Ontario is not as effective as it could be. We have to retool and reskill right across our province. The various communities, the various enterprises and various places of learning can't readily undertake this work in isolation if we are truly going to restructure in earnest. We need a coordinated approach with agreed-upon overall objectives flexible enough to recognize that there are valuable insights and a tremendous wealth of experience and expertise that we can all draw on across the entire province. Quite simply, we need a coordinated partnership, and I can't explain OTAB any more succinctly than that, a coordinated partnership.

I know the process to get this far hasn't always been easy and I'm not naïve enough to think that we can just wish into existence some utopian round table at which the stakeholders can gather to work in perfect harmony. Despite the overall consensus on training and adjustment reform, during the public hearings we heard many contrasting opinions on some of the specifics of how OTAB would operate.

For example, just as one group would assert that we should more tightly constrict the functions of OTAB to keep an eye on it, another group would ask that the proposed board be given a free hand. We heard from some that the central board should make all the key decisions, while others told us to ensure the system was decentralized and decisions were all made locally.

In reviewing the amendments proposed by those who appeared before the standing committee, the hearings struck me as a kind of process of point/counterpoint in which one brief's proposal would call for the erosion of something that another brief emphasized was vital and inviolable.

For example, this was the case when representations discussed whether OTAB's emphasis should be on social goals or economic goals. As was stated in our original discussion paper and is reflected in the legislation, the government's view is that these goals are interrelated and complementary and there is no need to rank one set of goals ahead of the other.

I am confident that the members of the steering committees formed by the labour market partners to assist us in developing this bill do in fact well understand and appreciate this. However, just as people come to the bargaining table with a starting position and then work towards compromise from there, some of the numerous groups who gave their attention to this bill took the opportunity to state which of the two objectives they saw as the priority.

Of course, we will always have these differences of opinion, but I am not disheartened by these contrasting viewpoints. Rather I take that as more of an indication that the question of how to reform our training and adjustment system is being considered with the serious attention it deserves.

It has never been the intent of this bill to impose some idealized, secret formula for training or any single simplistic approach to labour force development on a province as rich and varied as is Ontario. Quite the contrary, we very much need to be able to hear on an ongoing basis a variety of insights and a whole range of ideas to help us put together a coordinated system of diverse solutions.

It has been quite natural, in my opinion, that people came to speak to the committee and took the opportunity to go on the record with their views of what OTAB should ideally be. But I believe it is not accurate to assume this means that the labour market partners cannot make some concessions or that they are incapable of fashioning compromises over what seem to be intractable differences. In fact the evidence suggests this has already started to happen.

The members on both sides of the House will know how much negotiation among the labour market partners took place to produce the blueprint from which Bill 96 was drafted. I would remind members of how this government even went so far as to share early draft wording of the bill with the labour market partners' steering committees, and I caution my colleagues not to lightly overlook that reality.

I am grateful for the close attention that the resources development committee gave to Bill 96 and I am certain that we will have an improved piece of legislation as a result. I would say to my colleagues opposite that I'm also quite grateful for their own careful examination during committee of the whole.

But I also ask all members to keep in mind what the labour market partners have put together for us to review. Keep in mind that this initiative has their support. Keep in mind that the people on the steering committees, representing business, labour, women, racial minorities, people with disabilities, francophones and educators and trainers, came from a broad range of society.

They and those they represent are a thorough mix of people from all political perspectives and they have all approached the task of negotiating in good faith to help us develop draft legislation in as non-partisan a spirit as possible, striving to keep the interests of the province as a whole in mind.

Despite their differences, our partners have told us in effect: "Yes, we want to be part of OTAB. We want to provide the leadership that you are proposing. We know what's at stake and we know what's involved. Despite what our personal, ideal image of OTAB may have been, we can live with what you have proposed, and we want to get on and to work on it."

There is another important achievement worth mentioning, and that is the model for a decision-making process. It is a good example of our collective effort to take into account the interests of all. This model was developed in consultation with the labour market partners and has been agreed upon in principle.

1520

In general, where consensus is not possible and as a last resort, matters put to a vote by the governing body of OTAB will not be decided by a simple majority. We've proposed a model that would make sure that no one group's interests can consistently dictate the direction OTAB will take, and I'm convinced that it is a workable model.

My point is that we're very, very close to being able to give the labour market partners, our constituents, the mechanism that they have told us that they very much want so that they can lead the training and adjustment system. Yes, it has taken time; yes, it has been a bumpy road occasionally. We have discussed and consulted and done our level best, believe me, to strike a balance between contrasting positions.

Striking a balance does mean, if one is cynical, that everyone has been a little disappointed in some respect. I think that came out in the public hearings. But more importantly, the balance we have struck and the demonstrated willingness of our partners to get involved means everyone sees OTAB as an idea whose time has come and whose design can be made to work.

The result is not some magic elixir, some panacea for all our social and economic woes, but before I conclude I would ask that the members of this Legislature pose a question to themselves. When before have we ever had an opportunity to take this kind of inclusive, multipartite approach to giving people the skills they need to meet the challenge of economic renewal, wealth creation, fair treatment and equal opportunity? When indeed?

Of course, we never have, and it can be an anxious process breaking new ground and attempting something brand-new. But I believe we all know that none of us were put in office by the people of Ontario to shy away from a task just because it represents an element of the unknown or just because it presumes we will have to leave the safety of conventional thinking.

We have an honourable compromise in this legislation. We have some real freedom and significant authority to offer OTAB, and we have the requisite checks and balances to keep an eye on public funds and programs.

We have secured an opportunity for input from all the traditional experts in labour force development as well as from many who have till now been denied a voice. We've devised a way to permit local solutions to be developed that will respond to local needs and retained the benefits of a coordinated system to provide and plan for all of Ontario's needs.

This bill is the work of the labour market partners themselves. I have to say how proud I am that the partners have helped us begin an era of real and meaningful cooperation among those who work, those who want to work, those who hire and those who teach and train. It's long overdue, but it certainly isn't too late.

It is with great pride that I introduce third reading of this very significant, important legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): This is the first opportunity to publicly commend the member for Cambridge in his new position, which is entitled associate minister. I also want to compliment him on the speech. I don't know if he had the opportunity to do that speech himself or whether it was through the ministry, but certainly it was a well-written speech and hit all the right words.

Unfortunately, the big question with this bill is, will it work? I will leave the judgement to the actual workings as this board gets established. I think there are many, many concerns that have been voiced out there that were not addressed during the committee stage, with all due respect, even though when the member spoke, he talked about the amount of consultation.

A lot of our amendments that were put forward after a lot of work were not implemented, so it's nice to say there was broad consensus, but I honestly, truly believe that there were a lot of people who had concerns that were not fulfilled. So I say to the member, the only one thing that came out, and I sat in on some of the hearings, is that everybody hopes this will work, because without training, I firmly believe this province will be finished in terms of its economic base.

Having said that, we saw many holes, many areas where it needed to be improved. They were not. I will hopefully articulate some of those when I get a chance to debate on third reading, but I will say to the member that I really believe there still are some shortcomings. We wish the member luck in implementing this but, unfortunately, I think there are going to be some major concerns that still will not be addressed by this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Cambridge has two minutes in response.

Hon Mr Farnan: I very simply would like to thank the member for Oakville South for his kind personal remarks and also for the tone of his comments. I'm sure when he speaks to the bill he will have his own party's position and some of the positions that were raised at either end of the spectrum throughout the hearings that I referred to in my speech. But certainly in his response to my introductory presentation, the tone of his comments, I believe, were very positive and very encouraging. I sensed from the member that he wants it to work. I hope that's true.

I believe that all members of the House in all parties must recognize that training is indeed, as the member for Oakville South quite correctly pointed out, the key to the future, and that is why goodwill on all sides -- I think the people of Ontario expect this of us in this very rapidly changing society.

Whether we represent labour or business, whether we represent municipal government or hospitals or school boards or provincial government, the people of Ontario are saying: "Look, we just don't want a critical approach based simply on criticism. We want approaches that are constructive, we want people working together, we want to see partnerships."

This legislation is an extraordinary partnership that this government is proud indeed to have initiated and we welcome very, very much the support of opposition parties and of the public to the success of this enterprise.

1530

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on third reading, Bill 96.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's an honour again to be standing in my place as the Liberal critic for skills training to be speaking now at third reading of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, Bill 96.

Last week, as the Speaker will remember, we had our debate in committee of the whole House, where we had a further opportunity to bring forward amendments. It was in the intersession this winter that we had four weeks of hearings where we were able to listen to the people of Ontario, especially those primarily interested in skills training. All the labour market partners were there, bringing forward amendments and suggestions, and I'd like to speak to that a little later on.

Of course, it was December 1 of last year, according to Hansard here, that we had our second-reading debate and the vote on that, and that was an opportunity I had to make a 90-minute speech. I just assure the members of the House that not only will I not be doing that today, according to the rules, but it won't be necessary, because we have had ample opportunity to bring our points forward.

Many of those points that I brought forward over the last year on the concept of OTAB and the implementation of OTAB by this government remain the same and I find now are being confirmed by other people out there, even some of the major players within OTAB. In a way it's kind of sad to see that happening, because we all, as members, want to see OTAB succeed.

Unfortunately, I think it's doomed to failure because of the recipe that was designed from initially a very good concept, but I think the recipe and the rush in which we're putting the recipe together also is going to doom it to failure. I hope not, but that's what I think.

I think this was also confirmed by an article in the Toronto Star of July 16 by Judy Steed, where she does quite a substantial article on OTAB and its progress. We all in this House know it has taken a long time to get OTAB established. In fact, it's not really established yet. I understand the minister will have a press conference tomorrow, finally announcing the membership of the board of OTAB. It's taken at least a year for the ministry to try to get a board established, and there are many reasons behind that which we don't really have time to go into today. But again, it's a bad start and I think it forebodes what's going to happen with OTAB.

I hope that these things don't happen, that we get on with it and that we can get on not only to getting a good board established across the province as an umbrella group, but that as my amendment has stated in this legislation, an amendment that was accepted by the government, we get on very quickly in establishing the local training and adjustment boards, because I for one feel that's where the work is going to happen. It's not going to happen on a province-wide basis; it's going to happen on a local basis, with local workers and business people and educators and trainers and equity group representatives understanding the training needs for those communities and starting to establish those core programs for those communities. I think that's the way we're going to get the Ontario economy back on track.

I'd like to quote from this article of Judy Steed's of July 16, because even some of the key players like Richard Johnston -- who is now the chairperson, as we all know, of the Ontario Council of Regents, which is the parent body of all the community colleges in Ontario, really the group of institutions that basically produce about 70% of the training -- now has a lot of questions about the viability of OTAB and the way it's being put together.

I'd like to start with that and talk about that, because I've been saying from the very beginning that, in principle, this is a very sound and good idea. The way one should proceed with this, rather than what the government is doing, which is sort of forcing this partnership -- because that's what we're doing. We all want partnerships in all the endeavours of public life in Ontario today, but you can't force a partnership. What you have to do is invite a partnership, and you have to nurture it and coax it to get it started and get it flourishing and maturing.

What we don't have in this province, which is very unfortunate and very sad, and it's not unique to this country but unfortunately a bit unique to Ontario, is that we don't have a labour-management relationship in this province that is mature, very much unlike the province of Quebec, which is unfortunate, where for years labour and management have seen the commonality of their goals and have worked together in building the Quebec economy. We don't have a mature relationship there.

You can't force this relationship, but you can start it. As I said, you can cultivate it, you can nurture it and you can help it grow. That's what I've always asked this government to do, to start that process, and to start that process by bringing these people together on an advisory level, because that's the way you start it. Don't bring all these people into a room and say: "We're going to force this relationship. We're going to force this partnership. By the way, we're going to separate you from government and we're going to give you a whole pile of money and we're going to make you solely responsible for all skills training in Ontario."

I think to start off like that is a recipe for disaster. I think we might be able to end up that way some day if we take those incremental steps working towards that. So while I'm criticizing the government on one hand for being so slow off the mark to get the process started and we should have got this process started a couple of years ago, once we got it started, we should have moved slowly in developing those relationships so we get people working together.

I'm very concerned about that and I bring that point again. I only have to look at the occupational health and safety agency, which has a very dismal track record when it comes to cooperation. Again, because that labour-management relationship in Ontario is not mature, is not sound, unfortunately we have a lot of other axes being ground when it comes to those relationships, and therefore these agencies and these partnerships that we'd like to see developed -- and all three parties would like to see these developed -- suffer. These partnerships suffer.

I say to the parliamentary assistant that we need to take a bit of time in making sure that those relationships mature, that the partnership develops so that we have a true partnership, and so we would more or less walk before we run. That is one of the key points I wanted to bring up today.

Another main point that I brought up in amendments, both in committee that we had this winter and also in committee of the whole House debate that we had last week, is to make sure that we had the right representation on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. This is another sticking point that I find could very well lead to the failure of OTAB.

The government has to have a more balanced representation of all the labour market partners in order for OTAB to succeed. In order to do that, it has to reach out further into the worker community especially, because one of the sore points of 70% of the working women and men in Ontario who don't happen to find themselves organized under a collective agreement and therefore under a local bargaining unit being under a parent union is that they do not find themselves represented at the OTAB table. They will not be allowed to have a say as to how skills training will be developed in their particular sector.

That's a very sad point. I've conceded and quite agree with government members that the unionized representatives of the workforce can certainly represent all the workforce when it comes to all the general worker issues. There's no doubt about that. Unions are certainly organized and well-funded and knowledgeable, through their research departments, to be researching out the needs and the benefits that are required by working men and women in Ontario when it comes to pensions, working conditions, health and safety, wages and all the basic, general, working, bargaining points and benefits that working people need in Ontario.

But when it comes to very occupation-specific trades and skills, it's going to be important that we have all the players at the table. Through the very selective representation that this government has chosen through the path of saying that only 30% of Ontario workers, those who are organized, are going to be allowed basically to have direct representation on OTAB and unfortunately, through this legislation, the local training and adjustment boards, we're excluding a lot of people.

Mr Speaker, I know for you and for I, who have some roots in the agricultural community, this is one particular sector that will not have a voice at the table, and that's sad. I remember one of the members opposite shouting out during my second reading speech: "Well, how would we pick such a member? How would we find somebody?"

I always say to this government that other worker groups have all sorts of affiliates, associations and other groupings that are quite approachable when it comes to asking for representation. It would be very easy to get representatives from sectors that traditionally find themselves unrecognized, unorganized by organized labour, but also from some of those very fast moving and new sectors of the economy that, because they're so new, aren't organized either, many of those high-tech industries. We're going to need some of those people at the table who are in those fast-growing industries that are going to be requiring the very fast-needed skills that are going to be required out there. Those people should be at the table too.

Unfortunately, you're going to see some of the traditional manufacturing unions and resource extraction unions, only, represented at this table and not a good cross-section of everybody at the table. That's sad and I hope that some day the minister will see to it that we get a more balanced representation when it comes to that.

I'd also like to talk about local boards, because many of us who have taken an interest in skills training really believe that the answer in bringing people together, which is what the goal of this bill is, is not in an Ontario-wide, umbrella organization that primarily this bill, until my amendment was accepted, speaks to, but really it will be founded on the local boards and the establishment of bringing a good partnership together of local people, people who have a community of interest.

This is something I want to talk about, because of the 22 LTABs, the local training and adjustment boards, that are so far being proposed by this government and have not yet been decided upon, there are a lot of disagreements by the different communities that basically have been forced together in these proposed boards as to their commonality and their community of interest.

If the local boards are to work cooperatively together, they have to have that community of interest. They have to understand each other's needs and have a sense of community and work together. We have that already. Many of the CITCs, the community industrial training committees that the federal government had set up, came together as a community of interest. They have very like needs, wants and desires and have some similar goals as to how to accomplish the training ends in those particular groups.

1540

Unfortunately, what the OTAB legislation is going to do is really throw the baby out with the bathwater, because what it's going to do is throw out all the local training and adjustment boards that are already established. Whether they're ones that have been established without any government guidance or the ones I just referred to that the federal government had organized, they're all going to go. They're all going to be out the window, because what we have now through Bill 96, the OTAB legislation, is a kind of cookie-cutter approach. The cookie-cutter imprint from this legislation is now going to be imprinted right across the province.

This is the model that the NDP government has decided is best for Ontario and best for every community and region in Ontario. The local people won't have any say. It's got to be this particular style of partnership, this particular proportion of labour representatives and worker representatives with business people, trainers and the equity groups. The cookie-cutter approach is going to be placed right across Ontario. In other words, we have another example of government saying: "What's good at Queen's Park: We at Queen's Park know what's good for all the regions."

I'm very concerned about that, because as most members around here know, the regions are very different from each other in this province. It's a very diverse province and it's really going to be necessary, I think, to give some flexibility.

I'll give you a practical example of that, Mr Speaker. This particular model of eight worker reps and eight business reps, with the trainers and the equity groups, certainly could work in many highly industrialized areas of Ontario where we would find that most of the industrial workers would be unionized. That would work. That would work in an area of Oshawa and it would work in an area of Hamilton where you have a very high percentage of the industrial workers unionized. Probably it fits just right.

But what about, say, you take Hamilton and mix it with an area like Brantford and then down through Haldimand county and Brant county. We have a very big agricultural community. How are the interests of steelworkers from Hamilton, who have a tremendous challenge ahead of them, for sure, in working with the big steel companies in trying to make a very viable and high-tech steel industry in the future so that Canada can stay in that business, similar with the agricultural workers of Brant and Haldimand counties? How, when you foist all those people together, will there develop a community of interest?

I don't really see it happening. It's not going to be able to happen because, first of all, the agricultural people aren't going to be very well represented on the worker side, because the workers there have to come from organized unions, so many of the workers in that community will not find themselves at the table, because for whatever reason they do not find themselves in a union.

These points are very important. They have to be worked upon and there has to be flexibility so that, whatever local LTAB area is decided upon, it can reflect the nature of work and the potential nature of work in that area. If it can reflect the nature of work in that area and those people bring forward their representatives from work in that area, then I think they will be able to work closely together to come to some agreement as to what are the needs, and work together as to how the training needs can be supplied to that LTAB.

I think that's very important, and I really believe it's going to be important for this government to address that. In fact, until the amendment I put forward in committee was adopted, there was no compulsion in this bill for OTAB to establish all the local training and adjustment boards throughout the province, but we now see in subsection 18(1) that, "OTAB shall designate local training and adjustment boards that comply with the regulations made under this act." It's very important that OTAB, once established, get on with that work, because I think it's going to be at the local level that we're going to see some elements of success.

We're going to need to have OTAB working as well as it can, because right now we're at a very critical time in the history of Ontario. The economy of Ontario right now is going through a major transition. We relied in Ontario primarily on two main sectors of the economy to make it work. There was our branch plant manufacturing sector that we were blessed with after the Second World War, a sector of the economy we didn't have very much control of because it was branch plant, but thanks to the tariff structure, after the Second World War multinational companies, primarily American, were basically forced to establish, and primarily they established in southern Ontario. The other major sector of the economy was the resource extraction industry, not only agriculture but mining and forestry. Northern Ontario certainly shared in that, as it still does, with forestry and mining and some agriculture. These were the primary generators of the Ontario economy.

What we find now, with new competition around the world and new trading arrangements such as free trade, FTA and NAFTA, is that these branch plants don't have to operate in Ontario, and if we're not competitive here we've seen many of those withdraw, unfortunately, to the United States and to their countries of origin. Because of that, we find ourselves having to re-examine the nature of work in Ontario: What will the nature of work be?

Similarly, in northern Ontario we find the very same thing -- a little different characteristic -- in that we have less demand worldwide for many of the resources that we produce in the north. So we're similarly challenged in northern Ontario with having to find new work and developing what that new work will be, but the basis of that is going to be to make sure that all our people, in north and south and east and western Ontario have the skills to accomplish the new work.

It's very hard right now, even for somebody who has an interest as I do in skills training, to specify what those jobs are going to be, because by the years 2000 and 2005 and 2010 -- we can't predict today what about 30% to 40% of those jobs are even going to be, but we do know they're going to be work of higher value, and that means we have to have a greater and broader skill base in Ontario. That means we have to have a better education system. We have to have smarter workers. Being competitive doesn't mean that people have to work harder or do with less. What it means in Ontario and Canada to be competitive is that we have to work smarter as a people.

So skills training is going to be very important, and we have to make sure we do that by working in partnership with everybody. I'd like to just come back to that word "partnership" again, because one of the partners that is ill represented on OTAB are the educators and trainers themselves. I understand the government's argument that this should be consumer-driven, and I certainly agree with the previous speaker and with the minister that we want OTAB to be consumer-driven. What that means is that workers and management, the business community, need to be the prime drivers and motivators of OTAB, and that's right, but it's very important that all the five different training communities are also represented in OTAB.

I've twice now brought forward amendments that would still keep the balance of a consumer-driven board while at the same time bring in more representation from the educators and trainers. I felt very badly that the government would not accept what many of those trainers and educators were saying: that they all wanted a voice at the table. In fact, going back to Richard Johnston, the president of the Council of Regents for the community colleges of Ontario, he has basically withdrawn his support of OTAB now because the representative from the colleges was not accepted by the committee that was to represent all the educators.

That's part of the problem. What is wrong with having a representative from the community colleges, from the universities, from community trainers, from private trainers and from the school boards, so that all five aspects of training in Ontario represented by those different bodies were represented on OTAB? That would be important. What you could do is make sure that the quorum situation and the voting mechanisms were designed not to increase their power but to make sure that all the trainers and educators were present, so that not only could they understand what business, for the very first time, maybe, for some trainers, and labour were requiring from the educational community -- because that's the idea behind this: put everybody together so they understand where they come from -- but also that they listen to each other and understand their various roles in delivering training, because there is a place for all trainers and educators in Ontario.

There's certainly a place for the publicly funded education system, but there's also certainly a place for community trainers, who capture a group of clients that the other systems don't, and there's certainly a place for private trainers, who work very closely with the business community in providing very skills-specific training and services for the business community. Everybody should be there at the table. That's very, very important.

This bill excludes three of the five training groups, and that's wrong. That is very much wrong, and I would hope again that someday this government would see the light and would make some amendments to this bill to make sure that those people are there.

It's an important time that we get together on skills training, and OTAB is certainly this government's attempt to do that.

I would just like, before I close today, to talk a little bit about the purpose of this bill and the goals, because part of the problem with this bill -- and the parliamentary assistant spoke about it -- is that this bill is a compilation of compromises. That's what makes the bill weak.

1550

While in the Canadian system of political life we've basically founded our country and our provinces on compromise, and while I believe that you have to listen to everybody and come to some sort of commonality, in certain aspects a sense of leadership has to be expressed. Some time in Canadian life there needs to be a government with a vision to say, "We've listened to everybody, but now we're embarking on this path."

This is our vision, in this case, for skills training in Ontario. That requires vision and that requires leadership. Sometimes when you compromise, what you get is weakness. When you read the purpose clauses of this bill, what you see is weakness. You don't see strong vision with strong direction, and that's needed in this bill. Unfortunately, that's missing.

What we have today, as I've outlined with a little bit of our economic history of what's happened here, is that we're at a point now where we have to declare war on this economy. We have to say that we want to mobilize all the forces, all the strengths, all our efforts in Ontario to make sure that all Ontarians have the skills to rebuild this economy. This is important so that all of us as individuals have the ability to support ourselves, to support our families and, together in doing that, to build a strong economy. That's important, and it's going to take a will, it's going to take a strong mandate. In fact, what it's going to take is a strong imperative from this government, an order, an imperative from this government to say, "The number one goal of the government of the province of Ontario and all its people should be to garner all the skills we can in this province to be the most competitive workplace in Ontario."

It's that sort of language and some sort of vision statement that should have headed up this bill so we really had a sense of the strength of leadership that was necessary to move forward with a redevelopment and a redeploying of all skills training. Instead, I think what we have is a collection of compromises here.

What we've created is a very big new bureaucracy. Granted, we're bringing all the bureaucrats and civil servants together from all the different ministries -- and I think that's a good idea -- but we're bringing them together and then we're setting them outside, out in a schedule 4 agency. For those people who don't really understand what a schedule 4 agency is, it's going to be very much like establishing another Workers' Compensation Board.

It's going to be establishing an agency that's fairly independent from government, so it doesn't have the hands-on command and control of a minister of the day who is responsible to the people of Ontario through the Legislature of Ontario. I'm very concerned about that. It's a schedule 4 agency that's got a lot of autonomy and a lot of independence, and it can go wrong, as we've seen with the other agency, the health and safety agency that I referred to earlier. I'm very concerned about this, and I would just plead with the government that it puts in its memorandum of understanding what's missing in this bill, that strong leadership; that it put it in there, that it put in some very strong vision, some very strong purpose clauses that are missing from this bill, to give it that direction, to make sure it's got the imperative, just like other imperatives that other governments have done in the past, because when people put their wills together, they can do it.

We've seen in the history of humankind the different sort of imperatives that have made things happen. We've seen in the space program in the United States probably a political imperative because a president, President Kennedy, said, "We want to put a man on the moon in so many years." That happened because a leader in a country said, "This is a goal we have and here's the direction we're headed in." It takes vision to do that, and John F. Kennedy had that vision.

We've seen the country of Japan, absolutely devastated economically after the Second World War, take the economic imperative that, "We have to rebuild this country." There's a country that had no resources at all that has rebuilt itself, that has picked itself up and is now the leading economy in the world.

That's the type of vision, that's the type of leadership I'd like to see from this government. That's the type of vision and leadership and imperative that the people of Ontario expect from their government. I expect no less either, and I implore this government, through the minister and the parliamentary assistant, to develop that vision through regulations, through its memorandum of understanding with OTAB, so that we can get on with the business of skills development and redevelop the economy of Ontario for the betterment of all.

Mr Carr: I want to comment very briefly on the member's speech. I think he hit on a number of the concerns that our party has as well. He talked about some of the local boards and keeping some of the good work that's being done.

In my own case, the Oakville Chamber of Commerce came in and made a presentation in which it talked about the same thing. We in Halton have what is commonly referred to as HAPITAC in our Halton board; that's the Halton and Peel Industries Training Advisory Committee, which has been working closely with the board of education, with Sheridan, and has put together what we think is a pretty good model for the rest of the province. We would hope that a lot of what the member said will come true. They would like to see that particular group of people put together in the new local boards: There's a lot of expertise; they've gone through many years of ironing out the problems; they're working very closely with people in my area. Sheridan College is working closely with the companies, like Ford Motor Co, through a lot of the work that HAPITAC is doing.

I would commend the member for bringing up the fact that there are some people in the local areas right now who are doing some very good work, as was mentioned with my chamber. I think the words they used were "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's not exactly great English, but that's what they said.

I would hope that as we proceed, and I think the member's right on, the local boards will be the key to the success. I hope the members opposite and the minister will know that there are some fine things being done out in the communities right now. That isn't to say that it is in all areas, but I would hope that a lot of the approaches being done in my own area of Halton would be carried forward when this legislation, as it probably will today, passes.

Hon Mr Farnan: I first want to express my pleasure that the critic from the official opposition has endorsed the principles of this bill as being sound. I'm also pleased that the member for Timiskaming supports the government's emphasis on the importance and the key contribution and significance of local boards.

I found it passing strange, mind you, that he spent so much time decrying the shortfalls of local boards when in this bill the specifics of local boards are not spelled out at all and are something that will be brought forward again.

There were some contradictions in the comments made by the member.

He thought that the process, on the one hand, was too slow; on the other hand, he found that the process was too fast.

He talked about the need for leadership. Indeed, this is precisely what this bill is.

Of course, he also made comparisons between what happened in Quebec and what happens elsewhere. Let me tell you, the mature relationship between labour and management in Quebec is founded on working relationships based on compromise. The same is true in Germany and the same is true in Japan.

He talked, on the one hand, in terms of simply looking at inviting, nurturing, coaxing, and then said, "We want strong leadership and direction." These are dichotomies, these are things that must be brought together. We experienced in the process all the various viewpoints, but at the end of the day, our partners say, "Let's get on with it; let's make our compromises; let's make it work." We invite the member of the official opposition to join the team, and let's make it work.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Timiskaming has two minutes in response.

Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank the member for Oakville South, who by the way I think is a very important member of this Legislature, as he's my mother's member. She lives in Oakville, so I support the member for Oakville South and make sure he does a good job for his constituents, of whom my mother is certainly one.

I'd like to comment also on some of the other comments that were made just now in response to my speech. It gives me another opportunity to explain that again, where the speaker said I was being contradictory when I was saying that at one time we're going too slow or we're going too fast. I'll say it again.

I think the government was very slow off the mark to get OTAB established, to get that partnership going. Here we are now, it will be almost three years into the mandate of this government, and the minister tomorrow will be announcing the board. What I said, though, was that once we got the process going, I would like to see that process now move a little more slowly so that we mature those relationships. We should have got on to this three years ago and maybe by today we'd have almost three years of those people working together, so you could give them all that authority we're now going to give them this afternoon.

1600

That's certainly my concern about that, that we're very quickly giving them all that authority, full responsibility on skills training in Ontario, and we're giving them all that money -- it's going to be in the millions and millions of dollars in order to do that -- and we're going to throw them in a room off from government with that authority and with that money and expect them to get along together, which they haven't shown they can right off the mark, and provide us with that leadership that we so sorely need in Ontario for skills training. I'm just concerned that there's going to be a lot of argument and wrangling while time flies by when we need some very important decisions to be made as to skills training.

It's very urgent. I wish we'd started three years ago and by now might have had some good decisions and the good partnerships matured. We're three years behind the time and I hope that everybody does put their differences away and works together for the betterment of all of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for Timiskaming for his participation and his response. Further debate on third reading, Bill 96? The member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: I'm pleased to enter the debate and to add some comments that I hope will be appropriate.

I agree with the previous speaker in that I think one of the goals of this legislation really should be to make us more competitive. We all hope that's what this will do. I see some major problems in a couple of areas, and I'll hope to articulate them, but this is really what it's all about and we need to recognize that there have to be changes.

I don't think many members here will know that, as recently as about 50 to 60 years ago, 40% of the jobs in this province were in the field of agriculture. Today we're probably statistically less than 4%. People would probably say that's an awful lot of jobs to lose over the last 50 to 60 years. The fact of the matter is that we have had people employed in other areas and the fact of the matter is that that 4% of the population are now producing more than was the case back 50 years ago.

So I think we shouldn't be afraid of change, and people right across the spectrum -- the business community, the unions, workers -- I think are finally realizing that there has to be change, there has to be improvement in the way we do things.

I had the opportunity to go out, with the member for Oxford, who I know is here, to Sheridan College, an opening of our training centre out there. He was participating on behalf of a member.

One of the concerns we've got is, we have this new training centre that's been opened up, and as we went on the tour we have the new high-tech machines that are in there training people. The people who are doing the training, the people right on the front lines who we were speaking to, were saying that one of the problems we've got is the people we are training now, the kids, as they call them, coming out of high school, don't have a lot of the skills and training in the areas of math and reading and writing to be able to properly function to get the training on these machines. Because the machines are all high tech, it takes a great deal of math skill.

So as we look at this whole issue of training, I think we need to take a look at the whole issue of education. That's why we did our paper, New Directions, Volume II, which basically took a look at the whole issues of education. As we now wait I guess two years for the new commission to report, I say to you, a lot of what we're talking about later on in terms of training at the advanced levels will depend on how well we do in our education system. They do need to go hand in hand.

I firmly believe that, to look at it practically, the standard of living of the next generation will be in direct proportion to the skills and training we give them today. That's why there are some major, major disagreements on how that's done, but fundamentally the principle is that everybody needs to do a better job. We all agree on that. There aren't too many people who say we should do it. We can go back to the Premier's Council, which talked about that.

One of the areas that we have concern with is the role of the private sector, and the reason I think we're concerned is that in other areas we've seen this government shut out the private sector. I refer to a couple, the day care and the nursing homes, recently announced, about a week and a half ago. We honestly, truly believe in our party that the private sector has a role to play.

Right now, with the funding being cut back to Sheridan and all the colleges and universities and school boards, it's kind of ironic that we are now saying the public sector can handle all of it when we in fact are cutting back in the public sector because of the fact that we're out of money in this province.

So I firmly believe the private sector has a role to play. I'm concerned that they will not. My own chamber, which came in, voiced some of those concerns as well. We believe that it's because of this government -- and I say this, trying not to be too confrontational to the other side -- it's because of the ideology and the background of socialists. They believe the public sector is the only way to do it. We've seen that in day care and in nursing homes.

With the number of people we need to train in this province quickly and the massive amount of training -- because what we're doing today may not necessarily be right for tomorrow. It needs to happen, it needs to happen quickly and it needs to happen on a massive scale. I say to the associate minister, the minister and the parliamentary assistants who are here that I honestly, truly believe the private sector needs to be a part of that. If they are not, we are not going to get the numbers we need.

We look at the other areas where the private sector has been driven out -- day care is one example -- and when you look at the end result, the waiting lists are now longer because of the private sector involvement. The way it's done, of course, is they don't just stand up and say, "The private sector is shut out; you can't participate any more," the same as in day care and nursing homes; it all relates to funding. With the local boards having control of the purse-strings over funding, one of the big concerns is that the minister, through his wide-ranging powers in here, will say to them that they will only be funding the public sector.

I say that right off the bat, because I believe that right now there is not enough infrastructure in place to handle the necessary training, because we are talking about a massive number of people who need training.

The ministry will now have powers to issue directives through this bill to the board and can request a report any time on any aspects of OTAB. I guess the problem we've got in a lot of areas with this government and their actions in other areas is that we don't trust them in this area to set the goals very clearly and get them articulated. But again, we will give them the benefit of the doubt in that area. We're concerned and we hope they will be able to manage it properly.

I'm pleased there will be special audits allowed by the Provincial Auditor because, as we see in a couple of other areas with this government, the most recent being, I guess, the sexual assault centres, when you don't have controls in place, well-meaning programs can, quite frankly, run amok. If you do that, there could be some very, very detrimental effects out there. So that's one aspect I'm pleased with.

We're a little bit concerned with the accountability of the minister but, again, we honestly, truly believe -- we will attempt to be as constructive as we can in assisting the minister in that regard.

The previous speaker talked about representation and I know that was a big, big factor in the hearing reports. People are concerned. I know when they came in -- my college, Sheridan, has been working very closely with the Ford Motor Co and is very concerned. Some of the people who are doing the training right now -- right on the shop floor, I might add. This isn't in the Sheridan facility; they're right on the shop floor. They work with the Ford Motor Co. They put together a program for training and upgrading of skills and it's done in cooperation. I hope we don't lose that.

The big key and the big question is, how do we get that down to the small and the medium-sized businesses? They are the job creators in this province. We can talk about the large companies and most of them are doing some type of training. I referred to the Ford Motor Co. Most of the job creation in the future will be at the small and medium-sized companies. The concern we've got is, how will they access it? Most of the small businesses that came in -- I refer to my own chamber -- said: "We would love to have a program to be able to get some skills and training for our people. We realize it's an important issue" -- and I guess that's the biggest barrier -- "we realize it has to be done now, but how do we access it?"

When we told them how it's going to work, that there's going to be a local board and it's going to decide and it's going to have a pool of money -- and we'll get into what that amount will be, depending upon the makeup; they are then going to decide what companies get the money -- there was some major, major concern that the small and medium-sized companies, which need the assistance because, quite frankly, in the case of the Ford Motor Co in my riding, they're already doing the training without too much assistance, although I guess they did get a government grant up to $4 million for some training.

But the small and medium-sized businesses who are not doing it right now -- not because they don't want to. We have to remember that skills and training and upgrading is fairly new. Even though we now all recognize it and everyone realizes that it needs to be done, it has only been in the last couple of years that a lot of companies have bought into it, and the same with a lot of the workers. I know in the past few years, when Ford and the CAW would talk about training, the eyes would glaze over, and people saw that as another word for reducing the number of employees. Now everybody realizes it needs to be done.

1610

The small and medium-sized businesses, when they're told there will now be a local board that will decide who will get the money, most of them are fearful that they're going to have to line up and become lobbyists and deal with this big bureaucracy, even though it's at a local level. They've looked at the other government setups, whether it's the Workers' Compensation Board or a couple of the other boards, and they see this big bureaucracy. Quite frankly, I say to the members opposite, they may or may not be founded, but there are some very, very legitimate concerns out there that the small and medium-sized businesses will not be able to access it. I hope in the end the other side will realize that this is where the job creation will be coming from in the future. It is the small and medium-sized businesses that will be doing it. That's why I hope they will listen to some of the ideas put forward by the people in the small business community who again are wishing them success.

I am concerned about the representation on the board and how it will work. Again, I'm not going to apportion any problems, because there are some good elements. I happen to sit on the Premier's Council on innovation as our party's representative. I had the great pleasure of working with somebody like, for example, Fred Pomeroy from the Communications and Electrical Workers of Canada, who has done an excellent job of being able to instil -- I guess that's exactly what the Premier's Council on innovation is doing -- in the workers out there the need for education and training. He's been very productive in the meetings that I've been to. He's been very, very helpful and has recognized that need. As a major labour leader, I hope he would continue with that.

There were some concerns. I was there when the Ontario Federation of Labour presentation came in. The brochure they brought in was, to say the least, very confrontational. I hope the OFL and Gord Wilson and the folks over there will take another look at the whole issue of training and try to work in a more cooperative manner, because quite frankly, that presentation -- I don't know how many of the members opposite were there -- was highly confrontational. The brochure that was left with us was not I think indicative of what the OFL would like to see.

Again, not to apportion any blame, but I think everybody realizes there needs to be better management-labour cooperation. The companies that are surviving today are doing that. The ones that are not, whether it's management's fault or whether it's labour's fault, quite frankly, they both lose because they go out of business. That's the ultimate test, I guess. Certainly, business and labour must work together. If this joint representation on the board will be able to facilitate that, I think it will happen, with the good input that is out there.

The president of Inco, who sits on the Premier's Council, does an excellent job as well with Fred. There's been a tremendous amount of cooperation. It's bogged down in a lot of the detail, as committees often do, but I would hope the boards will work a lot better than some of the other labour-management cooperation. I think of workplace health and safety. Again, this isn't to apportion any blame. When you get down to it, it doesn't matter whose fault it is; the fact is that if they don't work together, we're in trouble.

We've had many problems in that area. We're all going to be the losers, because as we found out with this government, all the things we care about, the social programs that are out there, don't depend upon the compassion of the government; they depend on having a healthy and prosperous economy to support them. Unless we have better labour-management cooperation and training, and it may sound rather negative, but I honestly, truly believe that our standard of living is going to be in direct proportion to the skills and training that are necessary out there. If we don't do a good job on this, it's going to affect us dramatically long-term in all the social programs.

Again, to get off on some of the problems that have happened with the workplace health and safety agency I don't think would be helpful, but we had hoped, through some of the amendments we brought forward, to be able to facilitate better cooperation. That isn't going to happen. Some of the amendments weren't passed. The previous speaker spoke about that as well.

In all honesty, we're now saying we tried to fix that, but we hope both sides will realize that if we do not work together and there isn't labour-management cooperation, all the goodwill in the world is going to go out the window. The comments made by the new associate minister, I think, were appropriate. Everybody wishes partnership, but unfortunately we haven't had that in the past and I say to both sides, we need it.

We're a little bit concerned about a lot of the regulations. We're concerned about what's going to happen with the cost of the local boards and this is the way a lot of government programs start. I think of the way school boards were originally set up where we'd have part-time people working and then, all of a sudden, we gave them a little bit of an allowance up to $6,000. Then it became a full-time job and full-time salary to the point where now, I think, the Scarborough trustees on the board may even make more than we make in the Ontario Legislature, with all the problems associated with those big increases with the Scarborough Board of Education.

So when the concerns were brought forward, as they were, through many of the presentations we heard through the committee, they look at other government programs with the school boards and they say, "We are a little bit concerned that these local boards that are going to start out as volunteer and working together are going to attempt to create some problems down the road because they get bigger and bigger and bigger." A couple of the amendments we put forward were to address that as well. They didn't succeed.

I also want to quickly just talk about some of those amendments. I know our critic, the member for London North, Dianne Cunningham, worked extremely hard putting together numerous amendments. I sat in on some of the hearings and we listened and brought forward some of those amendments. We were a little discouraged that they were not listened to. We had hoped to bring in some that would talk about the recognition of the development of a competitive workforce, because that's what it really gets down to.

We'd talked a little bit about what we would like to do with the redistribution of directors, with a real emphasis on the education sector, because I honestly, truly believe they are the people who are going to be left out, more than anybody else in this sector. I can't speak for the rest of the province, but when I speak with the people at Sheridan, the various people who are involved, whether it's the president, Mary or Gus or the people we've been working very closely with, they're very sceptical that all of the work and the ability that has gone on through literally years of reworking and redefining are going to be thrown out the window.

I say to the parliamentary assistant and the associate minister, I hope that will not happen. I hope a lot of the local boards will be set up with the input of some of the fine people who have been doing the job, who have learned from the past mistakes, because this certainly hasn't been easy.

We're concerned about what will happen to the small and medium-sized businesses' voice, because their concern has been voiced about the voice only being of organized, unionized workers. As you know, in the small sector, the small and medium-sized businesses, a lot of those are not unionized. There is a great fear out there that the small and medium-sized businesses will not be able to access a lot of the training money that's out there and they will be left behind because of the fact that they are not unionized.

I will use an example in my area of what the concern is: You've got the Ford Motor Co, a big company. Thousands of employees definitely need skills and training and upgrading like they've been doing. A lot of the people are concerned that now, when the local board gets set up, a lot of money is going to be going to the big companies like the Ford Motor Co, and the small and medium-sized businesses are going to be left out.

I know there are going to be different agreements with the amount -- Ford in my area got, I believe, about $4 million in training. There's some concern that the way government operates -- and I don't say this in a negative sense, because I guess all governments in the past may have been criticized for this -- but they're going to say, "Okay, the $4 million that we already gave you comes out of your local board's share," because, as you know, governments like to announce programs when it's politically advantageous, as it was in the case of the Ford Motor Co. They'll now say, "Well, that amount that you got, sorry, that comes off your local board."

The same with the General Electric plant that was given some training money in my riding as well: The Premier came out, I guess, about two years now, maybe 18 months, whatever it was, opened it up and gave some tremendous amount of funding to General Electric. But the problem is, the other businesses are saying: "Now they got some money for training. Will that all be rolled into the amount the local board will get, and will now the amounts given" -- quite frankly, when you add up the dollars that are going to be spent, those two companies may take the bulk of the resources that are there for the local board that's going to be set up in our area.

1620

This may or may not happen as we get going, but there is some concern, because we know governments will rush to make an announcement because the Premier wants to get out there and GE's ready to go now and they say, "Okay, here's some money for training," and everybody assumes that there's new money coming into the system, and then two years down the road or a year down the road when this gets set up and running they're saying, "No, the money we've given to the Ford Motor Co and the money we've given to GE now count for your local area and, I'm sorry, there's only this amount left for the other companies."

So I say that I think the members opposite probably haven't thought that far down the road, but that is the voice of a lot of the people in my area. I tried to give you a bit of an example using an example in my area of what the concerns are. Hopefully that will give the members some idea to think, because the public is really sceptical that you're going to use the announcements on training funds for the two companies, GE and Ford, and that's it for the Halton area and the Halton-Peel area, because they're going to access a great deal of the money.

I also want to touch on a couple of issues of the cost of OTAB. I know there have been various figures bandied about. The concern that we've got, and I guess the question I asked Richard Johnston when he came in as a representative of the colleges, I said: "We're going to spend, give or take, a billion dollars" -- that's billion with a "b" -- "on the whole OTAB program. At the same time, we are now limiting access" -- and I again used the example of Sheridan, to people getting into Sheridan -- "because of cutbacks in funding."

We are now cutting back colleges and universities to the tune where they are now giving out notices to people saying: "You're in in September, maybe. You can enrol in Sheridan or McMaster or one of the universities, maybe." At this time of year, students still don't know because of the funding problems and the whole issue of what's happening with the social contract.

So we're very concerned, and I asked Richard Johnston, "If you had a billion dollars to spend, where would you spend it?" because he came into the finance and economics committee saying, "We're underfunded in colleges and universities," and did a tremendous amount of stats which said 80% of the graduates of colleges are getting jobs and did a very effective presentation, saying, "If we want to create jobs in the future, we've got to be educated." As a representative of colleges, which you might expect from Richard Johnston, he said, "This is the place to do it and we do a great job."

So I asked him: "If you had a billion dollars to spend, where would you spend it? Would you spend it on the universities and the colleges, which don't have a lot of the necessary equipment out there?" We were fortunate to get some of it at the Sheridan training centre, but many of the others, the Ryersons and some of the others of the world, are training a lot of the students on outdated equipment, because the equipment is very, very expensive.

So I said to Richard, "What would you rather do, spend a billion dollars on the colleges and universities and allow many people who go back to retrain to get the training there, or would you set up the OTAB board?" At that time I think he was still on side with the government, and he paused and took a great amount of time to speak, which, for those members who know Richard, isn't normal. I think he was really grappling with the question, and then he finally said, "I would do both."

But we've got to remember, at a time when there's underfunding, when we're basically right now in my area going to limit the enrolment at Sheridan -- and it isn't just young people going back for training. It's older workers who are going back, people my age who are going back for retraining if anybody goes back to a Sheridan or a McMaster. My wife is going back to McMaster, taking some courses and upgrading some skills in that area.

It's no longer the kids coming right out of high school who are going into our colleges and universities. The vast majority is night-time courses, part-time people who are working, and if we were going to spend this billion dollars, there are a lot of people who are saying it should be done in our colleges and universities because that is where the future is going to be and where the education dollars should be spent.

So I say to the members opposite, the money is going to be spent, but how we integrate with the colleges and universities is going to be very important. We attempted to introduce some amendments which would ensure that would happen. They didn't pass. But I still honestly, truly believe if the government is willing and if the government is willing to have its local boards mandated to have involvement with the colleges and universities, then I think it can and still will happen.

I know on the other side they honestly, truly will want to do that, because I don't think there are any on the other side who don't believe that colleges and universities should play a major, major role.

The problem we've got with this is that when it gets down to the local level the people you appoint are really going to be the key to what happens at the local boards. While I guess I'm pleased that the minister will keep the accountability so that if the local board isn't doing something properly they will be able to mandate it, the real key will be getting good people on the local boards.

I say in a non-partisan sense, there are good people, somebody like Richard Johnston who is a member of the NDP and always has been. There are good people from the Liberals. There are good Conservatives. I would hope that this would be one board where we will not play political games like we've unfortunately seen on some of the other boards and staff it with political appointments.

I honestly, truly believe this government has learned its lesson in that regard. I know when we originally started off the Ontario Hydro board was stacked. Marc Eliesen was a typical example of a political person who was staffed, and I notice now the most recent appointments are people with strong backgrounds because I think they've learned that the people you appoint to these boards and commissions are very important.

In my own area, we've got a lot of expertise out there. The people of HAPITAC should be involved. Most of them are non-partisan anyway, although I guess like anything else there will be some, but I say to you those are the people who should be out there. The people who should be appointed to the boards are the people who have done a good job and I think that will probably happen, but I would encourage the minister and the associate minister to ensure that happens.

Where we have I think lacked confidence in this government is it probably believes that, but the actual implementation sometimes doesn't happen. Whatever we can do to encourage you to get good people on those local boards, we will do. I would say to all members, most of us have worked with a lot of the people in our own communities, and I would hope, when the time comes for the appointments for some of the boards and the reappointments and so on, that MPPs would assist in making sure we get some of the fine people who are out there.

I will talk very briefly because I see the time is quickly marching down, and I did want to get to a couple of more points. There is some concern about organized labour's viewpoint dominating the decision-making process. I honestly, truly believe that now in the 1990s even organized labour realizes that it's in its best interests and the best interests of its members to have skills and training that are necessary.

You can talk about different unions and I won't point them out. There have been some that have done a better job at this than others, but I think everybody, even in the discussions that are out there now with the CAW over the big talks, is talking about the training that will be necessary to keep the jobs.

What has happened now is that even in the auto sector, which I'm familiar with, our exports are up about 26%, but we're doing it with less people than we did even three years ago. I shudder to think where we would be in this province without the increase in the auto sector, and the numbers that I use, the 26% increase, come right from the budget of the Treasurer. The auto sector is now producing more parts and cars in the province of Ontario than ever before and they're doing it with less people.

All of the unions I think now realize it's in their best interests to have the skills and training that is necessary and that lifelong learning is something that is going to be here whether we like it or not because the alternative is being unemployed and out of a job.

We're a little bit concerned about what will happen to the non-unionized sector, but again I honestly, truly believe that this government has learned a lesson over the last two years. When they came in, I think there was somewhat of a bias towards unionized workers and input from the unionized environment, for obvious reasons, but I think now, having been in government for a couple of years, they realize that they have the same goal as us and that's to create jobs.

It doesn't matter if it's small or medium-sized businesses that are non-unionized or more jobs that are unionized in the CAW or the Steelworkers or whatever, if we can create the jobs here that will allow us to provide the opportunity to have the standard of living that we need.

I don't know if they took it that way but it was meant as a bit of a compliment because I honestly, truly believe that the old days are past. We don't care whether it is a unionized job or a non-unionized job. For heaven's sake, let's give the people the skills that are necessary so that they will have jobs, and not have them on the unemployment insurance rolls or the welfare rolls, because that is ultimately what is going to destroy this province.

1630

There were some concerns that the local boards were going to use their power to introduce a lot of the social changes the government of the day believes in. I don't think that will happen and I would encourage them not to do that. What we need to do is to make sure that the workforce has the skills and training necessary, because even having said that, even knowing that all three parties in here believe it and even knowing that management and labour believe it, the fact of the matter is that the details are what are going to decide whether we're successful.

We all know the goal, that we need more training, is acceptable, but we have major concerns with this, and what we attempted to do in our amendments was to improve the legislation so that at the end of the day it would allow the actual workings to be more effective. That's where we have problems with this: the actual workings of the local boards and the effectiveness that is going on.

I guess I have run over my time. I promised the member for St Catharines, whom I saw here earlier, that I would leave some time. I will do that now, although with him not being in the House, I'll quickly sum up in the next minute or so.

Our concerns are out there. They are with the representation, but I think that can be dealt with if this government is willing to do it. They are with the private sector, but again I think it could be done with this government if it's willing and able to do it, and also with the local boards.

The success ultimately will rest with getting good people, so for heaven's sake, let's not play the political games that have been done in the past by all governments, probably at all levels. Let's get some good people on there who know and understand what we are doing, some people who are going to be results-oriented, who are going to be able to properly analyse the situation, take corrective action, implement solutions and sustain them. If we do that, at the end of the day, even with the misgivings that are out there and some of the concerns that we have, the good people on the boards can, I think, get by a lot of the problems we've got.

Those are some of the preliminary comments I have. They are a lot of the things that had been voiced on second reading by our critic as well. We will be working with this government over the next little while, as the boards get set up and as we proceed down the road, on improving this. It is the one issue where I don't think we want anybody to play political games. We're going to disagree, not because we see getting any political glory out of it, but because we honestly, truly believe that there are some areas where we can offer input. I wish some of them had been done with our amendments, which were put forward in good conscience by the member for London North, but that isn't going to stop us from continuing to do it. At the end of the day, and I say this, the standard of living of our people is going to really depend on how well we do. Our party certainly is there, as I believe the Liberals will be, to help this government as it proceeds.

I was very pleased to participate in the debate. I hope the government members will take some thought of those recommendations. I appreciate this opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Questions and/or comments?

Hon Mr Farnan: It was a very wide-ranging response from the critic for the third party, the member for Oakville South. Let me simply state that I was delighted to hear in his comments how he recognized and indeed gave examples within his own riding of this government's very non-partisan approach to the allocation of funds. He indicated that his riding was the recipient of very generous support from the government. That is something we certainly appreciate, when it is recognized in the spirit of goodwill by opposition members that this government is attempting to address in as fair a way as possible all the needs of the province.

I also heard in his comments a recognition of the government's effort to be very non-partisan in its appointments system. Again, I have to thank the member, because it's very reassuring to hear members of the official opposition and third party benches recognizing that there is an honest effort being made. Of course, we all understand that membership of any political party should not exclude an individual from serving, because people from all parties and political affiliations, given the fact that they are well qualified, can indeed serve the public interest very well.

It's that kind of comment coming from the opposition, recognizing this government's non-partisan approach to the allocation of funds, recognizing the government's non-partisan approach to the appointment system, that instils within the public of Ontario a confidence in government and a confidence in politics, and I thank him for that generous, honest approach in the House today.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member has two minutes to make a response.

Mr Carr: I thank the member for his comments, because I know that when they put the money into Ford Motor Co and General Electric it wasn't because they hoped to win the seat for the NDP. Even last time they finished way back in third, and certainly Oakville has not been known as a stronghold for NDP support, so in all fairness, the money that went in there was not for political reasons, and the member is very right in that regard.

But I think what it shows very clearly is that the training that needs to be done, and I hope the point he picked up, needs to be non-partisan. The main point I was trying to make with that wasn't the money that was spent. I am hoping that now we've spent this money -- the local people in Oakville with the local board -- the money will not be deducted that has already been spent. I take it from his comments that is not the case, that it is new money that will come into our area.

It is very important that the government realizes that the way this is implemented is going to be probably the most important part, and I am pleased that the government is going to attempt to continue to cooperate. If we do that, I think we'll make this a better province in which to operate.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to offer some of my comments on the bill to establish OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. I don't think there's any doubt among any of us in the Legislature, and probably most people who are familiar with this area, of the need to make substantial progress in how we improve the skill levels in the workplace, how we handle what's called labour force adjustment: if someone loses his job, helping him, as smoothly as possible, if need be to acquire some new skills and to re-enter the workplace.

I don't think there's any doubt that if we are going to have a strong economy -- we are competing now, and I think we all recognize this, with literally every industrial jurisdiction in the world -- if we're going to compete effectively, we have to turn this into a competitive edge. That's not debatable, and the objectives of the training are not debatable, in my opinion. I think that's a given.

What is debatable, though, is: Is this is the proper vehicle? From the day the government announced this, as some members here will know, I have had significant reservations about the mechanism that is being set up to do this. I will admit once again that I was around when something called the Premier's Council in the previous government -- this was in a report from the Premier's Council, and I will accept that; my name was on the report. But I will say that at the time I had some questions on it and my questions have become more firmly rooted in concern.

I hope I'm wrong, but I am afraid I won't be wrong on this. We will only know, as we always do around here, in a matter of months or years whether the opposition's concerns were right and are realized or whether the government's right.

1640

My concern is around a very fundamental part of this bill. This sets up something, to use the jargon around the Legislature, called a schedule 4 agency. It is an independent, arm's-length agency with its own decision-making responsibility. It is like the Workers' Compensation Board. I think that's wrong.

For me, training and education are truly a lifelong experience; it's a continuum. I had thought we had all kind of agreed to that, that there no longer are artificial barriers after grade 8 or after secondary school and that to the best of our ability we should make our access to education and our access to skill development, again to use the jargon, seamless. We should be striving to eliminate these artificial barriers. That's why I happen to think having one ministry responsible for it is a good idea, for secondary schools and elementary schools, colleges and universities and training. It's a good idea, and we should be eliminating all the possible barriers.

But here we go, setting up an artificial barrier, an agency that has the authority to make fundamental decisions in this area, even the appointments. There's a 22-person board that will make these decisions. Even in terms of the appointments to that board, the government of the day, whatever government it is, will not have the responsibility for them, because it is not the government that makes the decisions. The business community will appoint its eight people, the labour community will appoint its eight people, the women's community will appoint its person, the disability community will appoint its person, the racial minority community will appoint its person, the francophone community will appoint its person.

As representative as they may be -- and frankly, they represent a lot of Ontario -- they don't represent all of Ontario, so I'm worried about that. With an independent agency, in the final analysis the public doesn't appoint those people, and I still believe we are the public. They don't appoint them; the people who appoint them are the interest groups.

As I say, those groups speak for a large part of Ontario, but they don't speak for all of Ontario. We are in the process of turning over something that is absolutely fundamental to our future, not just our economic future but the social wellbeing future of the people of Ontario.

The budget of this agency -- I've not been able to get an accurate assessment -- I understand is around $600 million. But there is no doubt that the goal has to be, surely, that we are going to coordinate federal and provincial programs in this area, and I believe that's another perhaps $1.5 billion. So we're looking at a budget of $2 billion.

This agency will be run by 22 people the public does not have the authority to nominate. Based on everything I've seen, the mandate of those people is to bring their agenda to OTAB, which may be fine, but I don't believe that the total of those interest groups represent in total the interests of the public of Ontario. As I said earlier, they are important interest groups, but they don't speak for the total Ontario that I think we should be speaking to.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): But they are only a focus, Gerry.

Mr Phillips: I don't know what the member said, but he said it's only a board. They are a decision-making body whose job it is to run this agency at arm's length from the government. That's a mistake, in my mind, but only time will tell. Like a lot of other things around here in opposition, the best we can do is point out our concerns. We hope the government will hear them, although I think it's now been two years at least where I've expressed similar concerns here in the Legislature, and the government is intent on going ahead with it. I guess I understand why, although I think it's a mistake.

It would have been very easy to fix this one. This board could have been made an advisory board, not one where we established in legislation that it will be this board that will have the final authority in making these decisions.

We're now probably only 20 or 25 minutes away from finally passing this piece of legislation. It will not do me much good two years from now to say, "I told you so and you are wrong." I wish that were not the case, but it is clear to me, as well intentioned, by the way, as these 22 people are -- I know they are sitting out there right now; I believe they've all essentially been appointed. The government rented the space for this place back in October, nine months ago. The space has been sitting empty, at taxpayers' expense, waiting for the board to take over. The space was rented, I believe, in October and the date on this bill is November; it was rented before the bill was even introduced in the Legislature. There's space, I think, on Bloor Street sitting waiting for the group. I believe they have a big announcement planned tomorrow.

I imagine those 22 people are delighted, because they're going to be very powerful people. They will control a budget of, I think, $600 million. They will control a potential budget of, I believe, up to $2 billion. They'll have an enormous amount of authority. I don't know who the 22 people are; I don't doubt that they're very competent individuals who will represent their constituency well. But I'm personally convinced that it is a mistake to be setting up this artificial barrier when we should be, in my opinion, breaking all of these things down.

There is, as I said earlier, no doubt about how important this area is. I am convinced, as I think most observers of the economy are, that our future depends on finding ways in which we are able to help the talented, hardworking people of Ontario acquire the kinds of skill sets that will allow us to have a vibrant economy. All of the objectives of this are right, all of them, but it is the wrong vehicle.

We're about, in a matter of a few minutes, to make a decision that we had a choice on. We could have made this an advisory board. We could have said, "Let's give it two years or three years and see how it works out." I was the Minister of Labour under something called Bill 208 -- we always talk around here in these numbers; nobody out there knows what Bill 208 is, but it's the Occupational Health and Safety Act amendments -- and we set up a slightly different but similar organization in the Workplace Health and Safety Agency.

In my opinion, rather than helping to get on to tackle effectively the important areas of workplace health and safety, we've had to a very large extent a pitched battle between, on the one hand, the labour group and, on the other hand, the business group. I don't know who's right or who's wrong in it, but I do know that they have been at loggerheads for a considerable period of time, seemingly not able to move the health and safety agenda along as I'd hoped it might have been.

That raised questions in my mind. This one, I think, is on a much bigger scale. Health and safety is extremely important, but this is a much broader mandate. What we're going to do, I'm afraid, is doom ourselves to not having the kind of effective vehicle we should have. As I said earlier, setting up a ministry responsible for the continuum of education and training's a good idea. Then we undo a lot of that good by setting up this independent, arm's-length schedule 4 agency. I hope the government members know what a schedule 4 agency is and I hope they've gone through what schedule 4 agencies have the responsibility to do. One of the members is shaking their head, but I would hope they have, because it is clear it is an independent, arm's-length agency responsible for making these kinds of decisions.

I will be reluctantly voting against the bill, because I think one can't help but endorse the objectives of what's trying to be done here, but the vehicle that they selected is wrong. I'm frankly disappointed, particularly with some of the backbench members from the government side, that they would not have seen that there's a fundamental flaw in this bill and worked to see if there wasn't a way of correcting it. It could have been corrected very simply, as I said earlier, by simply making this an advisory body. Let it work its way through. We could have done everything else but not locked into legislation a fundamental flaw in the future of our training for the province.

1650

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I was looking forward to hearing the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's remarks, because, as he said, he's spent some time in considering this issue. I'm disappointed, though, to hear that he has some doubts about what he calls the vehicle, because I think what we've come up with is a very sensitive mechanism to respond to the needs of the training and adjustment issues that we have in our province.

Just to clear up some misconceptions, there is the idea that the various interest groups, as he called them, make the appointments to the board. It's clearly set out in the legislation that these appointments are made by the Lieutenant Governor, the orders in council. They are responsible to the province and not to any nominating bodies. I think they're not considered interest groups, as he called them. They do represent the broad population of the province and are appointed with that in mind. Upon appointment, they do represent the interests of the province as a whole and not the nominating bodies, and I think that's quite clear in the way that they are nominated, as the mechanism is through the orders in council.

But beyond that there are very strict accountability mechanisms built into the legislation that, unfortunately, the member didn't mention. Certainly, as a schedule 4 agency they are beholden to such things as the Management Board, treasury board and Human Resources Secretariat directives. There will be a memorandum of understanding, signed by both the board and the minister in charge, setting out the respective obligations of both bodies. There are short-term and long-term plans that are part of the legislation as well and there are the overall objectives of the government, as set out, policy objectives of the government, that the board will be expected to take into account. Again, it's independent but it has to take into account the training and adjustment needs of the province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to commend the member for drawing to the attention of members of the Legislature and the public who are watching some of the dangers that are found in this particular piece of legislation. The member, some time ago, outlined to me and to some others the concerns that he had about this legislation. I certainly am pleased that he drew to the attention of the public the fact that, once again, this government is placing more control in the hands of unelected people.

Yet clearly the message -- and I would have thought with all the polling the government is doing it would have determined this -- we're getting from the general public is that it wants its elected representatives to be exercising maximum control over government agencies, because we are the only people it can get at.

They can't get at the 22 members of this very powerful board. They can get at only the elected members, whether members of the cabinet, backbenchers in the government side or members of the opposition. That's whom they can get at.

I see a real danger in the trend towards more and more control going into the hands of unelected people, because whether we like the elected people or not, we at least have the opportunity to replace those individuals. We do not have that opportunity in this case, with the board.

The other thing that the public is concerned about, it seems to me, is the growing strength of interest groups in democracy. It's not only in this province or in this country. In democracy, in the United States and in Canada, the interest groups are growing in strength. What we're going to have is interest groups represented on this board acting on behalf of the people who put them there. Where does the general public have its opportunity to exercise control? That indeed will be the question which will emerge from the passage of this piece of legislation, and the member aptly pointed that out.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: I just very quickly also wanted to commend the member on his words. As we all know, in a lot of areas, being somebody who knows about the --

Interjection: You're out of time, Gary.

Mr Carr: Mr Speaker, is the clock not on? Thank you very much. I could have been on for three hours, though I don't think the members would have let me.

But I just wanted to commend the member for his comments. As I think we all know, this member spends a great deal of time looking at a number of issues in the economy. I think he was right on in saying that everybody agrees that training needs to be done. As somebody who has come from a background in the business sector, I think he realizes that.

It was interesting to note that I spoke with the member going, I guess, way back originally to when this started. He predicted exactly what would happen with this piece of legislation, so I know the members opposite will take it in the spirit it was taken.

There are some major, major concerns out there of groups and people. When we stand up here and articulate some of them as the member did, I think they hopefully will realize that it isn't for partisan politics; we really, honestly and truly have some valid concerns. They were voiced by the numerous people who came before this committee. I spent some time on the committee, and day after day we heard people with major concerns about this piece of legislation. We're concerned because a lot of it was not addressed.

Some of the points that the member brought up I hope and encourage the other side to listen to, because I think he brings to the table some very valid concerns. Just to follow up on some of the major comments that he made, I think as well that he was right on in saying that we're very, very concerned with the amount of authority, money and power that unelected people on the board will have. We're very concerned with it. We realize that training and skills development is very important, but we'd like to see more accountability with the people who quite frankly, if they don't do a good job, can get tossed out.

I commend the member on his comments and I hope the other side will listen.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): I'd like to make just a few comments at the end of this debate and particularly with reference to the member's comments and criticism with respect to the advisory nature of the board that he would prefer to see in place.

In my view, there is one way in which you really do harness people's energies, and that is by giving them responsibility. To give them simple advisory capacity is not to draw them into the matter at hand in a serious way. In my view, the one way in which you can really harness the capacity of the business community, which has to put its shoulder to the wheel of training is to involve it in decision-making, on a board that has serious delivery capacity. It is to involve the labour movement, which has to be on the ground floor with respect to decision-making around training as it affects its workers and to make certain that it has a hands-on decision-making formal role with regard to real results.

It's critically important that those in the educator and trainer community not simply be sitting there as advisors to government but be part and parcel of the formal decision-making that is made with respect to training in this province. Likewise, with respect to all of the equity groups -- the disabled community, the visible minority community, the francophone community, the women of this province -- it is critically important that they all be fully engaged in a decision-making role on a board that has meaningful responsibilities. I reject the proposition that this would be a better board if it were somehow advisory.

The concern that it would not be somehow then -- if it were a decision-making board -- linked closely enough in an accountable way to government, of course, is one that this piece of legislation takes account of in a number of accountability measures which will see that the board is responsible fully to government while carrying out its responsibilities in a responsible way.

The Acting Speaker: According to the order of the House, we will move directly to the vote.

Mr Farnan has moved third reading of Bill 96. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

Those opposed say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1701 to 1706.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the members to take their seats, please.

Mr Farnan has moved third reading of Bill 96. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the table.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Churley, Cooke, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Farnan's motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the table.

Nays

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kwinter, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Sterling, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 60 and the nays being 29, I declare the motion carried. Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Personal Property Security Act in respect of Vehicle Transfer Packages / Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les sûretés mobilières à l'égard des dossiers de transfert de véhicules.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I believe that when we last ended the debate, we were into questions and comments for the honourable member for St Catharines. I believe we have three more people to accommodate for that.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I just want to comment again on the member for St Catharines and the comments he made. Like his colleagues in the Liberal Party, every one of them who has got up and spoken to this bill has said this is a tax increase, that Bill 32 is about a tax increase. The member for St Catharines is not being clear with the people of Ontario. It is not a tax increase.

What it is, is to ensure that there's enforcement of existing legislation regarding taxes. You already have to pay sales tax on used car sales. Unfortunately, there has been a growing problem over the last several years that the Liberal government did not address, that many people were not paying the full amount of provincial sales tax on used cars. That's what this piece of legislation is all about, to ensure that there's enforcement.

I'm sure the member for St Catharines, who represents a lot of hard-working and dedicated people, law-abiding citizens who pay their sales tax -- that those constituents of his who pay their sales tax would want to ensure that other people in Ontario are paying their tax when they're supposed to be paying their sales tax. That's what this legislation does. It ensures that people pay their sales tax. I would think the member for St Catharines would want to support a piece of legislation like this.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No matter how much the government protests, this is going to rip more money out of the hands of the consumers of the province, and that will result in more money for those people to waste in so many ways that we have discovered they are capable of these days.

I agree and I concur wholeheartedly with the remarks of my friend from St Catharines. He has hit the nail right on the head when he talks about this as a tax grab. It is like the tax grab that goes into effect on July 1 with respect to auto insurance. These people have found more ways of milking the province of every spare nickel that the poor people of this province have at their disposition than any other organized ripoff crew that we have ever seen.

The people, with respect to auto insurance, not only get to pay an extra 5% under the new budget that Floyd brought in, but they are also now going to have to pay 5% on top of a much more expensive product for fewer services under the auto insurance scheme. Like my friend from St Catharines, I decry the fact that these people are taking money away from the province's consumer at a time when the consumer is needed to drive an economic resurgence of this province.

We shouldn't be taking all this money from the consumers. We should be letting them invest it in all kinds of worthwhile projects in this province. We should be letting them consume goods that are being produced by the men and women who are employed in the manufacturing sector, who are going to be helping the retail sector, which is experiencing very tough times in this province. But no, instead, these people are using bills like 32 and 34 to scrape the money away from the consumer. They're using the new auto insurance taxes to scrape the money away from the consumer so that they cannot play a significant part in the resurgence of this Ontario economy.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I don't know how either an NDP member or a Liberal member can stand in this Legislature and talk about tax increases; 33 from the Liberals, 32 from the NDP over a shorter period of time, and the Liberals are standing up and complaining about this tax bill. Talk about gall. They come into the Legislature, go from that side of the Legislature over to this side of the Legislature, and all of a sudden, they're against it.

They had 33 tax increases which they introduced in a period of boom times when their revenues were going up anyway. They didn't even need to institute one tax increase over the five years because the revenues were going up naturally. The Liberals weren't satisfied with a natural increase in revenues because they were spending money so fast in this province that it would make your head spin. They needed more taxes because they were spending so much money over the 1985-90 period of time. They increased spending at twice the rate of inflation. Therefore, they couldn't just take the natural flow of revenue which increased as incomes increased; as purchases increased, the sales tax increased. The Liberals weren't satisfied with that great growth in taxes. They had to introduce 33 new tax increases.

The only thing I'll say to the NDP with regard to this bill is that I wish they would not use the book value of automobiles under the value of about $3,000. I understand the minister has relented on our request to knock out cars that are less than $1,000. The big problem with cars that are worth $2,000 or $3,000 is that it's not worth going through the process to prove that the car was less than the book value. Therefore, I think a higher-up set limit on that end is justified.

The Acting Chair: The honourable member for St Catharines has two minutes to make a response.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I thank members for their contribution and reiterate for those who are not understanding the position I've taken on this bill that I think that at this time, when the economy is so low and economic times are so difficult, when there's an opportunity to try to come out of the recession, that the government would want to extract more money, particularly out of poorer members of the population in terms of income, I find unacceptable.

I do not want to respond to the Progressive Conservative member for Carleton --

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Why?

Mr Bradley: -- but having sat in this House since 1977 and watched a long series of tax increases by the Progressive Conservative Party --

Mr Villeneuve: What was the budget in 1985?

Mr Bradley: I don't want to go into that. You see, I don't worry about the polls. I simply say, "There's a bill before the House. Do I want to engage in a partisan debate with the Conservatives, who had so many taxes, one tax after another, who have to defend the taxes of the federal Conservatives to whom they are so close?" I don't want to get into that.

I do want to talk about this particular tax in response to those members. I think what you're seeing out there is a lot of people, students, people who are perhaps going out to get their first job or who have been down and out in terms of employment, who are going out to purchase a vehicle and they're getting some pretty good bargains, because at this time the economy is pretty tough. That's the time to get the bargains. When they're able to get a bargain, the government is saying, "It doesn't matter how much you were able to purchase this car for, we're going to assess you this much because the book value is this much." That's a special hardship.

I know that the New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the CCF, were great defenders of the rights of poor people. They were concerned about the plight of poor people. That's why I truly believe that members of the government caucus will revolt and in fact vote against this piece of legislation, which is detrimental to the poor in our province.

The Acting Chair: Further debate? If not, I will call on the honourable member for Oxford to give some wrapup remarks.

Mr Sutherland: I've listened to the debate on Bill 32, which includes the changes announced in the 1992 Ontario budget. The bill contains technical amendments which will assist in the administration of the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Several members have spoken out in opposition to the provisions in Bill 32 related to stricter controls on private sales of used motor vehicles. They have also opposed the used vehicle information package which was introduced in Bill 34 as an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act and the Personal Property Security Act.

Bill 32 makes the used vehicle market both fair and equitable for private sellers and purchasers. I would like to stress that the application of tax is based on the average wholesale price or the declared purchase price, whichever is greater. It does not apply to used vehicles sold by licensed dealers. Exemptions from the provisions in this bill include vehicles transferred by family members, vehicles purchased by status Indians for use on a reserve and vehicles brought to Ontario by new residents.

1720

In response to concerns raised both in debate and by purchasers, the amendments to the bill have simplified the administrative process. These amendments remove the requirement for a purchaser to pay tax at the time of registration and then claim a rebate where an authorized appraisal shows a lower purchase price due to severe damage or excessive use. Additionally, retail sales tax payable on vehicles with an average wholesale value of less than $1,000 will be based on the declared value. Appraisals that support the purchase price will not be required.

Members' comments indicate that they oppose Bill 32 as a tax increase, and we've heard the member for St Catharines reiterate that point. I want to point out for the record once more, as I have several times, that there is no tax increase and nothing is being taxed that was not taxed before. Bill 32 introduces a system designed to combat a serious tax evasion problem involving the understatement of the purchase price of privately purchased vehicles.

Questions were asked during the debate on the rationale for taxing used vehicles at all. The tax was paid when the car was new; why is it taxed again when the car is sold again? It should be understood that the retail sales tax is a consumption tax. It is not the sale of the used good that is taxed, but its consumption. It should also be pointed out that the taxation of used goods helps to mitigate potential pricing and purchasing distortions in the marketplace. It is important to this government that all taxpayers pay their fair share.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I would now call on the honourable Minister of Transportation to give the windup on Bill 34.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Briefly, Bill 34 is associated with the protection of consumers. Simply put and by way of conclusion on this important debate vis-à-vis Bill 34, under the present conditions, and we're talking about a multiplier of 600,000 times, they're called or referred to as "private sales," if you wish. Some motorists have referred to the practice as a trade with curbsiders, but they're really private sales.

We have no way, no mechanism at present, to have a Miss Jones, for instance, buying a secondhand car from Mr Smith, not knowing if there's any bank loan against the car, not knowing if Mr Smith has driven more than 200,000 or 300,000 miles, no mechanism for protection of the consumer, no way of knowing if there's a lien against the car. In many cases, it's an invitation to a practice which is less than ethical by some individuals.

What Bill 34 does is that for a mere $20 you're buying protection you never had before. You have a clear conscience. You get better value for money. You know it's not a delivery truck or a delivery car that you're buying, with excessive mileage on it. You know there's no lien against the vehicle. You get a history of the vehicle for only $20.

Now it's becoming mandatory, and what it does is regulate the marketplace as never before. More importantly, the focus here is solely on information and protection of the consumer, and we're very proud to be associated with yet another consumer protection bill.

The Acting Speaker: I will deal with each of these bills individually.

Mr Sutherland has moved second reading of Bill 32. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

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

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, it should be referred to committee of the whole.

The Acting Speaker: Referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Pouliot has moved second reading of Bill 34. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

Those opposed, please say "nay."

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

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, the bill should be referred to committee of the whole.

The Acting Speaker: It shall be referred to the committee of the whole.

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

Mr Mills, on behalf of Mr Christopherson, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 103, An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs / Loi visant à accorder l'immunité aux pompiers et à les indemniser de leurs frais de justice.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Does the honourable member have some remarks to make?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am pleased to introduce the Firefighters Protection Act for second reading. The act will provide firefighters with protection from personal liability when they have acted in good faith in the performance of their duties. It will also indemnify firefighters for reasonable legal costs incurred in successfully defending civil actions or other legal proceedings. This act is not intended to restrict an individual's ability to sue to recover damages.

Currently, the firefighters are not provided with legislative protection from personal liability. As a result, they can be sued for actions which result in property damage or personal injury even though they acted in good faith.

Firefighters have to make difficult decisions in emergency situations. These decisions are often complex and require considerable technical knowledge. These situations create the potential for civil action, despite the fact that all reasonable precautions were taken and the firefighters performed their duties diligently and in good faith.

If we are to recruit and retain firefighters, particularly the 17,000 volunteers who serve most of our province, we must provide them with this support. They cannot be expected to risk their lives under the threat of possible legal action. They must be able to act appropriately, thinking first and foremost of the need to protect lives and property.

In fact, this legislation will provide firefighters with a level of protection comparable to that already provided to many other emergency service personnel. They deserve no less.

We have developed this legislation through the active participation of affected stakeholders. In particular, I would like to acknowledge all of the firefighters' associations which have advocated this legislation for some time. They include the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, the Professional Federation of Ontario Firefighters and the Firefighters Association of Ontario. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which participated in the development of this legislation.

In closing, we recognize the valuable contribution the fire service makes to the province, and I'm sure my colleagues on all sides of the House will want speedy passage of this very worthwhile legislation.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Questions and/or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm pleased that at long last the government has brought forward this piece of legislation which has been required for some period of time. Of course, we knew that all of the answers were held in the Agenda for People, and I would have thought this might have been included in the Agenda for People and put into effect much earlier.

But as they say, better late than never. We're happy to see that at long last this legislation is forthcoming because we recognize that there are so many in our society who are volunteer firepersons, firefighters right across the province, whether it's in the regular fire departments of various communities where collective agreements offer some protection for people, or whether it's the volunteer people, or whether it's people who at work are assigned to firefighting duties. A lot of people don't recognize that this in fact is the case in a number of workplaces.

1730

We would not want to see these people placed in legal jeopardy. That's why in this House you will see, I think, relatively little debate on this because there is a very strong consensus and I would be very surprised if there were any dissenting votes.

The member for Ottawa West, on behalf of the Liberal Party, will be dealing with this legislation in a little more detail outlining as well a number of other recommendations that have been part of a package of recommendations which flowed from a task force or a study which was commissioned by the previous government.

This is one step in that direction. We, of course, will be looking for the government to implement many of the other recommendations in this regard, but I think the member who introduced the bill, the member for Durham East, will recognize the consensus in the House and the strong support for this legislation. I think we can expect its speedy and unanimous passage.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question perhaps for the parliamentary assistant and that is, in the bill it will be provided for a firefighter, and I'm thinking more in terms of a volunteer firefighter than in terms of a professional firefighter. But under clause 3(1)(a) it says, "A firefighter shall be indemnified for reasonable legal costs incurred in the defence of a civil action, if a firefighter is not found to be liable."

Liability is often found in negligence cases on the basis of percentage. In other words, you could be 100% liable for an accident occurring for instance if you're driving a fire truck or you could be found 5% liable. In most cases when there is a collision, it's very unlikely that it's 100% one way and 0% the other way. In other words, it's not black and white. Usually there is some reason for a judge to apportion a part liability to the party which hasn't in fact caused the accident.

The way I read the section is that if a firefighter was, for instance, engaged in a civil lawsuit and was found 5% negligent, the legal costs which he or she may incur in defending the action may far exceed the awards of the court. So that if in fact the damage was $50,000 and they were 5% responsible, the damage would be $2,500. In a protracted lawsuit, the lawyer's fees may in fact be $15,000 or $20,000.

I'd like to know from the parliamentary assistant whether in fact the solicitor's costs would be paid if it was only found a minor degree of negligence on the part of the firefighter.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): To the member for Durham East, I thank him for bringing in second reading of this bill because it is an important bill on behalf of the minister, Mr Christopherson. I think it's very important for those members who represent rural Ontario who depend on volunteer firefighters, and the firefighters we have are not only there fighting fires in our communities but they're also community activists.

I look at what just happened on the weekend in Dover township called Bayfest. The firefighters were very active out there promoting their community, promoting activity and also at the same time showing their skills and how their skills are there.

It's unfortunate there are circumstances that do happen in firefighting. I know in the small community of Tilbury where I grew up, we depended very much on the volunteer firefighters. There is time that is associated with the volunteer aspect of it, not only the volunteer going out and doing the firefighting, but also the volunteerism around getting the Red Cross and making sure it's well equipped to handle the community, making sure the training is up to date, making sure the uniforms are appropriate, making sure the equipment is there to protect the community. It is very important, so there is a lot of contribution there.

I won't get into partisan politics because I believe the member for St Catharines made some comments but I think he was trying to get across that this is a very important piece of legislation no matter which government brought it forward, it does reflect, and it happened to be our government that did it.

But I also want to express to the member for Durham East, who is the parliamentary assistant, there are a couple of things that I think are still very outstanding that we have to address very quickly, and I hope the three parties can come to this, the other recommendations brought forward by the firefighters' associations, by the firefighter chiefs of Ontario, that we start to move expeditiously on other pieces of legislation which will protect those firefighters in their work, in their efforts to protect our communities and protect our homes, because I would sooner see my home saved than save the foundation. So to the member for Durham East, I compliment the minister for his efforts and hope that we will expedite other legislation that will help those firefighters in their needs.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I want to compliment the member for Durham East, because there are a lot of people who live in urban areas, the cities and what not, who don't really know what a volunteer fire department is, what a volunteer firefighter is, and, you know, there's a lot of people who live in the cities that don't know what a siren is. If you go to a small town, and maybe you're visiting in rural Ontario, there are still some areas of the province that have a siren that will go during the middle of the night. After somebody being up at work all day, the siren goes, the phone rings at their house, and they go out right away. As soon as the phone rings, they're out to fight a fire. The volunteers have to be really supported for all the time and effort that they put into it.

Training in a volunteer fire department is something a little bit different. Let me use Sunderland as an example. At Pindar's garage he's got a yard of wrecks and what not, and the volunteer firefighters will go down there and they'll use their equipment, they'll try it out, they'll tear the roof off so that if they're called to an emergency situation they can do that. These are some of the things that you don't really see unless you get an opportunity to go out and talk to some people, and it's really important that we take a look at that and recognize them for all the hard work that they do as volunteers.

Everyone knows about the hard work that volunteer firefighters and firefighters do for MS, for muscular dystrophy, MD, and they raise a lot of funds for them. They should be applauded for that. I know that's something that we all recognize and we should share it with as many people as we can.

Another thing too, some of the small fire departments, they actually go out and do a lot of fund-raising for the equipment they actually use. There isn't always a huge tax base in a lot of communities. I know in the small rural communities that I represent there isn't a huge tax base. So I've got to thank the volunteer firefighters again for going out there and raising the funds necessary to buy the equipment needed, and I thank the member for Durham East for bringing this forward.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Durham East has two minutes to make a response.

Mr Mills: First of all, I'd like to thank all the members who have spoken to this bill, Bill 103. I think all of us over time since we've been here have been lobbied by firefighters and full-time firefighters about the necessity of this legislation. I'm certainly very proud and pleased to be here this afternoon in the Legislature to bring forward this bill for second reading, because no one but the firefighters really understands and knows how much this is needed.

I don't mean to prolong this debate, because I know that basically every member in this House is behind this and wants to see this get third reading. I would just like to comment briefly about the remark that the member for Carleton made. My interpretation, and I'm not a lawyer, is quite clear that subsection 3(1) of the bill says:

"A firefighter shall be indemnified for reasonable legal costs incurred,

"(a) in the defence of a civil action, if the firefighter is not found to be liable."

I think that's the key thing. You can't be found liable 1%, 2%. It says "not liable," and I stand by this explanation here that the firefighter will be indemnified for reasonable costs if he's found not liable. That's the key, not liable, and I don't think it pertains to 1%, 2%, 5% or 30%. Not liable.

1740

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): First of all, I too want to add my congratulations to the member for Durham East in moving second reading, and I fully endorse and I'm sure my caucus colleagues fully endorse all of his comments when he initially spoke.

There's enough pressure and risks on firefighters that they need not worry about lawsuits which might emanate from the conduct of their responsibilities in the ordinary course. I think that it's a timely bill and I think that in a small way it will make the work of firefighters a little bit easier to do in the province.

But I just want to comment for two or three minutes on where this bill originated and some of the issues around this particular bill, which you will note basically is only three sections. The title of the bill describes what's in the bill, and that is basically to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs.

If I can go back to a report that I received last month from the Solicitor General, it's a staff report that was prepared for the Solicitor General at his request on the Fire Services Review Committee. The Fire Services Review Committee was established in 1989 by the then Liberal Solicitor General and it had a pretty broad mandate to look at all of the issues relating to delivery of fire services and the managing of fire departments in the province of Ontario.

Indeed, one of the rationales for setting up the committee was that the Fire Departments Act had not been amended or dealt with in any significant way since 1949, so there was a sense among all the stakeholders in the province that there had to be some updating of the legislation affecting firefighting and delivery of fire services in the province of Ontario.

In October 1989 the Solicitor General -- and I am referring to the current Solicitor General's staff report, which he distributed last month. It indicated that in 1989 the Fire Services Review Committee was established to include representatives from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, the Provincial Federation of Ontario Firefighters and the Firefighters Association of Ontario. As I said, the main mandate was assessing all relevant issues associated with the delivery of fire services in Ontario.

Again, the current Solicitor General's staff report indicates the results of this committee: "In May 1990, the lengthy discussions and deliberations that had taken place led to a general consensus regarding 19 of the 20 issues that were tabled before the committee." All of these groups, the groups that the member for Durham East complimented on this particular bill, reached a consensus on 19 of 20 issues. This bill, Bill 103, was only one of the items contained in that consensus that was reached in 1990. So we have to ask, what has happened to the other 18 issues on which there was a consensus of all these stakeholders?

The staff report addresses that, and I just want to get that on the record for the next minute or two. Of course the last election took place in September 1990. One of the stakeholder groups that participated in establishing this consensus, according to this staff report, and I'm quoting:

"In September, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association" -- that's September 1990, immediately after the election -- "wrote to the new Premier and met with the new Solicitor General" -- this is this Solicitor General's staff report of last month stating this -- "indicating that the OPFFA objected to the review and that it believed that no amendments were required to the Fire Departments Act. The Solicitor General subsequently wrote to each organization on the committee and indicated his desire for the review to continue, that all issues were open for further discussion and that new issues could be tabled." That's in 1990 we're talking about. "However, he also indicated that he expected the committee to complete its deliberations with reasonable dispatch."

So we have the election intervening, we've had a report indicating basically 100% consensus on 19 of 20 issues and what intervened to stop the process, to stop this consensus from developing or whatever consensus remained from being legislated? What happened was the appointment of three different solicitors general in this government.

We, of course, had Mike Farnan at the start of this government as a Solicitor General, we then had Allan Pilkey and now we have David Christopherson. We have had very significant policy development with respect to fire departments and firefighters in the province of Ontario on complete hold while we're shuffling ministers in this government.

While we support Bill 103 100% -- no question, I endorse all of the member for Durham East's statements on Bill 103 -- I have to ask, why has the process for this fundamental reform on all these related issues not taken place?

Indeed, in delivering this staff report which was requested by Mr Christopherson, he sent a letter to me, and I don't know whether he circulated it to all the MPPs or not or whether just to myself as co-critic for Solicitor General, but he indicates that he has circulated this staff report to the stakeholders and he hopes to meet with them some time in the month of October.

If you take 1990 as the time at which there was a consensus on 19 of 20 proposed legislative items and you look at going to October 1993 and then looking at the additional process to implement all of these updates of the legislation, I think there could be some more attention to the issues affecting fire departments and firefighters than this government has given.

I'll wind up my comments with that, saying that we fully support Bill 103 but we also say that this is only one recommendation out of 19 on which there was a consensus in 1990 when this government took office.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Questions and/or comments?

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): My riding, even though it is an urban riding, is regional, and so as a consequence this bill is extremely important and my fire chief has lobbied me hard and heavy on it. I want to address the comments made by the member opposite in terms of the 20 issues that were raised. This is one bill that covers indemnity for firefighters, and the other 18 or 19 would require their own pieces of legislation.

It is rather surprising and very interesting to me that this would require all those other bills over and above what we're already doing, and we are presently sitting in July for obvious reasons. So I would just say that you have to sometimes look in your own mirror to determine why other pieces of legislation are not in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, the member for Ottawa West has two minutes to make a response.

Mr Chiarelli: I guess my only response is by way of example to the previous speaker. This particular bill is going to be given about 20 minutes worth of debate, assuming that the Conservatives don't use up a lot of time, which I don't anticipate they will.

There have been very many bills which have been processed through this Legislature over the last number of weeks which have been given very quick passage, as Bill 103 has and a number of others, and a number will be through negotiations which have taken place by the House leaders. Of course, in delaying bringing the Legislature back the last two sessions, there would have been more than enough time to deal with any and all of the 19 recommendations that were made by the committee dealing with the fire service review.

In terms of that comment, which was a very political comment, if the member wants to be political, you as a government member and your whole side have not been responsible or responsive to the people of Ontario in having this Legislature sit for the time period that is set in the calendar and then, when you pile the legislation on top of us, you don't want us to take the time to debate it. We're here willingly debating legislation and we're prepared to stay as long as we have to.

I would prefer to be in Ottawa dealing with my constituents and spending time with my family, but I certainly do not apologize for coming here to pass Bill 103 on behalf of the firefighters. If this government had other bills which supported firefighters and fire departments, I would be here passing them too.

1750

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have just a few brief remarks on behalf of the Conservative Party. We are supportive of the legislation.

I want to echo the remarks of my predecessor in respect to the way the government has been dealing not only with this issue but other issues in a confrontational atmosphere. Speaking to the minister, I don't want to have this reflect the minister. He has been most helpful. He's talked to me on a number of occasions and I believe to the critic for the Liberal Party as well and indicated that when this legislation came before the House he would indeed acknowledge the support and cooperation of both opposition parties. Of course, we have not heard that indication from his parliamentary assistant.

In fact, initially he queried whether he was going to have the support of the opposition parties when in fact we have worked closely with the minister and have been supportive of this piece of legislation and recognized the concerns especially of volunteer departments across the province, which are very much concerned about the liability aspects and their inability to attract people to a job where indeed they, on many occasions, put their lives on the line. I think that distinguishes them from a multitude of other volunteers in the province.

I know my colleague the member for Carleton has some concerns about this whole question of liability and whether anyone in the province should be exempted from it, even volunteers, but I think there is a distinction when we look at volunteer firefighters who are facing very difficult challenges indeed. The issue my colleague from Carleton raised, we believe, is a concern. I guess we're just going to have to wait and see how it comes out in the wash in terms of the experience with this legislation.

But he is a lawyer. The parliamentary assistant indicated he is not, but my colleague has had courtroom experience with these kinds of cases where indeed the court can assign a percentage of liability. It's quite a common procedure, apparently. It does beg the question: If there's a modest percentage of liability assigned the firefighter, what then occurs in respect to this legislation? How does it translate on an occasion like that? It's certainly something that, if it has not been addressed adequately, the parliamentary assistant will want to take back to the minister and officials within the ministry to ensure that a provision is perhaps incorporated at some future date to cover such a possibility.

We are supportive of this legislation. I want to again echo my friend from Ottawa in terms of the fact that the opposition parties have been generally cooperative with productive legislation. We have a role to fulfil in this Legislature. There was some comment about speaking too much, but as we know, the government brought in rule changes which effectively limited our ability to speak in this Legislature to half an hour. When you look at members of the NDP who spoke when in opposition, we all recall, up to 17 hours non-stop, and now they're telling us half an hour is too much on important pieces of business, we have a great deal of difficulty with that.

In any event, we are supportive of this legislation and want to see it proceed forthwith.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I rise and am very supportive of this bill. Some comment was made by opposition colleagues, and I appreciate that they've worked on getting this this far, but I also know there's been hard work by a few of us. I remember this being raised with me by a local councillor back home who said he was at a meeting with the association. I made some phone calls; in fact, I had to dig like heck at the ministry to find out where it was. Howie Hampton, I believe, was in charge at the time. He quickly phoned me and said, "Yes, there is something here."

We talk about how government moves slowly, but I think it also says a lot about this government that we look at things that really do help a lot of average people who work darned hard. That's where it comes from, a bill like this. It finally was a caucus that said, "Listen, this is important to some people," and it doesn't make the big news headlines. In fact, even that ministry itself was somewhat -- "Well, you know, let's just leave this here." It's not even on anybody's third priority list, for heaven's sake, or whatever it happens to be.

So I think we've done very well and I appreciate the opposition parties' allowing it to be moved here now, because I know that things can happen, that things get derailed. Believe me, I'm very thankful that you've allowed us to do this. My firemen back home wonder: "Well, aren't you the government? Can't you just do things and ram things through?" I say: "Well, no, you can't. We need cooperation."

It behooves me a little bit when I hear some of the frustration and trying to make such a good news thing and trying to bring up some other problems in this Legislature, but I understand that. It's part of the game. But I assure you, this is no game to the firefighters in my county, and I thank this government very much that we allowed this thing to move somewhat fast compared to where it was when I think of that phone call when I phoned Howie's office that day.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I just want to commend the member for Leeds-Grenville on this particular piece of legislation. It does give me a moment's opportunity to praise the best fire department in the province of Ontario, namely, the fire department of the city of Mississauga. We have a newly appointed fire chief there in Cyril Hare, and he has been one of these people who has literally grown up through the ranks of that particular fire department. I think it says a lot about the former chiefs, in Gord Bentley and his predecessors.

I think when we're dealing with this subject in general, it's one of those services that we all are inclined to take for granted. The personal risks, the tremendous challenge of them never knowing what they're going in to face, and yet the protection there is constant for all of us. I feel the same way about people who choose to serve in our police forces around this province. They are jobs that, frankly, I would have a great deal of anxiety about any members of my family serving in because of the risks that both police officers and firefighters face on a daily basis. I truly commend the dedicated firefighters around this province and the members of our police forces around this province also. I'm particularly proud of Peel Regional Police Force.

Mr Mills: I would just like to take a moment to respond to the comment made by the member for Leeds-Grenville. While not being privy to the discussions that had taken place between the minister, the Solicitor General and members of the opposition, I think that it would be remiss of me not to recognize the contribution of both the third party and the official opposition in making this bill a success and being able to proceed with it today.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, I recognize the honourable member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: I would like to still get an answer from the parliamentary assistant with regard to my query about liability vis-à-vis a partial liability award, which was mentioned by the --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Carleton, you're not asking questions now of the honourable parliamentary assistant. We're dealing with questions and answers.

Mr Sterling: I realize that, but I think the issue was raised by the member for Leeds-Grenville --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): You have only been here 15 years. Smarten up.

Mr Sterling: -- and I think that it begs the question. In most automobile collisions where we would picture a lot of liability arising in terms of dealing with a firefighter, be it a volunteer or a professional firefighter, liability is usually not awarded 100% on one side and 0% on the other side; it's usually split in some way: 30%-70%, 5%-95% or whatever it is. As I read this case, as long as 1% of liability is put to the case of the firefighter, he or she would not be covered for legal expenses.

I think the intent of the bill is to cover, in most cases, the expenses of the firefighter and therefore I'm looking for an answer. I think we should have an answer in terms of passing this legislation before we do pass that legislation.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Through you to the member, I believe Hansard will show that I answered the question in my previous two minutes.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville has two minutes to make a response.

Mr Runciman: I want to thank the parliamentary assistant for acknowledging the cooperation and support of the opposition parties in the expeditious passage of this legislation.

I don't believe, and I mentioned this in my comments, that the parliamentary assistant has adequately answered the concerns of the member for Carleton. Hopefully, he will convey that concern to officials within the ministry in respect to the question of liability when it's based on a percentage of liability.

Talking about the time that this has taken, the member for Huron mentioned the passage of time. This has been a concern for a number of years, at least, with the volunteer fire departments. I suppose a great deal of that could be attributed to the fact that the office of Solicitor General has been something of a graveyard for politicians over the past seven or eight years. If we go back to the Liberal government, we had Ken Keyes, Mrs Smith -- I forget who came after Mrs Smith -- scandal after scandal, and then we had Mike Farnan and then Mr Pilkey, again scandal after scandal. He may stand up on a point of order on that one.

In any event, the time of solicitors general over the past two Liberal and the current NDP governments simply has been dominated by scandals involving themselves or their ministries. It's understandable that productive, important legislation like this was put on the back burner by both the Liberal and NDP governments.

But we've had at least a brief reprieve. We've had a Solicitor General in office now for what, three or four months, with no scandal erupting around him, so he has had time to move forward, with the support of the opposition.

Again, we're very supportive of this legislation and look forward to it proceeding.

The Acting Speaker: I want to say to the House that if there is any further debate, we'll have to adjourn the House immediately, because that's the time it is. Do we have unanimous agreement to put the question now? Agreed.

Mr Mills has moved second reading of Bill 103. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): If I might advise the House of the order of business for tomorrow, I'll be very quick. We do third reading of Bill 103; third reading of Bill 4, the education omnibus bill; third reading of Bill 61 involving Toronto Islands; third reading of Bill 38, Sunday shopping; and second reading of Bill 42, stable farm funding.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): It now being after 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1804.

July 20, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOURISM

ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY

SCIENCE NORTH

JOBS ONTARIO

LANDLORD-TENANT COOPERATION

GIRL GUIDES

MEMBERS IN HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AREA

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

OSHAWA-WHITBY FAIR

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA AGREEMENT

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO

APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER

TAXATION

TOURISM INDUSTRY

OMA AGREEMENT

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

LANDFILL

OMA AGREEMENT

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SOCIAL CONTRACT

INSURANCE TAX

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL BOARDS

HEALTH CARE

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

CASINO GAMBLING

SOCIAL CONTRACT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT, 1993

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE