The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION

Mr McClelland: Last Thursday in this Legislature the Minister of the Environment introduced the Waste Management Act, 1991. I want to indicate right at the outset that the minister is using the last government's waste reduction targets.

I want to say to the minister, and I am sure she will read this on the record, when I as critic and my colleagues challenge this legislation, as we will, she should not think for a moment that she can dismiss the criticism by charging that we are not supporting waste reduction initiatives.

The minister has attempted to hide her retreat and, I say with some reservation, the hypocrisy of the Premier in reneging on their solemn commitment not to expand Keele Valley or Britannia without a full environmental assessment or environmental hearing of any kind.

Dealing with that very contentious issue in the same legislation as waste reduction initiatives is unacceptable to this party and to most members of this House. The people of this province expected better of this minister and they deserve better. I ask her to at least have the courage to deal with her waste reduction initiatives in separate legislation from that which she is putting forward and the use of her emergency powers to expand those facilities.

She can sugar-coat this bitter pill for the people in and around Keele Valley and Britannia however she wants with her waste reduction philosophy, but it will not work. The people of the province will see through that and they will not accept it. She may think it is clever, but it is cynicism and political manoeuvring, legislative manoeuvring at its worst. I expected better of that minister.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is to the Minister of Health and it concerns a flagrant abuse of our medical system. About 200 slick, professional con men are scamming the Ontario medical system out of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, and in the process they are giving new meaning to the term "drug trade."

Potentially dangerous painkilling prescription drugs such as Dilaudid, known as drugstore heroin, are being sold on the street at a value of $120 a tablet. An entire infrastructure of drug pushers has formed to capitalize upon a health system that is in disarray and incapable of tracking who is getting what drugs and in what quantity.

I strongly urge the minister to investigate these startling occurrences. The Ontario Medical Association feels that a central computer system could hold the key to wiping out this illicit trade that has been flourishing for the past several years.

The Ontario Ministry of Health will spend some $17 billion this year on health care. Scarce resources should not in any way go towards subsidizing this prescription drug trade. I am calling on the Minister of Health today to begin the process of assisting the Ontario Medical Association to implement a central computer system that thwarts criminals from acquiring endless supplies of powerful prescription drugs.

All members must consider the message that is being sent out to drug dealers and pushers of illegal drugs when you consider that we do not have in place a system that can effectively police the sale of prescription drugs.

VICTORIA-HALIBURTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTION COMMITTEE

Mr Drainville: I want to draw the attention of the members of this House to the important work that has begun on economic renewal in Victoria-Haliburton. Last week I was joined by over 50 community leaders to create a non-partisan, results-oriented group we call the Victoria-Haliburton Economic Development Action Committee.

Made up of business, community, labour, agriculture, cultural and education leaders, as well as politicians and civil servants from all levels of government, we have committed ourselves to finding ways to boost economic renewal in our community.

At the meeting on Thursday, October 24, we itemized the many barriers we face to achieving economic renewal. These included government policies and red tape, insufficient financing, a lack of proper marketing and inadequate education to meet the needs of the four key economic sectors in Victoria-Haliburton: tourism, agriculture, manufacturing and general services.

As a group, we began to identify possible solutions that could end the recession. Solutions included putting time limits on approval processes, developing a marketing strategy for tourism, assisting farmers in creating stronger land controls and working with various groups to develop an environmentally friendly forest industry for small and medium land holders.

All these suggestions were well received. It must be said that we intend to work on these things in the next number of months as a group. It has given me a great opportunity to talk about the good things that are happening on the economic development side.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Ms Poole: Today I have a present for the government House leader. It is a map of the Legislative Assembly. Over the past weeks there has been a little problem. The Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the ministers of Housing, Consumer and Commercial Relations, Tourism, Health, Energy, Colleges and Universities and Community and Social Services all forgot where they were. Instead of making ministerial statements in this area in red, here inside the chamber where they say things like that, they made them outside, here in the area marked in green, which is where the scrum usually occurs.

This is a problem that really cannot continue much longer. I know it is a technical problem and the ministers do not know exactly where the chamber is. Even the government House leader sometimes does not seem too sure about it. Just for the record, ministers make statements and answer questions in this area in red. When they go outside, they actually answer questions from the reporters in the green area. It is not a difficult task, but it is one that is fairly straightforward and pretty important.

I would simply like to leave this map with the government House leader. He can show the ministers where the chamber is so they can come in here and say exactly what it is they want to do. Then we will all know, and the people of Ontario will know exactly what this secret government of Ontario is doing.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Jordan: Today I rise to salute the outstanding men and women in my riding of Lanark-Renfrew who have allowed their names to stand for public office in the November 12 municipal elections. Whether they are running for mayor, reeve, deputy reeve, councillor, school trustee, hydro or water commissioner, they deserve our heartfelt congratulations. It matters not if candidates are successful on election day. What counts is that these people have cared enough about the future of their communities and this province to get involved.

Volunteers are the backbone of this province and contribute a great deal to our system. For the candidates who do not get elected, there are many projects in the riding worthy of their attention and involvement. One such project, the formation of the James Naismith Foundation, reached a milestone on Saturday when a plaque dedicated to the founder of basketball was unveiled at Naismith Public School in Almonte. It is expected there will be many more milestones as volunteers like Geoff Mace and his support group strive to honour Ramsay township native Dr James Naismith at a proposed permanent site near Almonte.

Congratulations to the many volunteers in Lanark-Renfrew and across this province, and good luck to municipal candidates on November 12.

1340

REVISED STATUTES OF ONTARIO, 1990 / LOIS REFONDUES DE L'ONTARIO DE 1990

M. Bisson: Je tiens à féliciter le Procureur général de la province, qui a annoncé aujourd'hui la publication des Lois refondues de l'Ontario de 1990.

La révision des Lois refondues de l'Ontario est le prolongement de la tradition de notre province de publier ses Lois refondues et codifiées à tous les dix ans. Les Lois refondues de l'Ontario de 1990 représentent la onzième révision et codification des lois depuis la Conféderation.

Cette publication marque un tournant important dans l'histoire canadienne du droit. En effet, pour la première fois, les Lois refondues sont publiées en anglais et en français. De plus, toutes les connotations à caractère sexiste ont été éliminées, les expressions de droit perimées ont été éliminées et cette publication a été imprimée sur du papier recyclé.

La traduction de ces documents démontre l'engagement continu de notre gouvernement de répondre aux besoins des citoyens et citoyennes de la francophonie de l'Ontario. L'utilisation d'une langue non sexiste dans les Lois est la preuve que le gouvernement et le système judiciaire soutiennent à l'égalité des femmes dans notre société.

I wish to congratulate the revision commissioners and members of the office of legislative counsel on their dedication and expertise in producing this precendent-setting work -- Donald Revell, chief legislative counsel, Sidney Tucker, Cornelia Schuh, Michael Wood, Edward Wells, Jean Brunet and Christopher Wernham -- as well as many other people who have helped to produce this excellent work.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Phillips: I rise today on a matter of significant importance to all the members of the House and, I think, the people of Ontario. Twice in the past four months NDP government ministers have ordered the OPP anti-rackets squad to conduct official investigations as to how opposition members came into possession of relatively minor government documents.

What we are dealing with here is one of the most basic and fundamental issues in our society. It is a basic tenet of freedom from fear, freedom to live in a society and conduct one's business without fear of harassment from higher authority. If the government of this province feels it can use the OPP to investigate the release of relatively minor documents such as the ones in question, then there has to be great fear expressed as to where such actions eventually lead us. Where does it end? How far will this government go? Are the members of this House going to be followed? Are their phones going to be tapped? Who knows? It may sound farfetched, but the threat is very real.

Civilian control of our police force has been a fundamental tenet of this country since our inception. What are the police to think of a government that uses the police force to silence opposition?

In closing, I would like to say that it is an embarrassment to the government that I have to stand in the House to raise this issue. It is time for the Premier to stand in this House and say: "No more. This harassment of the opposition will not continue. It's over."

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Carr: Ontario's future prosperity is hinged on its ability to competitively confront the economic and social challenges of tomorrow. The key to competitiveness is undeniably the education and training of our workforce. Highly skilled employees actively meeting the demands of a more globalized economy will ensure the standard of living now enjoyed in this province for future generations and will open the doors to gainful employment opportunities on tomorrow's cutting edge.

Last Thursday, Harvard University economist Michael Porter released his report on Canada's competitiveness. He points to the current inadequacy of many citizens' basic skills and the inferior vocational apprenticeship training programs for specialized skills available to citizens as examples of where our competitiveness is already floundering.

The recent report by the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University Education also urges us to take a hard look at our future competitiveness. The dropout rate of Canadian high schools and the low literacy and numeracy skills of our workforce begs the question, "Are we ready to face tomorrow's world?"

The federal and Ontario governments announced last week their joint plan to commit to job training. While this may be viewed as a step in the right direction, as Porter indicated, the battle to regain Canada's competitiveness must be fought over decades. Neither the province nor the federal government should be allowed to make the mistake of thinking that one right move will secure Canada's competitive future. This is a battle of decades and it must be fought severely.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Farnan: On Monday, October 21, the member for Markham made a member's statement with regard to a spring located on the west side of Highway 24 between Cambridge and the North Dumfries township cutoff for Glen Morris. He suggested, "This government is playing games with residents in that area."

The only one playing games is the member for Markham. In the past, water readings at this location have found intermittent elevated coliform bacterial levels. This is not caused by pavement or granular material, but rather is associated with human and animal waste. Further, during Ministry of Transportation construction, the health unit took samples and found the water unsafe for human consumption. At the request of the Waterloo Regional Health Unit, MOT took responsible action:

1. The public was notified of the situation.

2. The public was advised of the responsible action taken by MOT to sign the location as unsafe and to remove the raised outlet.

3. The public was informed of the proposal to remove access to the spring, and an opportunity was provided for public comment.

4. Currently, MOT is meeting with mandated government agencies to develop an appropriate strategy to bring back to the public.

5. The public will have the opportunity for further input.

In the eyes of the member for Markham, this may amount to playing games. However, I venture to suggest that in the eyes of any fairminded individual, these actions and the process of public consultation in this matter represent a responsible approach to government.

NEWSPAPER REPORT

Mr Kormos: I rise on a matter of privilege, Mr Speaker. Recently, in Friday's Toronto Star, there was coverage of a local cable television interview that I did with the member for St Catharines-Brock. The reportage of that television interview is in itself good and fine. However, there is one paragraph in which the author of that article describes me as labelling ministers pejoratively and that paragraph is entirely false and untrue. The thousands of people who saw that program in Niagara region acknowledge that. The Welland Tribune, which similarly wrote about the program, recognizes that. For some reason, the Toronto Star did not.

While I am not beyond being critical of some of our government's decisions -- I have learned during two years of opposition while sitting with the best of them -- and while I am not beyond being critical of certain elements in our bureaucracy, I will tell members I have nothing but respect for this province's cabinet. I as much as anybody know how difficult it is to be and to remain in the cabinet.

The reporter may well have had his own reasons for stirring the pot, but his inaccuracies are not helpful. I am quite capable of ruffling feathers on my own.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, as part of the matter I rise on, that I remain a faithful and proud New Democrat. I am eager to see this new government succeed and set an example for governments across Canada. I value the privilege that I have to be outspoken, to be candid and to be forthright in my commentary about things concerning this government and other matters in the province.

The Deputy Speaker: I have listened attentively to your statement and it is not a point of privilege.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Elston: I look over across the way and see that quite a number of people are away. I noted that there were again no statements by the government about the business of the government. I cannot believe there is not something they should be doing here, but let me start by addressing a question to my favourite storyteller, the member for Nickel Belt, who is also the gentleman who looks after the Premier's business when he is away with the royal couple these days.

I had the opportunity of travelling to several communities last week to talk to the individual women and men who are in business, who have lived in the communities all their lives and have never found a time when retailing and business, in border communities in particular but even in those communities a little more remote from the border, have been as bad.

1350

One thing that is quite clear is that increasing taxes have caused considerable problems. In fact, studies from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology have suggested that out-shopping -- or cross-border shopping, as it has been known to many of us -- has cost us in the neighbourhood of $1.2 billion in retail sales.

A full 80% of the people who go across the borders of this province to shop will buy gasoline. As a result, gasoline prices are critical to salvaging some of those lost retail dollars. Will the Treasurer tell us today that he acknowledges the difficulties increased gasoline taxes create and that a reduction in gasoline tax would have a positive effect on keeping shoppers at home in Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am very much aware, as is the entire government, of the whole problem of cross-border shopping. That is why there was a committee set up with the federal government, the provincial government and the border communities to see what could be done about it.

We recognize that there is no question that taxes of different kinds, whether on cigarettes, gasoline or whatever, are a factor in cross-border shopping. To deny that would be to deny the obvious. At the same time, I do not believe and never have believed that the central problem in cross-border shopping is the level of gasoline taxes.

I have said in this House before that when we were looking at the whole question of gasoline taxes, we looked at the level of taxes here and in the United States. We could have completely eroded our gasoline tax base and still the product would have been priced higher here than across the border, so the cost of removing the taxes from gasoline would be enormous in terms of our ability to deliver the services the member opposite is continuing to demand that we do.

Mr Elston: There comes a time in this business when you have to understand that increasing the taxes day after day will only drive away our retail sales and erode the very tax base that the gentleman from Nickel Belt is trying to maintain. It is my view that the current fuel tax bill that is part of this Treasurer's budget should be removed in its entirety to try to salvage the tax dollars that are escaping us now as people are driven across the border to shop not only for gasoline but for other things. Will the Treasurer commit in front of this House to withdrawing the fuel tax bill?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not think the leader of the official opposition really believes that if we remove the 1.7-cent-per-litre tax and the 1.7 cents coming up in January, it will resolve the cross-border shopping problem. Furthermore, I wish the leader opposite would get his message straight over there, because he and his colleagues one day are on their feet asking us to reduce our revenues and the next day are on their feet asking us to increase the level of services those taxes pay for in the province.

Mr Elston: The people of Ontario know this government has done nothing. These people are a do-nothing government. They are unwilling to take a step that will assist people in dealing with the loss of jobs and with the loss of tax revenue. I ask this gentleman to take a look at what happened in Denmark, where the cross-border shopping issue was addressed by reducing taxes, and in the result ended up generating sales at home that helped them to stabilize their tax revenues.

I ask this gentleman if he will allow us to pass his fuel tax bill so he can keep the money he has collected so far, but then eliminate the 1.7 cents he has put on a litre of fuel and also forgo the increase in January, which will have a minimal effect on this year's budget anyway, but which could assist him in maintaining a good number of the retail sales here in Ontario and allow the border towns to think that at least people are trying to do something, when they have seen nothing of substance so far.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think it would be irresponsible for this government, at a time when we are trying very hard to cope with a severe recession, to start eroding the tax base that delivers the services so many people are demanding. I must say I find it passing strange that after having been in office for five years, the official opposition would suddenly discover that taxes have a bearing out there in the province at all in terms of our economic health. Of course the taxes have a bearing, but for the member opposite to stand in his place and imply that we are a do-nothing government is simply unfair. I would ask the member opposite to go to Sault Ste Marie and tell the people there that we have done nothing to help them out when they found themselves in very dire straits, to go to the people in Elliot Lake, to go to the people in Kapuskasing, to talk to the people who work at de Havilland.

The member opposite is being most unfair, because he is implying that we can somehow deliver services to the people of this province at the same time we erode the tax base that provides for those services.

APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER

Mr Sorbara: I would just tell the Treasurer that the people of Ontario are looking for a little bit of tax relief.

My question is to the Attorney General. On the weekend, the Attorney General tried to put to rest some very serious rumours about his impending resignation given the dispute currently raging over the possible appointment of lawyer Michael Code as the assistant deputy minister of criminal prosecutions. I want to tell members that Michael Code is, I guess, a competent but highly controversial lawyer, one of the most outspoken critics, during his career, of the police forces of the province and the crown attorneys of the province.

In the dispute that is raging, we have on the one hand the Attorney General trying to defend the integrity of the crown law office within his ministry, and on the other hand we have the Premier and the people in the Premier's office trying to insist on the appointment of Michael Code.

I simply ask the Attorney General how long he will continue to defend the integrity of his ministry and whether he will continue to resist the appointment of Michael Code as the assistant deputy minister of criminal prosecutions in this province.

Hon Mr Hampton: It would appear that my colleague the member for Nickel Belt has lost his title as the storyteller of the Legislature.

Let me say this: I received word that a certain article was going to be printed in the Law Times. As indicated in the Law Times, I had no comment on the story. I have already commented in the press, however, that at no time have I discussed resigning and at no time have I talked with anyone about resigning.

I would say to the honourable member that he should read carefully some of the things he sees in the newspaper and he should perhaps think about where they might come from and whether there is any validity to them at all.

Mr Sorbara: Thus far, the only thing we have heard from the Attorney General is that he is avoiding the question here today. This office has now been vacant for some 14 months, since August 1990, even before the last provincial election. This is the office of the man or woman chiefly responsible for criminal prosecutions in this province, and that office has remained vacant.

Meanwhile, the criminal justice system is in disarray. Public faith in the integrity of the justice system has been damaged. Thousands and thousands of cases have been dismissed. There is an increasing backlog, notwithstanding that the Attorney General undertook nine and a half months ago to deal with the backlog, and we still have no assistant deputy minister for criminal prosecutions in this province.

We have on the one side the Premier, who is insisting that Michael Code be appointed. I want to tell the Attorney General that we support him in defending the position of his crown law officers, who say this appointment would be very damaging. I ask the Attorney General once again: Will he continue to resist the appointment or will he tell this House now what his position is in respect of a critical office which has remained vacant for some 14 months? Does he not understand he has to take responsibility for this?

1400

Hon Mr Hampton: Once again I find I must reject the assertions made by the honourable member. The fact of the matter is that the office of the assistant deputy minister for criminal law has been occupied on an acting basis over the last 14 months by someone who is quite capable, someone who was appointed by my predecessor, and I agreed with that appointment.

I could also say to the honourable member that the person who is now acting assistant deputy minister for criminal law has done the province very great service in terms of navigating us through some very difficult times in criminal law, to the point that of all the criminal charges that have been laid since the Askov judgement of last year, 97.5% of them will come to trial within eight months. So let me say to the member that his assertions are simply false.

Mr Sorbara: I do not have any difficulty with the work being done by the acting assistant deputy minister. The problem here is that the Premier is acting as the Attorney General and trying to take away the right of the Attorney General, and I support the Attorney General in his determination as to determining who ought to hold that office.

But the Attorney General was not silent. He commented as follows to the Toronto Star on the weekend: "The job would be a challenge for someone with Mr Code's history as a criminal defence lawyer" and "It is a very difficult job and requires a lot of ability and a lot of experience." I want to tell him that we agree with that.

On the other hand, we have the Premier attempting to politicize just about every ministry. We have Marc Eliesen now as the chair of Hydro; we have Odoardo Di Santo, a former member of this House, now as the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board, and we have Phil Carter, the former executive assistant to my friend the member for Peterborough, now the executive assistant to Marc Eliesen. Here we have another case of the Premier attempting to politicize this bureaucracy.

I will put my question in this way: Does the Attorney General not realize that he must continue to defend the professionalism and integrity of the Ministry of the Attorney General, and will he undertake now to continue to resist in every way he can the appointment of Mr Code as the assistant deputy minister for criminal prosecutions? It is a yes or no answer.

Hon Mr Hampton: I can tell the member this: It is my understanding that there have been a number of applications for the position of assistant deputy minister for criminal law and I do not know the political affiliations of any of them. I do not know if any of them have any political affiliations.

I believe it is important to uphold the integrity of the system of criminal law administration in this province. I have tried to do that over the last year and I will continue to try to do that.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Harris: My question is to the Minister of the Environment regarding her commitment to improve the environmental assessment process. Under the existing Environmental Assessment Act, all alternatives must be considered when establishing a waste disposal site. Her proposed legislation, as I understand it, steamrollers over this provision by excluding the Britannia, Keele Valley and Durham sites from this process. In other words, she no longer has to look at the best options for the environment; in fact, she must look at only her options.

I can see how the minister's proposal will speed up the environmental assessment process. I wonder if she can tell me how this very heavy-handed, dictatorial, "it's my way" actually improves the environmental assessment process from an environmental point of view.

Hon Mrs Grier: I suspect the leader of the third party is referring to the legislation I introduced last week which deals with Environmental Protection Act amendments to facilitate waste reduction and measures to deal with the waste management crisis within the GTA. The leader will, I am sure, understand that this is comprehensive legislation looking at waste management in an integrated and comprehensive way. The legislation provides for waste reduction, which is the basis of this government's policy with respect to waste management. It provides for the search for long-term sites within the GTA in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act.

The reference to Britannia and Keele Valley is dealing with the short-term crisis, which as I have said many times before in this House, requires to be managed and will have to be managed in a way that makes sure that waste within the GTA is looked after in the short term while we look in the long term for sites within the environmental assessment.

Mr Harris: Can the minister tell me why the most effective way of managing the environment in the short term is to say: "It's my way or the high way. You can no longer consider the best environmental alternative. In fact, you must not take the time to find the best answer for the environment. You must do it my way"? Can she tell me how, in the short term, expressly telling people, "Don't look for the best solution," is good for the environment?

Hon Mrs Grier: The system that was in place when I became minister was looking for short-term sites in new locations that had never been used for waste disposal. The system that was supported by the opposition parties was short cuts to provide for new sites in Peel, Durham and other areas without an environmental assessment. Our government decided that was not good for the environment, so we have embarked on the search for long-term sites under the Environmental Assessment Act. We have recognized that there may well be a gap in the short term and that it is better for the environment to continue to use existing sites than to create new sites by shortcuts.

Mr Harris: The minister is critical of the former government, I understand that, but let me get it straight. She is critical of it for having shortcuts and having some hearings but not the full hearings. She now has no hearings, absolutely none. The minister is shortcutting the possibility of any public input. She is shortcutting the possibility of any input from the regions. She is shortcutting the possibility of finding the best environmental solution. Obviously, the minister has no clear plan for waste management. She has stepped all over everyone and everybody in her frantic efforts to dig her way out of this mess.

There are two things I would like to know. One is on behalf of the municipalities. They want to know if they have any say in waste management in their jurisdictions in this province. Second, why is it that in the minister's effort to streamline the environmental assessment process and make it work better, the only thing she has come up with to date is to eliminate the option that says, "You must find the best solution for the environment"? She has eliminated that and said, "You must accept the Ruth Grier solution, regardless of whether it is good for the environment or not."

Hon Mrs Grier: It is difficult to know where to begin to set the record straight with that kind of a preamble. I am sure the member is not deliberately confusing the issue by refusing to acknowledge the short-term crisis, which I wish could be solved in another way but which the facts demonstrate has not been solved up to now. When we came to the choice between finding new sites under a shortcut process or continuing existing sites for as short a period as possible, we chose the latter.

The member is also wrong when he says there is no opportunity for public input. My ministerial orders issued to Metropolitan Toronto and to the region of Peel have asked them to get on with the technical studies of reviewing those two sites and to put in place a public consultation process. It also recognizes that in looking for new sites there will be a full environmental assessment. That is what the environment deserves and that is what we are going to do on behalf of the environment.

1410

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Harris: My second question is for the Minister of Transportation. Ten and a half months ago his predecessor announced that Ontario would renege on its commitment to fund its share of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. He said at that time he was prepared to fund the other alternatives. Ten and a half months have expired since that announcement; 10 1/2 months to find out if indeed everybody was wrong except him that there were no other reasonable alternatives.

The minister said on Thursday, in looking for a solution: "It is not complex. One need not be a mathematical genius emanating from Windsor or Harvard to understand the simplicity." I think he means there in finding a solution, an alternative. If it is so simple, if it is not complex, can he tell me what his ministry has done in the last 10 1/2 months to find an alternative to the Red Hill Creek Expressway option?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Our position remains consistent. I think it is noteworthy, it is worth mentioning, that the municipal court cases took fully half that time, a full five months, and then time had to be given to get parties together. This has been done, and of course we are hopeful that within six months, alternatives can and will be found.

Mr Harris: It is absolutely insulting to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth to suggest there was difficulty in getting them together to meet with the minister. They have been crying, they have been begging for a meeting. They have come here to the Legislature. They have been ready to meet for all of these past 10 1/2 months.

The minister said on Thursday, "If an alternative is not found, the region of Hamilton-Wentworth has the possibility of coming back with the original proposal." If an alternative is not found -- these are his words, by the way -- and the region of Hamilton-Wentworth comes back with the original proposal, is the minister prepared to honour the government's commitment and fund the Red Hill Creek Expressway?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Again, our position remains consistent. The focus here is on seeking alternatives. There has been no change of position whatsoever in withdrawing the funding for the Red Hill Creek Expressway. We are talking only about one position and that is of alternatives, plain and simple; no more and no less than that.

Mr Harris: I am quoting the minister's own words of Thursday. He said the region can come back with the original proposal. I think the question is quite simple: Why tell them they can come back with the original proposal if he does not know whether they are going to say yes or no? I think he had better clarify that. Otherwise this whole thing is a sham.

There is only one thing that has changed since last December and that is the NDP candidate in Hamilton is going down the tubes and needs a boost. That is the only thing that has changed in the past 10 1/2 months. While this government has played politics with the Hamilton region, jobs have been lost, business has suffered and money has been wasted.

The minister's part of the agreement last week is nothing more than smoke and mirrors unless he is prepared to stand behind his statement of last Thursday. Will he stop playing games with the people of Hamilton? Will he answer the simple question: Will they have their expressway? If the possibility and the option is the original proposal, will he fund it? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Pouliot: There is no reason why anyone should play games. With respect, maybe the leader of the third party can go and ask the mayor of Hamilton what was said. It is quite simple. All he has to do is read the agreement. The agreement is focused solely on one option, which is an alternative to the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Will we fund the alternative? Yes. We have made a commitment that the province shall do so to the tune of 70% of the total. That is exactly what was said.

Mr Eves: What you said is, if they come back with the original proposal, you would look at it. Are you going to fund it or not?

Hon Mr Pouliot: In terms of the original proposal, it is not clearly, absolutely on the table. This is why the agreement calls for alternatives. It has nothing to do with the original proposal. The member should read the agreement; it is quite simple. We look forward to a good relationship and remain confident that alternatives will be found and funded 70% by the province of Ontario.

VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a delegation of members of the standing committee on House management from the House of Commons in Ottawa.

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND COMMUNICATIONS RECEPTION

Mr Conway: My question is of the Minister of Culture and Communications. On August 26, 1991, in what must have been one of her first press conferences and/or press receptions, the member for Perth, the newly installed Minister of Culture and Communications, convened a press reception or press conference at the Park Plaza Hotel to announce the government's new publishing support initiative. I have in my hand a bill from the Park Plaza Hotel for that reception and press conference, a bill to the taxpayers of $2,887.96.

Since August 26 was just a few days before the Premier went to Honey Harbour to announce to the province that restraint was the new buzzword in the government, can the minister explain to this House and the taxpayers exactly why she needed to spend nearly $3,000 on the rooftop at the Park Plaza Hotel for a press announcement, as opposed to using the press conference facility in the Legislative complex at no cost to the taxpayers?

Hon Mrs Haslam: It was a very prestigious announcement. We chose to put it into a situation where the publishing community would feel comfortable. I am very pleased that I was able to announce this initiative.

Mr Conway: I would have thought that those hard-pressed, recession-ridden working men and women would have thought there is scarcely a more prestigious place to make an important government announcement than here at Queen's Park.

Perhaps the minister could further explain to these hard-pressed taxpayers of Ontario who paid for this reception, one of the minister's first, on the rooftop of the Park Plaza Hotel at a total cost of $2,887 and why some $857 of that cost involved alcohol.

Hon Mrs Haslam: The question is well taken. I will investigate that and report back to the member.

NURSING LEGISLATION

Mr J. Wilson: My question is of the Minister of Health. Nurses across this province are shocked at the government's amendment to Bill 57, the Nursing Act, that will require nurses to take orders from midwives and chiropodists. This is yet another blow to the nursing profession, which has been hard hit by the government's lack of direction in health care.

The minister will know that historically nurses have performed procedures on patients under the authority of medical doctors and dentists. I want to know how she can justify adding another couple of levels to the hierarchy in our health care system by dictating that now nurses will also have to take orders from midwives and chiropodists.

1420

Hon Ms Lankin: I disagree with the member's characterization of our having higher levels of hierarchy in health care. One of the things that we are very hopeful the new legislation will do for nurses is, for the first time, to provide them with their own scope of practice and set out in regulations from their college's own perspective what that scope of practice should include and their ability to do a number of authorized acts on their own.

The amendments do not provide that nurses will do things on the order of midwives; in fact, it is set out very differently. But there will be cases where a midwife may order an injection of medication, for example, and it would be appropriate for a nurse to carry that out. It would be a patient order, as opposed to an order directly to the nurse, who is a professional in and of herself.

Mr J. Wilson: A patient order? That is quite interesting. I have never heard of that.

I and my caucus colleagues have received hundreds of calls over the last week as a result of this ill-conceived amendment. Perhaps the minister would be more personally aware of the situation if she had attended at least one of the days on clause-by-clause hearings of these acts. She would be aware of the fact that this amendment is not at all appropriate and that Ontario is only now beginning to establish a program of education for midwives and that a degree program is not scheduled to begin until 1993.

I ask the minister again, is she prepared to withdraw her amendment that would force nurses to take orders from midwives and chiropodists?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member may not know that in fact I worked in a hospital in my past life and I know exactly what a patient order is. If he does not, then I suggest it is his unfamiliarity with the health care system, not mine.

May I say directly with respect to the question posed about having attended and hearing from nurses that I have met directly with the nursing association. We have met with a number of nurses' representatives to talk about the amendments. At this point in time we think it is an appropriate amendment.

The member recognizes that in fact, although the legislation will come into place, midwifery will not be a regulated profession until proclaimed and until the education program has started to produce certified, regulated midwives. We think at that point in time it would be entirely appropriate that where a midwife gives some recommendation of a patient order, for injection of medication, for example, a nurse could be an appropriate official to carry that out.

NURSING HOMES

Ms M. Ward: My question is for the Minister of Health. Approximately three weeks ago the minister announced a new funding arrangement for nursing homes and homes for the aged. Many of the facilities serving senior citizens in my riding of Don Mills are concerned about the current funding formula. On behalf of these facilities I would like to ask, how will the results from the fall 1991 level-of-care classification study be linked to the future funding formula?

Hon Ms Lankin: In the announcement that I made on behalf of the Minister of Community and Social Services and my ministry, we stated that the pilot project clearly indicated to us that the levels-of-care requirement currently in place with respect to nursing homes and homes for the aged, both charitable and municipal, in fact showed that there was not a difference of care requirement, and that funding in the future, as we move to redirection of long-term care, would have to take that into account.

We are currently moving to expand on that pilot project. We will have a classification study of each of the homes of the relevant categories in place by January 1993 so that we can move to funding based on that levels-of-care formula, which is based on the Alberta patient classification tool.

Ms M. Ward: The residents of True Davidson Acres, which is a home for the aged in my riding, are concerned about the current funding levels for the personal needs allowance. Does the Minister of Health plan to review these funding levels in the context of the new funding arrangements?

Hon Ms Lankin: The personal needs allowance that the member refers to is more often called the comfort allowance. It is the amount of money seniors have left over for their own funds after they have paid for things like the residential charge in nursing homes. As we move to levels-of-care funding and a redirected long-term care proposal for January 1993, we will be reviewing the amount which seniors pay towards residency and, by virtue of that, also the basic amount of comfort money they have left over in that personal needs allowance. So it all will be reviewed in that context.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mrs Sullivan: My question is also for the Minister of Health. In an attempt to control the cost of drugs available through the Ontario drug benefit program, a new and somewhat bizarre multi-tier system has been created with which doctors must comply to obtain needed drugs for their patients.

Two weeks ago the minister removed several drugs from the formulary list of medicine covered under the provincial benefits program. Those drugs were used primarily for the treatment of AIDS patients. There was no consultation with physicians on the removal of those drugs, but what the doctors have been told is that when they need those drugs on an urgent basis for their patients, they must provide their names, their addresses and a code number to pharmacists before those drugs can be directly dispensed for their patients.

What we have now is a situation where pharmacists can only dispense drugs which are specific to the treatment of AIDS when those drugs are prescribed by a doctor who is on an AIDS list. Through this system the minister has guaranteed that the privacy of those AIDS patients is destroyed. There is no guarantee of anonymity. The pharmacist will know, the pharmacist's aides will know and the clerk in the drugstore will know who is on that list.

What protection of privacy and what guarantees of anonymity now exist under this new system for AIDS patients who are prescribed these drugs? Will the minister ensure that the doctors inform their patients that their privacy will not be protected, and will she require that the doctors obtain the consent of their patients, before they prescribe the drugs, to have their identity made known to the pharmacists involved?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think it is a very good question. The process that has been put in place with respect to streamlining the ability of primary care physicians who have a large number of AIDS patients in their practice has been done as a result of requests from the community, both AIDS patients and AIDS doctors themselves. It has been one of the central demands that they have asked for and there has been consultation with AIDS doctors about this process.

I want to correct one thing the member said, which is that this is not the only way in which doctors who are treating AIDS patients will be able to prescribe and get those drugs filled for those patients.

What we received was a complaint from those physicians who were primarily treating AIDS patients, who had very heavy practices, that the process, the amount of paperwork of seeking special authorization under the rules of the Ontario drug benefit plan on a case-by-case basis was drowning them and that they were unable to provide the appropriate level of care. It was eating into their time; the administration was too complex. We have been working with them to attempt to streamline that and deal with that, but those are the doctors who are on that list.

I think the question the member raised about whether or not patients should be made aware of that and ask for consent is a reasonable question and I will look into that.

Mrs Sullivan: I have the list of the doctors whose names are listed with pharmacists across the province, when they are prescribing those drugs for AIDS patients and do not want to go through the section 8 approval of those drugs, which takes anywhere from eight weeks to three months. One of the things the minister has not responded to is that those drugs are not only used by HIV and AIDS patients, but also by elderly patients and those who suffer from particular diseases such as respiratory and other illnesses.

The October 18 letter to doctors, which I have here, informs doctors that the cost of these drugs will not be reimbursed, without going through the eight-week process, if the person is not suffering from HIV-AIDS symptoms. Many people who are elderly suffer from shingles, a debilitating and painful illness, from respiratory illnesses and from other diseases for which these drugs are useful treatments. They cannot wait the six weeks to eight weeks to three months that it takes to go through section 8 approval. Will she put these drugs back on the formulary for the benefit of AIDS patients and for the benefit of senior citizens in Ontario?

Hon Ms Lankin: I must correct the member just on one technicality, in that these drugs were never on the formulary. There was a non-formulary list of drugs. What had happened over a number of years was that there grew a list, not just a section 8 special authorization, but another full list of non-formulary drugs that were covered just generally as a benefit. The Lowy commission review recommended that these should be taken off. In fact, there was an extensive communication with the manufacturers asking each of them to submit their information for these to be reviewed for possible inclusion in the drug formulary.

1430

One of the things the member should know is that there is a very rigorous process of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee, an assessment before a drug is actually put on the formulary. None of these drugs has gone through that and therefore none of them has ever been placed on the formulary. They were being paid for as a matter of course of the benefit. It was recommended by the Lowy commission that this cease. We gave the manufacturers an opportunity to respond, and the ones in particular that have now been deleted from this non-formulary list are ones for which they did not respond.

With respect to the case the member raises, the drug that is of particular help to seniors in the treatment of shingles, I take that as a very serious issue. I have assurances from the ministry that a process has been put in place to handle those section 8 special requests in a one-day turnaround because of the nature of it.

Mrs Sullivan: It still takes three months.

Hon Ms Lankin: The member yells that it takes three months. I have been assured and have directed that for this drug, the process take one month. Additionally, we have written to the drug manufacturers yet again and asked them to please submit the materials with respect to this so that they can undergo a rigorous drug quality and therapeutic review in order to be added to the list.

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr Runciman: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Day after day we read about increasing crime rates in Ontario, especially with violent crimes, and have to assume that more Ontario citizens are becoming dependent on emergency services in this province. We have just recently been advised that this government has cancelled its 911 consultancy service. In fact, we are getting quite a bit of mail on this matter. Could the Solicitor General explain the logic behind that cancellation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can only respond to the member in the sense that there are fiscal pressures all across the government, as the member knows, and of course the Ministry of the Solicitor General does not escape either. A number of matters are being considered in the upcoming estimates, and that would be one of them. However, my understanding is that if this does become a formal decision, there would be alternative information available to those municipalities and regions that would have an interest in pursuing the development of the 911 service.

Mr Runciman: This is another one of the minister's non-answers. He obviously does not have a clue what is going on in his ministry. We asked him about the OPP going into the official opposition leader's office. A week after the incident he said he did not know anything about it.

Here we are talking about the cancellation of a very important service to municipalities right across this province and again he does not know what is going on. We have to wonder what he is doing with his time every day. The 911 service is an extremely important service. The city of Orillia had an estimate of $200,000 for installing the 911 service. They went to the government consultant on this matter, who was able to come up with a system that costs that municipality only $50,000, a considerable saving for municipalities right across this province.

Again, I ask that minister to get on top of what is going on in his ministry and reconsider the decision. He does not even know it has been made, but it has been made. He should take a look at it and change it.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can well appreciate the perspective from the opposition benches, but I would like to indicate to the honourable member that we are certainly aware of the matter. As I indicated in the House last week, we are certainly aware as well that the question with respect to the OPP being sent to investigate members opposite is incorrect, in so far as the OPP being directed by this government is concerned. Once a breach of trust has been identified by the deputy minister to the OPP, the OPP itself decides whom it will interview, and it is not with respect to any directions from this minister or from this government.

WATER CONSERVATION

Mr Duignan: My question today is for the Minister of Natural Resources. In August the minister announced an initiative to challenge the people of Ontario to practise water efficiency and conservation. As most people are aware, the people of Ontario per capita use twice as much water as people in western Europe.

Recently the town of Milton, in the southern part of my riding, proposed a pilot project for water conservation and efficiency. Will the minister look favourably on the Milton project and tell us what particular reasons there are for launching a water efficiency program at this time?

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the member's interest in this. There are many reasons for the initiation of this strategy at this time. As the member will know, we have had a number of very hot, dry summers in Ontario and water use has gone up substantially. Also, as we see more predictions in the scientific community with regard to global warming, we can anticipate many more periods of dry weather that will require the high use of water. As the member knows, the people of this province are concerned about managing their resources on a sustainable basis. After all, the more we use now the more we take away from future generations.

The initiative I announced in August called for zero growth in water consumption by the year 2010. We are attempting to develop a partnership between the provincial government and the municipalities and other water users in the province. We are holding workshops across the province to develop a water efficiency strategy for the province. The question with regard to Milton will be considered in that regard.

Mr Duignan: The people of Milton will appreciate it if the minister does look favourably on that particular pilot project, as I believe it is in the forefront for other projects throughout the province. I note this initiative touches on the mandate of several ministers. Also, some would argue this is an area of municipal jurisdiction. Why is the Minister of Natural Resources taking this initiative?

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member knows, the Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for managing many water resources in the province. After all, we are responsible for the fish habitat, the power generation agreements and the general wellbeing of lakes and rivers in the province.

It is not just a Ministry of Natural Resources initiative, though. It is supported by 12 government ministries and agencies across the government. For instance, the Ministry of Government Services is actively developing a strategy for water efficiency in the 9,000 government buildings across the province. The Ministry of Housing, through the Ontario Housing Corp, Canada's largest landlord, is examining its portfolio to seek water efficiency opportunities. As the member indicated, this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and the regulations and legislation of that ministry will enable us to develop a partnership with the municipalities. We look forward to having the successful development of a strategy in the province.

1440

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Members of the Legislature will remember that last summer, in the warm sun in Vineland or Beamsville, Ontario, the Premier denounced previous administrations over the issue of the preservation of agricultural land and renewed the promise of the New Democratic Party to save agricultural land in the province from development.

In view of this pronouncement by the Premier and the long-time policy of the NDP to save agricultural land, could the Minister of Agriculture and Food tell us why he is allowing the Minister of Transportation to expropriate some of the best farm land in the province in order to pave it over for a truck weigh station in Beamsville?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member raises a good point. This party has had a long-standing position of trying to protect good agricultural land and we will continue to do so. From time to time services are required that need agricultural land in order to have those services, whether it is hydro corridors or transportation networks, and unfortunately there are occasions when these kinds of things happen. It is unfortunate.

I would certainly like to see all the tender fruit land in the Niagara region preserved, but a situation came up that requires some additional land. I think it is a very small amount of land, though. We are not talking about massive amounts. I think we are talking about something in the order of four acres, which is not really the sort of thing we should all get flustered about.

Mr Bradley: That is a most interesting response on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the person responsible for preserving agricultural land in Ontario. How does the minister react to local people, some of whom have supported his party over the years -- one of the reasons they have is because they believed his party was going to be interested in saving farm land -- how does he answer them when they say the ministry has a lot of nerve trying to develop on prime farm land when the province is considering whether to crack down on other Niagara farmers who want to sell land for development to ease their debt loads?

Does the minister not recognize that when we set the example the Minister of Transportation is setting, paving prime farm land, he loses all his good arguments with those farmers who also want to develop their land because they are facing economic stress?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think we are talking of in the order of four acres; we are not talking about massive amounts of good farm land in this case. Since I just became aware a few minutes ago that this expropriation was in the process of taking place, I would say to the member that I am prepared to take a look at it. There is always the possibility of having that reconsidered. I have just consulted very quickly with the Minister of Transportation. That is a possibility and I will take it under advisement to see what we can do.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Turnbull: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Does he not recognize that the trucking industry in Ontario is in crisis? The industry simply cannot afford another $2,000 tax grab. The tax is coming at a time when the industry is still reeling from the effects of recession and deregulation. The diesel fuel tax, which we will be debating here today, will add another 31% to the cost of fuel. Will the minister commit to repealing this tax?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We are not going to repeal the tax. That answers the question directly. We do recognize the dire needs of the trucking industry, with the oversupply of trucks, deregulation, free trade, high interest rates, the high Canadian dollar, the GST; the list is almost endless. We have frozen by moratorium the number of licences out there so that truckers can find a better competitive climate.

We have also commissioned a study so that we can impact on individual needs, on individual components, that will make the trucking industry a more competitive place to be. I do not wish to convey to members of the opposition, when they talk about trucking, "We told you so; a curse on both your houses." No, we evaluate from a positive climate. The answers will take a little time, but together with the trucking industry, in partnership, we will get there and make the trucking world a better place to live in indeed.

Mr Turnbull: I have heard all this before from this government. Whenever they get a question, all they can do is point at other people as being the problem. What the minister is quite simply saying today is that he is writing off this industry. The president of the Ontario Trucking Association has said in that the present situation it is essential that we get relief from the fuel tax if we are going to stave off bankruptcy from these companies.

Last week during estimates the minister said: "We empathize with those involved in our trucking sector, but as you will appreciate, the current economic recession and fiscal constraints make it very difficult to provide tax relief at this time." Well, the tax relief at this time is necessary. It is taxes the minister is adding; it is not something that existed. It is taxes the government has added. The government has added $500 million to the cost of the civil service since it has been in office. It is adding $90 million in taxes to this industry, an industry that is going bankrupt. All the minister says is, "It's the fault of this and this."

The minister knows the trucking industry has said very clearly that it needs a reduction in fuel tax. Having US truckers survive is not going to help this province or the workers in this province. Will the minister not finally see the light and realize that adding people to the unemployment rolls is not going to help his government? Will the minister not rethink his policy?

Hon Mr Pouliot: With regard to the taxes that were mentioned, we did not get there overnight. Of course, any government needs revenue. I can assure the member that if the latest increase in diesel fuel tax is a component, as the member opposite suggests, the GST is the catalyst. That is the culprit. We are putting together measures to help the trucking industry.

Mr Turnbull: That's not what the trucking industry is saying. Read your own reports, Minister. You're telling the trucking industry it's the taxes taking away the jobs.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills. You have asked a question. The minister is answering your question.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Speaker, I know it is difficult for you to cap the bottles. Where I come from, when someone asks a question at least they have the decency to let people answer. If asked to carry the guilt, I have no quarrel whatsoever. Suffice it to say that the member should come up with rationale and substance.

This side is going to help the truckers. We are trying to be imaginative and innovative. The other side does not wish to listen. We have a dilemma. They will fail and we will succeed because we have real, concrete, palpable measures that are conducive to good economic order for all Ontarians. We realize and are fully cognizant of the most useful service that our brothers and sisters in the trucking industry provide.

1450

MISSISSAUGA PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD

Mr O'Connor: My question is to our new Cinderella -- I hope she has found her new slipper -- the Minister of Culture and Communications. Proposed legislation has been brought forward to dissolve the Mississauga Public Library Board. Even though Mississauga is not in my riding, the outcome will affect my constituents and myself.

A number of people are concerned about the public library board being replaced by a committee of council. Will citizen representation, as well as community input, no longer be needed in the functioning of the library? Earlier this year, the minister's predecessor informed the House that his parliamentary assistant would be undertaking consultation with the library community. The present minister promised that this report would be completed this summer. We are now into the fall. I was just wondering when we could expect some feedback.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I would like everyone to know that I started out in the education system and in the library system, both public and education, so I do understand the member's concern.

Since last April, the member for Kingston and The Islands, my parliamentary assistant, has been meeting with many of the individuals and groups concerned about the committee of council issue. The meetings have included library administrators, library workers, library trustees, representatives of CUPE and elected municipal officials. The final consultations will be taking place this month and our review and analysis of the concerns and points of view presented to us will follow promptly.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The House will settle down a bit. Those who want to leave can do so now.

PETITIONS

CLOSING OF TREE NURSERIES

Mr Mills: I have a petition signed by 1,500 people in my riding of Durham East. It says:

"Whereas the Orono nursery makes a significant contribution to reforestation in southern Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain the field tree seedling production at Orono nursery to contribute to environmental and economic programs in our forest and in our agricultural lands.

"Further generations depend on the environmental leadership of the day."

I also add my signature to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing November 1, 1991, and ending December 31, 1991.

Mr Callahan: I have never really had an opportunity to speak in this place with this many people in attendance. I guess they are all hanging around for my speech.

When last I left off, I was addressing the Treasurer. I got into a few things. I was basically talking about the question of alcohol and drug treatment in this province, this country and, for that matter, in the world. It receives very little attention from the public, from governments, from various sources. It should receive great attention.

I think on the last occasion I indicated that probably something in the neighbourhood of 70% or 80% of crime is committed as a result of either alcohol or drug abuse. We pay very little attention to it. The standing committee on public accounts is presently reviewing this issue and hopes to bring a report forward. With the co-operation of all the House leaders, we are seeking at least one day in this House to debate this very important report.

I think that the government's move through the health care system to limit access to facilities in the United States is perhaps a wise fiscal policy to eliminate unnecessary costs to the US, but I suggest that doing this without providing adequate facilities in this province to cover the shortfall is somewhat like putting a plug in one hole in the boat while you have six others there: You are still going to drown.

I think the Attorney General would recognize, through his offices and through the people who work under him, that a large degree of the backlog in the courts is to --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. If members want to hold conversations, I suggest they hold them outside. The member for Brampton South has the floor.

Mr Callahan: I think the Attorney General will recognize the statistics I gave him with reference to how our courts have become backlogged. To a large degree they have become backlogged because people who are before the courts have drug or alcohol problems. When they are sent off to prison, the facilities in prison are so inadequate in dealing with this issue that all it is is a revolving-door syndrome: They go in one door and out the other.

It is great politics to send people to jail; it makes the public feel very comfortable. But what we are doing is sending people who, perhaps through no fault of their own, are in this predicament. I do not say this in a pejorative fashion to the Attorney General. This is not a matter that has arisen just since his government was elected; it is something that has gone on through successive governments. It is an issue that has to be dealt with. There has to be provision for expanding such facilities as the Ontario Correctional Institute; OCI is one of the few facilities where treatment is looked into.

On the question of schizophrenics, schizophrenics' families, as a result of amendments that were made to the Mental Health Act back in 1985 or 1986, were literally divested of any possibility of assisting their loved ones. Schizophrenics could not have treatment forced upon them; they could refuse treatment. It was like telling a diabetic, "It's okay, you don't have to take your insulin if you don't want to," even though we know insulin helps a diabetic maintain control.

Similarly, the situation with schizophrenics has come to that. We see parents who have their loved ones in a situation where there is no way they can help them, knowing full well there is treatment that can assist them. We see people brought to the courts for somewhat foolish crimes who cannot plead their schizophrenia or temporary insanity, because if they do, they do it at the risk of winding up as a guest at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor for perhaps two years for a crime for which they might otherwise get a fine or probation or even a discharge.

Quite apart from that, there is the ignominy that families of schizophrenics have to go through because a mechanism is not in place to allow them to deal with and treat their loved ones. I suggest this is something that has to be addressed. I had thought at one point that the bill introduced -- I think it was Bill 53 -- that provided for alternative decision-making would assist in that regard. I suggest it will not. I think the government will find, as the committee goes out into public hearings on this bill, that groups will come before the committee and tell it that the bill is not appropriate and will not deal with this specific issue.

I would like to deal with the farming community. Although my community grows more urbanized each day, it is still an agricultural urban community. Day after day we hear in this House and read in the newspapers from across this country, across the United States and North America, perhaps around the world, of the plight of farmers.

Farming is not something you teach. It is not something you pick up as a hobby in most cases. It is something that is passed on from generation to generation by people who are truly interested in farming. If the people of this province, this country and beyond expect to receive food adequate for the purposes of feeding themselves and their families, governments are going to have to take a much more realistic approach to the question of how we deal with our farmers.

Our farmers are always the last persons in line for anything and they constantly have to beg for every nickel they get. That is not satisfactory. Those members who come specifically from rural areas must understand that the farming community obviously is the backbone of the supply of food. What does the farmer get for it? The farmer gets peanuts. The product itself goes through maybe four or five hands and then gets nicely packaged -- packaging we throw away and fill up our landfill sites with -- and the farmer himself or herself, who has dedicated his or her life to farming, receives very little in the way of the cost of that.

People out in society are not prepared to pay what it is worth to keep a farmer on the farm. Truly, if there were a systematic way of providing farmers with a way to allow their young people to become educated at the University of Guelph or sophisticated universities that teach business management techniques in agriculture in a modern way, many of these people would stay on the farms, but it is a real temptation. Young people see developers picking up farms and developing them and see some farmers selling out. Young people see the fathers who own the farms selling out. They are then able to take on a lifestyle that is very much different than it was when they were actually on the farm.

1500

We lose them for ever. We will never get them back again, because those people have been told in not so many words by the governments of the day: "You don't count. We're not concerned enough about you that we would try to come up with an innovative way of providing you with money so that you can give the good things to your family now and ensure that you stay in farming, a profession you love." We have to work at that, because if we do not work at that, we are going to find ourselves slowly but ever so surely getting out of the production of food. We are going to find that our food will be very costly because it will be limited and we will probably be buying a great deal more from across the border.

I suggest that is something this government should look at. They should forget about the life preservers you throw to a farmer when he is in desperate need. They should think about it in terms of long-term planning.

That is one of the problems with this Legislature, the fact that the process itself provides for the quick political fix. It does not provide for long-range planning. It does not look at an issue and say: "Here's a problem. Let's try to solve it." What it does do is try to find the sexy way of doing it or to plug the dike with a Band-Aid when it requires much more than that. Perhaps it needs a major operation.

I suggest that the process in this House is one that has to be changed as well. The people who are watching us on television every day are becoming much more sophisticated and much more aware of the factor that what goes on in this House to a very large degree really is theatre, that it has nothing to do with the real things that are going on in the world, and that much of the government is run by maybe five or six or seven people, several of them not elected, rather than being run and contributed to by each and every one of the members from the various ridings. I think people are catching on to that.

If the process is not reformed, the people are going to say to us, "Why do we need 130 people down here who are doing nothing for us, who are not advancing the cause of their particular riding, who stand up" -- this is not a criticism of the present government; it has gone on with several governments -- "and vote on every issue the way the government wants them to vote?" The people out there are not that naïve. They have to understand that if members are doing that, it means the members are doing nothing for them, are just becoming part of a large glob.

People are very suspicious of politicians today. I note, however, that this morning we did not rank in the first four in the Globe and Mail. I cannot remember what they were. I think there were a number of them. Politicians were not among them, but I am sure if they had printed a fifth one, we would have been within the fifth category. Politicians used to be second to the oldest profession in the world in terms of popularity with the people.

I think we are seeing more and more in elections that people are much more attuned and much more aware of what is going on in politics. They expect their politicians to work for them. They expect their politicians to advance their cause. They expect them to make certain that every tax initiative that is brought forward is one that is scrutinized to the nth degree.

We are not doing that. That is not going on in this place, and if we do not get back to that way of doing it, or reform this Legislature, we are going to find that we are going to become as much of an anachronism as dinosaurs, if we are not already. I urge all those people who were elected -- I suppose, in a sense, in the last election many of them had not anticipated being elected, so I suspect they come from very strong roots and want to advance the cause of their individual ridings. Here is an opportunity for them to make history, to reform this Legislature.

Several government members voted for a private member's bill I put forward that bills be referred after first reading to get meaningful input from the public. If that is the case, why have we not seen that bill come back from the House leader in terms of an order of priority in terms of business? I would think that would be a major priority for the government, to reform the Legislature. If they reformed it, they would have a much more democratic process. The government, I am told, is the New Democratic Party. That obviously must have some meaning within the term of democracy. One would think they would be trying to reform the Legislature.

To send bills out to committees after second reading -- I think the public should understand this -- once the principle of the bill is established, then to go out and meet the public on the road and spend megabucks of taxpayers' dollars to hear from people makes no sense. If the government has already established the principle of the bill, as it goes out to the people, everything they say is going to be ignored if it is contrary to the principle of the bill. If they send it out after first reading, they would be able to get some meaningful input from the people who take time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee. They would give some meaning to that $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, $90,000, $100,000, $120,000 or $130,000 that might be spent on travel and accommodation to bring these people before their committee.

I think in the past the good Speaker who is in the chair now used to castigate us in committee. When we were the government, he would say: "Isn't it terrible? You've spent all this money going out to the public to hear from them and you have already established the principle of the bill. What a waste of money." I often thought to myself, Mr Speaker, that your words were words of wisdom, and I advance them to you now that you are in government. Use that and take a look at it, because the government is going to have to account for that to its public.

They should forget about the roof garden parties by the Minister of Culture and Communications. That is peanuts; $2,500 is peanuts. They should forget about the Attorney General's big bash down in Niagara Falls for $10,000, of which about $2,500 was for booze. That is peanuts. The important stuff is the money we spend in our day-to-day operation to represent our constituencies in this Legislature.

We could be a guiding light. We could perhaps set the pace for Ottawa. Maybe we could get those 276 people up there, or whatever their numbers are now, to actually do something for their constituents instead of all the gabblegob that goes on up there. Surely we cannot afford the luxury of bodies that are just bodies, that are not prepared to stand up and be counted, prepared to be imaginative and to be empowered to be able to participate in the whole role of government. Rather than letting the Premier of the day, whoever it is, and maybe four or five cabinet ministers, whoever they may be, and maybe four or five spin doctors down in the back office, sitting around throwing darts at a wheel determining -- that is a little facetious, but in terms of deciding what will be the order of the politics of the day, what is going to be popular, how can we advance winning a seat in this riding or that riding or how can we make ourselves more popular in this poll or that poll, when that is really what is going on, what really should be going on should be that they, as members of this Legislature, each of them elected, should at least be consulted in terms of what is important in this province. They should not have to stand up like taking attendance in grade school, when the snap of the fingers comes, "Here's what we're going to vote on, guys and gals; stand up," and everybody stands up.

I am convinced that the people out there who watch a vote being taken in this House have to make one of two conclusions: Either they have to conclude that the idea being advanced by the government is so magnificent and is going to do so much for them that it behooves their member, that member who they know best because they voted for him or her and probably helped campaign for -- they have to be convinced that is something they really believe in.

I find it difficult that when you go back to your riding --

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum present. I think it is important that the government should be here listening to this very good speech we are hearing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): I have listened and this is not a point of order. I would suggest -- my apologies to the member for York Mills; I thought you were rising on a point of order. I hear it is a quorum you have asked for and the Clerk is taking a count.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1510

The Acting Speaker: If I could have the attention of the member for Brampton South, I remind the member that this is a debate on the motion of interim supply. This is generally a free-ranging debate. However, I would remind the member that no matter how free-ranging it is, some reference to the topic before us is essential.

Mr Callahan: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for bringing that to my attention.

Let's go to the question of funding for community colleges and universities. Somewhere along the line, some government, I cannot remember which it was, or the board of regents of the various institutions, made it a rule that if you missed your year, you had to stay out for two years.

A lot can be done by co-operative methods in this House. It does not necessarily always have to be fighting and scrapping. I went over and spoke to the minister and said to him: "Do you really think that's a fair process for a young child who has a learning disability? A young person who misses his or her year in university has to wait out the two years just like the students who missed their year because they ware out carousing or not studying or not participating in the work they should be doing." The minister said, "I'd never thought about something like that."

I really think there are opportunities in this House to make certain that the moneys we spend on education and the networks and the processes we put in place to see that people get a fair shake in this province, can be shaped in such a way that we do not have one rule that is so stagnated that it captures these young people who are disabled people. They have an invisible disability. If they have a wheelchair or crutches or are blind or deaf, we can see that and people immediately change rules because of that, and quite so. It is only fair that should happen for disabled people. The people with learning disabilities have an invisible disability. Once we lose sight of the fact that these people perhaps have missed their year not because of anything on their part but simply because they are disabled in a sense and we do not change the rule or react to the rule, then the moneys we spend and allocate through taxation dollars are not being spent appropriately.

I suggest the same thing is in vogue in terms of some of the things the Ministry of the Attorney General has not done. It is not just this Attorney General; I do not believe our Attorney General considered enacting this alternative. Under the Criminal Code, if the government of the day decides to bring it into vogue, it can in fact provide for an alternative to fines. It can be community service or any number of things. That has never been enacted in this province. It has never been brought out of the Criminal Code the way it should have been, and is, in some provinces.

What it means is that there is a law for the rich. If you are very wealthy and you are fined $500, $600, $1,000 or $5,000 and you have the money, you can pay it. If the person is poor, because that power is not given to the judges to provide some alternative to fines, it means the judge has to say $5,000 or two months in jail. In fact what we have is a two-class system in this province in that certain people can buy their way out of jail and others have to go to jail because they cannot afford to pay the fine.

That is a measure that would not cost this government one nickel to impose, except that there is no question that fines paid through the justice system generate income for the day-to-day activities of the government. However, one has to examine whether or not that is a proper rationale for maintaining a system that creates two levels of citizens of Ontario, those who can pay and those who cannot pay.

I know a number of my colleagues and others in the House want to speak on this, so I am going to address two further things. The first one is that, for some reason, treasurers have been very wont to earmark funds. I started on Thursday by saying it seems absolutely outrageous to me as an Ontarian, as a Canadian and as a human being that we can collect -- in fact impose the collection of -- dollars by selling all sorts of alcohol and not earmark at least a portion of that money to provide for the flotsam and jetsam of the world that we create as a result of our encouragement to buy alcohol.

It is the same with drugs. Why are we not using that large amount of taxes -- they call them sin taxes. Why are we not earmarking those for people of the province who have been afflicted because we have in fact allowed these things to be sold? It seems to me we are burying our heads in the sand if we do not realize that if we do not use those taxes, allocate them and provide proper funding and proper facilities, we are in fact fooling ourselves.

We may think we are having a safe time right now, but as we pass year after year, we are going to find that crime increases dramatically. We are going to find families that will never get out of the welfare ghetto because of alcohol or drug abuse. We are going to find young people who will be destroyed, never to be reclaimed, if we do not use some of those moneys to assist them. I really believe that the present Treasurer and future treasurers have to get out of this mindset about money not being earmarked for specific things.

Let's take seniors. There was always an argument among those who sat on municipal councils about why seniors should have to pay the education tax after they were seniors. I must say that argument was very attractive because it seemed to me that seniors reach a fixed income level where extra dollars are eaten away by inflation, and having to pay this tax and gaining no benefit from it becomes a bit difficult for me to rationalize.

Clearly there was an effort -- and I am going to use this as an example -- by the Conservative government of William Davis, I think it was, to bring in a $400 tax rebate to seniors which was supposed to reimburse them for the money they spent on education. It was based on the principle that because seniors do not have anybody in school, the government was going to give them a bit of a break. The unfortunate thing is that the $400 never got a boost until our government boosted it by $100, and it no longer represents the lion's share taken from seniors out of their tax dollars.

However, it did establish a principle and I urge the Treasurer and treasurers in future to zero in on particular problems and say: "We're making money from this, but there is fallout. People are being hurt by it, so let's earmark that money for them. Let's not require lobby groups to come before us and beg for it. Let's be up front, let's be honest, let's be humane and let's make certain we do it in an innovative way rather than having people force us to do it."

I have to give credit to the government. I have learned through the standing committee on public accounts that it has set up a program which is a registry of available alcohol facilities. That is a good step forward, but it cannot just stop with that. That was obviously done as part and parcel of the scenario of trying to prevent money being spent in the United States at alcohol and drug treatment centres. I applaud that as well.

Our health care system is too important to allow it to go to shambles because we are spending money in an inappropriate way. At the same time, it is only one step. There are all sorts of steps we can take in this regard to attempt to make decisions based neither on their political sexiness nor on what happens down the corridor in the back room or whatever. Members probably know by now that what I am saying is correct, that this is how it goes on.

1520

Let's take some power; let's empower ourselves. Let's not allow any government, majority or minority, to tell us, as members of our ridings, that this is what we can do and this is what we have to vote for. Obviously, to maintain some degree of sanity around here, there will be issues on which we will have to vote party solidarity, but surely to heaven it is not on every vote. If it is on every vote and if we have to speak in favour of our government or against the opposition, or the opposition against the government, on every discussion that takes place in this House, then we have all become replaceable. We will be annihilated like the dinosaurs. We are just wasting taxpayers' dollars. It is something we should think about and try to consider.

One final item: The member for St Catharines talked about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everybody thinks that is a marvellous piece of legislation. I have to say I have my doubts. It is a nice phrase, "the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Unfortunately, it has reached the stage where it is just freedoms, no responsibilities, and that is devastating. That erodes the very foundations of society.

We are seeing decisions being made by judges. With all due respect to the judges, they are making decisions on policy which governments used to make, democratically elected members of this House and the Parliament. They were accountable to the public in the final, ultimate thing -- the vote. With all due respect to the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada -- they are very learned and, I am sure, very caring and honest men and women -- they are making policy that will change, and has already changed, the fabric of a myriad of issues in our society.

The Acting Speaker: I remind the member that we are talking about interim supply.

Mr Callahan: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does in fact impact significantly on the costs to this province if we look at the number of cases that had to be thrown out in the lower courts because of decisions made in the Askov case; if we look at the number of changes that have to be made to our policies, to our laws, where our laws are declared unconstitutional because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in place.

I know people will probably say, "Well, Bob, you don't believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." I do believe in it, I think there is some good content in it, but I think it has given too much policymaking power to people who are not accountable in terms of election. They can remain in office until they are 75 and, as I said, I am sure they do the best they can interpreting the charter and creating fairness under the charter. That is their job. I do not dispute that at all, but I think we as legislators have put them in a position where they are now making decisions that should really be made by elected representatives, not by the judges.

I join with what I think I heard the member for St Catharines say regarding the difficulties the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is creating and is going to create in terms of law and order in our society, not just for today but in the future. If members do not believe this, they should take a look at the United States. The US Bill of Rights does not go half as far in its content and interpretation thus far as our Charter of Rights and Freedoms does. We are in fact creating a scenario that allows elements in this society to have a leg up that should not have a leg up. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a large degree assists and can be used by unscrupulous people in this community.

In my riding recently I found a 14-year old boy outside a beer store selling chocolate-covered candies. He was alleging, not by specific, direct word but inferentially, that he was selling these for a charitable organization. I walked up to the kid and said: "Where did you come from? What charity is this for?" He said, "Well, it's not a charity," yet it had very clearly on the wrapper "In aid of the welfare of children."

I said, "How did you get here?" He said, "I was dumped off in a truck by somebody from Toronto." Apparently there were 10 or 20 of these kids selling chocolate bars, worth about 50 cents, for $3.50 to unsuspecting people, members of my community.

Somebody jokingly said -- and it may not be all that unkind -- that the guy running the whole thing might be 12 years old, and if he is 12 years old or under, he cannot be charged under the Criminal Code. He becomes literally a free agent in terms of running criminal activities.

These are things about which we should be very jealous and guard very carefully. We may need the impetus and the courage in the forthcoming discussions about constitutional change to perhaps look at that, because if we do not, we are going to create an environment that we are not going to be very happy about in about five or 10 years. I am sure none of us wants that.

To bring this right back to the question of interim supply, all of that costs the province not just money -- that is important -- but it also costs in terms of human loss, agony, hurt and family breakups. Those things are probably more important than the economic side of it but also result in further economic costs to this government.

I urge all members to be innovative and vigilant, not to allow the present procedure in this House to take place all the time that requires them to vote for every single thing the government says they have to vote for. If they do, at the end of their session here, be it this term, next term or five terms from now, they are not going to have much satisfaction in going back and thinking about what they could have done but did not, when they were given a sacred trust by the people of their ridings.

Mr Bisson: I listened with interest to the member for Brampton South speak on the question of how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can, if not properly administered, in some way work against us as citizens. I, for one, share that view to a certain extent.

There was a little bit of generalizing in the way the member put it across, but I think the point is well made that if we do not watch ourselves and if we do not find a way of dealing with that, we can see a lot of our rights diminished by special-interest groups that happen to have the money to make it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We have seen those types of decisions made recently around the Election Finances Act, challenged by some corporations, that allowed the Conservatives access to money to be able to make it through the last general election.

The other point the member makes is that he hopes government members will remember that they should not always vote on the side of the government. I say to the member that we live in a parliamentary system with quite a bit of tradition that says that to a certain extent we are elected here as parties and we are here to carry out an ideology that our party and caucus strongly believe in.

I would point out one thing, though, to the member who just spoke. I would like to see what his voting record was while he sat on this side of the House and whether he voted against his government on all occasions.

Mr Callahan: I am not going to take much time, Mr Speaker. Others would like to participate in this debate.

I can tell the member opposite that my record -- and I invite him to look it up -- would demonstrate that throughout my tenure in the House I attempted to meet each issue, look at it and vote the way I thought appropriate. I did not do that on all occasions because, as I have said, I agree that we are elected on a particular party philosophy. In reviewing for my private member's motion, I found that in the United Kingdom 82 votes took place; the members voted as they wished and the government did not come tumbling to the ground.

Also, in the McGrath report reviewing this entire issue, somebody came up with the astute decision that when governments have a large majority, every vote becomes not a vote of confidence but a vote of respectability. In other words, if you do not win every vote and if everybody does not vote the same way on each occasion, it makes the government look as though it does not have control of its members. Surely to heaven that is not the reason we were elected, to be controlled; we were elected to espouse the philosophy of our party, but not on each and every occasion; to participate in debate in the House without necessarily being so blinded by our particular philosophy that we could not be innovative and perhaps plan ahead.

1530

Mr Stockwell: The interim supply debate is always interesting. It is wide-ranging. It encompasses many different facets of government and dwells mostly upon the issues we have faced in the last few months generally in that session.

I would like to go a little further back and remind the government, as I have on a number of occasions, that we should always go back to that day in August, August 19, 1990, when the now Premier, the member for York South, who was leader of the official opposition at the time, was determining exactly how best he could manipulate the voters to ensure he would be elected Premier. I am sure the Premier would much rather forget that fateful day, August 19, 1990, because that was the day he announced his Agenda for People, the noblest, fairest, most honest document that ever came down the political stream.

It is kind of humorous; it is kind of funny. I like running into acquaintances and some friends who are socialists, who are members of the NDP. I have enjoyed running into those people in the last year or so because I have found their comments to be very interesting and very enlightening.

I find there are three kinds of socialists left in Ontario. The first kind is Socialist A, who basically still stands by the party pap and the rhetoric the NDP espoused in August and September 1990. This group is generally made up of the people across the floor, because of course they are paid to say what they say. You will never change their minds, although I take great delight in pointing out the inaccuracies and the changes and the differences between them and the old socialists we knew, the guys who were bearded and had check jackets with elbow pads ironed on and so on. In talking to them, they are still of the firm belief that this is the party of the people. "We got off to a slow start" is what they will say; and "Sure, auto insurance was an issue, but, gosh, we had to change our minds because we were really stupid before."

It is kind of interesting. You run into those people, then you run into the second group who are kind of on the fence in every decision this government makes and try to defend in here from day care to co-operative housing to auto insurance. They are really having trouble. Their guts and their hearts are saying, "I can't support these people any more. They just aren't saying what I want them to say," and their heads are saying: "But, gee, who can I support? I can't support the Tories because they won't ever put a piece of trash out like this and pretend they endorse it."

After those two groups, you run into the third group. I have a great deal of fun running into this third group of socialists. These are the pre-September 6 socialists, not the post-September 6 socialists. These are the rank and file, the ones who knocked on doors, and maybe they are elected to local councils, etc, the true socialists who used to dump all over the Tories and the Liberals in the past. They would have glib one-sentence answers to a lot of very sincere and difficult problems, much like the Agenda for People does.

I run into these people and they are just totally disheartened. They realize that basically what they are is nothing more than a bunch of collective, group politicians who are no better or worse than previous governments. Their sanctimony is certainly eroded and they are having a very difficult time because they basically said in no uncertain terms, "This government has sold out on our socialist principles."

It is fun to run into them, because in previous years, in my eight years on local council, I would run into them and they would have instant answers as well. I guess they are discovering that when you shoot the arrows, it is a lot simpler than catching them.

Having said that, on August 19, 1990, the member for York South outlined his new Agenda for People. This is really a great document because it allows all opposition members to photocopy it and, come next election, trot it out and say: "Now here's the group that was leading us to the promised land, the socialists, with answers for all. How have they done on their Agenda for People?"

What is equally interesting, although I did not re-read this until last week when we were talking about having this debate, is that the then Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the group across the floor, issued a press release on that date. He had some really interesting things in that press release, and I think the people of Ontario and certainly the people across the floor, who I do not think read this that much any more, should remember what was said on August 19, 1990. Their leader, the member for York South, who on the day the election was announced called the then Premier Peterson a liar five times in a press conference for not fulfilling his campaign promises --

The Acting Speaker: I realize this is a free-ranging debate, but it would be helpful for me and perhaps for others if you could make a relationship to interim supply for the period commencing November 1, 1991, and ending December 31, 1991.

Mr Stockwell: It is very simple, Mr Speaker. The list of promises that were made on that fateful day on August 19 have a great impact on the operating expenditures we are dealing with today. Anyone could make that assumption or that leap of faith, I suppose, so that is where I am coming from. Although it is a little longer than normal, I think even the members across the floor could follow this.

On August 19, 1990, the Premier, the white knight of the lefties, the socialist king, stood up and made his pronouncement of the Agenda for People. It is very important to bear in mind that not two or three weeks earlier he had sat in that studio downstairs and called the then Premier Peterson, who he has claimed reneged on an auto insurance commitment -- imagine that; that is astounding; he accused the then Premier of reneging on an auto insurance commitment -- a liar five times that day. And here we have the Agenda for People on August 19. He did not know but would know very shortly that he would be the next Premier. He had some really important things to say on this date. Some of those important things we should listen to.

This is from their prized leader, the accuser of liars, the person who accuses people of lying to the public: "I started this campaign by saying our party would not be presenting an endless catalogue of promises to the people of Ontario." Can members imagine him saying that, then introducing this catalogue of endless promises to the people of Ontario? It is unbelievable.

"Men and women across Ontario have told me that they don't want promises that can't be kept." He said that on August 19. The now Premier who accused the then Premier of being a liar said -- and this is unbelievable -- "Men and women across Ontario told me that they don't want promises that can't be kept and they don't trust parties that pretend to serve every need and satisfy every demand." This is astounding.

Having sat through the first year or so of this government and seen the endless list of promises that are broken, it is amazing that on 19 August, 1990, he could have said these things and still face off in the House across from the opposition parties. How he can even stand here and try to defend it is absolutely unbelievable to me.

As we see, it refers back to the expenses today. We can see why he has a difficult time defending such statements as "We don't have a fair tax system." He said, "We don't use election campaigns to discover problems, promise solutions and then ignore them afterwards." With all due respect to the party across the floor, it has discovered more problems since it has been elected than any government in the history of this province. It discovers new problems every day.

The recession was a discovery to these people. In the summer of last year we were well on our way into a recession, and they got elected and somehow they discovered there was a recession in this province. Were they living in caves? That is the question that must be asked. Apparently so, because they discovered the recession when they got elected.

1540

"There are of course costs to our program." This is a beauty. They admit that it is going to cost money to implement the Agenda for People and the Premier who, as I said, accused the then Premier Peterson of being a liar five times in that studio downstairs -- and I would never suggest that the Premier is a liar. I would never suggest that. I would wonder what he calls himself, but I would never make the suggestion.

"Our commitments add up to an affordable program." This Premier is $10 billion in debt and he claims he cannot fulfil his promises because he does not have the money, because he just discovered there was a recession when he got elected. This is scary. It is a very scary situation when this Premier, who accused the then Premier of being a liar five times, discovers there is a recession when he is elected and then goes out and does exactly the same thing he accused Premier Peterson of being a liar for. He reneged on his insurance promises. Even the hard-hearted, even the ring-through-the-nose socialists who get led around this province cannot buy that. Even they cannot buy that.

It leads me into the next set of promises that he did not make, promises that were not just going to be a catalogue of promises. "David Peterson and the Liberals have sat on the sidelines as free trade and punishing interest rates have cut a swath through the Ontario economy." Then, son of a gun, here is a guy who said he would have dashed free trade. He is also the same person who said he was going to have a revolt over the GST. So I do not see a lot of differences between our last two Premiers.

Then he suggested -- get this, Mr Speaker; this is another humorous part of their promises -- on page 3 of his August 19 manifesto that the recession is here. Is that not humorous? They got elected on September 6 and did not know there was a recession, but on August 19 they told us we were in the middle of a recession. Can you get over that, Mr Speaker? We got into a recession and out of a recession inside of two weeks. It is a miracle, an absolute miracle, unless some would suggest -- and I would never suggest this -- maybe they were being less than honest. I do not want to say that. I think that is for other people to say who are far more cynical than I. But definitely I would not make that suggestion.

"The Liberals make promises and they break promises." Can members believe the socialist leader of the NDP government saying something like that? I agree wholeheartedly. One would not want a government elected by making promises it could not keep, would one? Terrible stuff. It is astounding that anyone would think about doing that, making promises they could not keep, such as the day care or the co-operative housing or the auto insurance or the relief to farmers and small businessmen. You would hate to think someone would actually do that, would you not, Mr Speaker? I would never suggest that this government did that. But again, the cynical sorts out there would make that suggestion, and they would put up a pretty good argument if they ever got hold of a copy of this text.

"And that is the choice of this campaign. Across the province New Democrats are saying to the people: 'This is your Ontario, and together we can make sure that people, not simply the rich and powerful, call the shots in Ontario.'"

Some hon members: Hear, hear.

Mr Stockwell: They are still applauding these statements. They cannot get it off their brains. They have got to continue applauding these bits of rhetoric. Here we go. They just do not want the rich and powerful. It seems to me that some would suggest again -- and I am not one -- that maybe Bob White and the unions are calling the shots. I would hate to think that was the case, not with a party that is so upfront, public, fairminded and truthful as a party that would, say, produce the Agenda for People. We would never think that about this party.

Having said that, I think it is very important that we review very quickly -- it would be sort of like a political science course 101 -- the Agenda for People, because the people in Ontario deserve to be reminded of exactly what the members opposite were promising on that day in September 1990. It is very important because their leader did call Premier Peterson a liar five times when he made the announcement. We should make them stand up and defend their record, seeing as how they are so noble and above board and almighty as compared to the other less-than-desirable, less-than-honest parties in this province. I think it is important we go through these.

It is funny. Here we have the first page: A very important factor in this government's application to become the government of Ontario was based on "A Fair Tax Plan for Ontario." "Minimum Corporate Tax": Apparently they have formed a committee. Is that not a novel idea? Here is a government that may not want to face the realities of the situation, so what would you think it should do? They formed a committee. The oldest political axiom in the book: When in doubt, form a committee.

The beauty of all this is that when their Treasurer was asked, "Gee, Mr Treasurer, why did you form a committee on this when you were so convinced, pre-election date" -- that was in the period of time when they were noble, righteous and sanctimonious -- "of exactly how you were going to handle this tax plan?" he muttered something along the lines of: "Well, we weren't in power. We really didn't know what we were talking about."

Is that not hilarious? Is that not funny? Some would be cynical. Not I, of course. Some would suggest they were being less than truthful. Not I. Even some of their own would make those kinds of suggestions, but I would never say that. That would be attacking the Premier of Ontario. That would be like saying five times in a press conference before an election, "Gee, the Premier is a liar." I would never say that. There are some who would say those things -- the Premier, for example -- but I would never say that. But some would.

As we get back to the interim financing debate, we can see clearly in the interim financing debate exactly why a fair tax plan --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Take your seat, please. I am being quite generous in the interpretation and the latitude I am giving the member. I think the member can reciprocate by speaking to supply and not making a mockery of some of the rules of the Legislature, and I think that is taking place at this time.

Mr Stockwell: I would hope I am not making a mockery of this setting. I would not want to do that. What I am trying to point out is that there are people out there who would make these suggestions and, yes, across the floor there have been members who have done so on a very public and real occasion. I am trying to use as much latitude and leeway as this government would have used when it was in opposition. I would certainly hope I would not use any more, and I would beg the indulgence of the Speaker.

We get to "Minimum Corporate Tax."

The Acting Speaker: I call the member to order. He has had the indulgence of the Speaker. The Speaker's patience is running out.

Mr Stockwell: I appreciate that, but I really do not understand exactly what rule I am breaking here. I am dealing with interim supply. I am speaking about issues we are addressing, and with all due respect I do not think I have pushed your limits, Mr Speaker, as this party has in opposition in the past.

"Tax Fairness for the Working Poor," "Succession Duties on Estates of the Rich and Super-Rich," and "Speculation Tax": Some would suggest that maybe they did not know what they were talking about before September 6. I may well have been one of those people. I may have suggested they did not know what they were talking about and were going to get us in a peckful of trouble.

Some would even go as far as to say they were not being truthful. I am not one of those people, but there are people out there saying that. I know that is going to burn their ears, but there are people saying that they were less than truthful in the last campaign. I am not one of them and I hate to think that they are out there, but I think they are out there. I really do.

We got to the tax position that has left us in this interim financing dilemma because they claimed they were going to raise billions and billions of new dollars through this tax plan they had. Of course, it is the same tax plan about which the Treasurer said, "Gee, I don't think we knew what we were talking about," but having said that, they were going to raise some money this way.

We have now formed a committee that is going to report back to this House. First it was supposed to report back in six months. Then they said: "This is a lot more complicated than we thought. We'd better not report back for about a year." They really got looking into it and somebody got the bright idea: "A year is really too quick. We're going to have to report back in, say, about 18 months." Somebody said, "Well, the opposition is going to say we're just stalling this," and somebody said, "Well, we'll put in an interim report." Then someone said, "If we put in an interim report, we won't have to report back for, say, 24 months." So the wheels are turning on the other side. Now we hear it is not 24 but 36.

1550

They could probably base their next campaign on the first two pages of their Agenda for People and all the promises they made in the last campaign in 1990. It seems to be a pretty appropriate way to do business. Again, some would say, "Gee, this government is less than honest." Not I. I would never say that, but there are some who would say that. If they got hold of this, they might have a really good argument to make.

We have "Ontario at Work" and "Interest Rate Relief." I am quoting from the Agenda for People. We were going to have interest rate relief from "the high interest rate policies of the federal Conservatives." We will use "borrowing power and preferential rates."

"Relief for Farmers": $100 million would be made available in interest rate relief. There are farmers in Ontario who would say, again, that this government was less than honest when it made that promise, because we have not seen that $100 million in interest rate relief, nor have we heard of the $100 million in interest rate relief, nor has the government made any noises about introducing that piece of legislation for $100 million.

That leads us right back to the interim supply bill. Why can they not do it? Because they have already spent $10 billion more than they had.

There is a promise about which some out there are going to say, "You guys weren't being real honest," but I am not one of them. I will be clear. Their Premier may well have said that when he was in opposition, as he did on the day they announced the election. He said five times that the then Premier was a liar. I would not be one of those people, but he may well have been.

"Building Homes: The program would make $1.4 billion in mortgage funds available at the government's own long-term cost of borrowing." Here we are again. All those people out there trying to buy homes for the first time would have qualified for this $1.4 billion, yet we have not seen the program; we have not seen the announcement. It must come back to this interim supply. We see the government is $10 billion in debt. Maybe what happened is that the recession is a little worse than they thought it was, because they did not think it existed when they got elected. It must be that way.

We then get to "Small Business Assistance" -- $40 million available. We have not seen that. Again, it comes back to the interim supply amount. I guess the recession was worse, when they announced this on August 19, than they thought it was when they discovered it on September 6. I am not sure how that works, but I am certain someone over there will be able to explain it to somebody somewhere -- if they are asleep.

"Driver-Owned Insurance" -- Is this not interesting? The now Premier at the time of that announcement downstairs called Premier Peterson a liar five times. Five times he called him a liar, and he said one of the reasons he was a liar was that he did not honour his auto insurance promise. Some people out there -- I am not one of them -- are going to think that maybe this government was being less than honest. That would be a terrible thought, but they are thinking it. They have even mentioned to me that this government was not being truthful when it made the auto insurance promise.

I say: "Oh, please, you can't say that about the NDP. They're righteous, they're sanctimonious, they're truthful. They would never do something like make a promise they couldn't keep to get elected." No, not the socialists. Not the Premier, who accused David Peterson five times that day of being a liar for exactly the same thing. I denounce that. I say: "You're wrong. You don't know the socialists." I am getting worried that I might be wrong, but I might not and they might come forward in the next three years and fulfil these promises.

As we go through we see "Job Protection," "Training and Adjustment," "Minimum Wage" and "Pay Equity." We see "Child Care." That is a good one. "New Democrats would provide funding for 10,000 new non-profit child care spaces and for subsidies on 10,000 spaces in each of the next two years." They have not done that, but I think the hilarious part is that they said it would cost only $240 million. Again, it gets back to interim supply. No wonder they have a problem. They actually thought 20,000 day care spaces would cost only $240 million. I think the calculator was broken, because if it were not broken, some would suggest -- again, not I -- that they were being less than truthful. I think the calculator was broken. That must be the problem.

Moving on to "Poverty," that was the eradication of food banks. That was another interesting argument that was made when, of course, government members were in opposition and they could say pretty much anything they wanted or write pretty much anything they wanted, which they did. They would eradicate food banks. I guess the meaning of the word "eradicate" is to do away, gone, delete, finish.

People who are going to food banks now under the NDP government, and maybe the same people who were going to food banks under the Liberal government and the same people who were going to food banks under the Conservative government, may say that the government members were being maybe a little less than honest. But I would never say that, because they do have this financing problem with interim supply. The financing problem they have is that they have overspent the budget by $10 billion without really fulfilling one campaign promise. So I would not say that. Interim supply being a wide-ranging ability to debate and discuss different aspects of this government allows me the opportunity to say, "Gee, I guess the calculator is broken."

"Protection for Seniors." The seniors are really concerned. In fact a couple of seniors have said to me on a few occasions, "You know, Mr Stockwell, I don't think this government was being real truthful." I again stand up for the members opposite. I say: "No, it cannot be. Not the socialists. Not the NDP. You mean, the people who wrote An Agenda for People, you honestly believe they were just saying these things to get elected?" Then of course they understand and say, "Oh, I think I lost my head for a moment there," and they get back to reality.

Not the socialists; they would never say things like that. Liberals and Conservatives would, but never the socialists. They could not say that because their Premier, on that day when they announced the election downstairs, called Premier Peterson a liar five times for not fulfilling his campaign promises. They could not do that and look themselves in the mirror, so it could not be them.

"Rights to a Clean Environment" -- this is another good one, the environmental bill of rights. That was so easy to write on this side of the House. They wrote it two or three times, I think, and they introduced it. Now when they get to that side of the House, I think they honestly forget how to write. That is the excuse I use for that one: They forget how to write.

Mr McLean: You forgot "Rent Control."

Mr Stockwell: I forgot "Rent Control," which was a total move to the right from the principles they espoused when they were in opposition. Even some people in apartment buildings have suggested that this was less than honourable, but I am not one of them and I have defended members opposite.

"Clean Air" and "Preserving Agricultural Land" -- we heard today about agricultural land, a weigh station on four acres of land. Then they are parcelling up the Niagara area an acre at a time to finance the operations, which again is something members opposite have opposed. They will get around to it, right, in a few years? There is no question. I said that to them. They have been really busy.

"Improving Public Transit" -- this is interesting. They announced the program for Metropolitan Toronto about moving forward and the $5 billion. We have not seen a dollar yet, but they announced it so they must mean it, right? They have to mean it, because they did the announcement.

"Responding to Needs of Native People" and building the northern fund. This one is interesting as well, because they are talking about single-industry towns and the Liberals bleeding the north dry. "We propose a northern fund of $400 million over two years," returning jobs and $200 million a year.

Then we get down to another northern promise. I was up in the north not long ago, in Thunder Bay, and people were not sure but they said to me that maybe government members were not telling the truth when they made the promise that they would four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway. I said: "You're kidding, aren't you? You can't tell me you don't believe they meant that." They say they did not. I say, "Now, come, come, not the socialists," and they say, "Yes, the socialists."

It is of very much concern to people in the north too that maybe the government members made a couple of promises they could not keep. I do not think that is the case, but again they will have to go up and defend that decision and ask them about it and probably in the next election a Conservative or a Liberal may well pull this out. Government members had better warn their northern members. They had better be warned that somebody might say, "We promised to four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway and we didn't do it," so they had better have an answer. What about "We forgot"? That is another good answer. "We forgot. We meant to four-lane it but we just never got around to it."

1600

They were not being irresponsible. They said they could do all these things, which I thought was really good of them because they put a pricetag on them, and their expenditures for 1991 would be around $44.5 billion. Now here we go. We have all these promises. This comes back to interim financing. Interim financing is really important, because we have a government that made a lot of promises, which we calculated at $14 billion or $16 billion. Of course, we were just Conservatives, we were merely Tories. We were just trying to get elected, so we calculated the figure at $14 billion to $16 billion. The government members, being the true socialists they are, who would never make a promises they could not keep, suggested it would cost $2.38 billion to do all these programs and of course the expenditures for the 1991 operating budget would be about $44.5 billion. Well, we have seen that the operating budget this year is, I think, $53 billion or $54 billion.

They have not even fulfilled these promises and they have already spent $10 billion more than they thought they would spend. Again people across this province will say, "They weren't being honest." But they do not know the government. They do not know that it would never ever make a promise during an election campaign that it could not keep in order to get elected. No, they would not do that. In that studio downstairs, when the then Premier Peterson announced the election, they would not do that because their leader, the member for York South, called Premier Peterson a liar five times for not fulfilling his campaign promises. They would never ever do that.

That is what I tell them. Again they come back and say: "Gee, I don't know what got into me. I don't know why I said that." I almost thought for a moment, a fleeting moment, that some of them said to me -- I have washed it right out of their heads -- "Gee, I thought for a moment there that the socialists were just politicians." I straightened them out right away. I said: "No, they're more than politicians. They're not mere politicians who would make promises to get elected. They would never do that." People read the Agenda for People and these are the conclusions they reach. The government has a lot of spade work to do out there, to get out to the constituencies, to get out to all these people who are thinking these impure thoughts and straighten them out and tell them: "No, we wouldn't do that. This is a figment of your imagination, the Agenda for People. We didn't do that." They are going to have to face the fact that some are going to say they were less than honest, but they can handle those people.

Dealing with a few of the issues we are faced with today that were spoken about in the Agenda for People -- again it is the wide-ranging debate of the interim supply bill and how come the promises cannot be kept or are taking longer to keep -- one of these would be waste disposal. I am running into people in the regions of Peel and York who are somewhat concerned that, as Mayor Hazel calls her, the Great White Mother, the Minister of the Environment, who was so pro-public hearings and pro-environment when she was on the opposition side, has moved that the Keele Valley and Britannia dump sites be expanded without a minute of public hearings, without a minute of environmental assessment hearings. There are people out there in Peel and York who think that when the government's leader stood on those sites and said, "Never will I allow these dump sites to be expanded without full environmental assessment hearings," he was being less than honest.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Lay off. Enough.

Mr Stockwell: Exactly. I said that: "Enough. Stop it. You've obviously lost your mind for a minute. They would never do that. Even the Liberals know that. They would never do that." Our caucus quite often goes into the fact that, "Gee, I'd like to attack them on their promises but they would never say things to get elected that they didn't mean." No, not the socialists.

Another interesting issue of concern that has happened in the past few months is that the police are investigating opposition members and trying to find out exactly where they got leaked documents. If this government had been in opposition at the time these documents were leaked and had got its hands on these documents and had asked a question about them or outlined them in the House here and another government -- say, someone as wily and unkind and almost dishonest as the Liberals or Conservatives -- had sent in the police, I think this government would have been very upset.

I think it was obviously just something that came up and they did not give a lot of thought to. So again I protect their interest when this debate comes up about the police investigation and the fact that they were not doing anything they would not have expected when they were in opposition. For instance, if they had got a secret envelope and introduced it in the House, I think the member for York South would have been accepting of the fact that yes, they sent in the police to find out where he got the envelope. I think they would have accepted that. I do not know why they would not do that.

With regard to the power corporation, gee, I do not know. I did not hear any promises -- speaking about interim supply again and the financing of this great province -- during the Agenda for People or the campaign that they were going to raise hydro rates by nearly 50% over a three-year period of time. I never heard those promises. Some say they never made them because they thought it would not get them a lot of votes. But I straighten them out and tell them: "No, that's not the way it is. They didn't know about it. They were not sure that was what they would have to do, fund social programs through the process or try to fob off the payroll of the chief executive officer and chairman to the board rather than taking the responsibility themselves because they did not want to have the flak from the public." I said: "No, they never had those ideas. That's just something that has come up."

Sunday shopping is crucial. This is a tough one. This is a real tough one when I get a constituent who comes up to me and says things like: "This party was in favour of a common pause day for all 12 months in a year. Now they are in power, they are saying to me we can have a common pause day 11 months out of the year and for the 12th month they are not in favour of a common pause day." They are saying that the government was being less than honest once again, but I defend it.

I say things like, "No, they gave this a lot of thought in caucus and they decided we can shop on Sunday in every month that starts with a letter D." They have come to the conclusion that this is a good policy to have. They have decided: "Gee, we can protect the workers' rights 11 months of the year, but it is way too onerous and way too time-consuming to protect the workers' rights 12 months of the year. To alleviate a lot of work, we'll only protect them 11 months and then in the 12th month we'll say to everybody, 'Don't worry, you're being protected.'"

I really have a tough time following that theory, because if they can be protected in December, why can they not be protected in all the other months of the year. If they can protect the workers in the month of December against the problems and concerns they have for a common pause day, why do they not just introduce the same legislation for 12 months of the year? Here is a brainwave. Here is a bolt. Maybe one of them could catch this. Maybe they could introduce a piece of legislation, patterned on the legislation they just introduced, that could protect the workers in December and the other 11 months. That is just crazy enough to work. They should take that one to cabinet and somebody should stand up and say that. Of course, it was not exactly what they said in the election, and they would not say something to get elected and they would not make a promise they could not keep, but if they did, that seems like a way to do it. I know they would not, but if they did.

I think labour laws are driving people and businesses out of this province. People in business are going to have very grave concerns about the labour laws. I have spoken to a number of businesses. I think when they are introduced, there will be an exodus to south of the border or to Manitoba or to Quebec.

I would have liked to get into law and order but I think there is an opportunity for others to enter into this debate. It would be of interest to hear what they had to say. Maybe they could give me some ideas of what I could say to members of the public when they come and tell me the government was being less than honest when it wrote the Agenda for People and is not doing any of it. Maybe they could give me ideas about what I can respond to my constituents, to tell them: "Gee no, they're being honest. They just didn't know what they were doing, as the Treasurer said, or they were being far too simplistic, as the Treasurer said." Or should I just say what the Premier said to Mr Peterson, "You're a liar"? Should I say that, or what exactly?

There are a lot of broken promises here, or potentially broken promises, and there are a lot of people out there who have some real grave concerns. Sunday shopping is one.

1610

Mr McLean: School funding.

Mr Stockwell: Another one is school funding, and I should get to that, because right now we are in the midst of a municipal election. I am glad this one was brought up.

Right now we are in the midst of a municipal election and there are trustees out there running for the school boards who have said things like, "The NDP promised 60% funding but knew full well it couldn't deliver." Imagine someone standing up and saying publicly that this government made a promise of school board funding of 60% of costs and knew it could not do it, that it was just making promises to get elected.

Their ears should burn when this happens, because they are being talked about in every community hall and at every all-candidates meeting that is taking place for the trustees. Everybody is saying, "Gee, this government might not have been telling the whole truth when it was running last time."

I pop up at every one of those meetings and stand up and say: "Hold the phone, folks, they've got three more years to fulfil that promise. They said to us in the House that they'll fulfil that promise, even though they are $10 billion in debt." It is going to cost billions and billions of dollars to do it, and even their Minister of Education said it is impossible to do and "I don't think we can do it."

The government will still fulfil that promise, will it not? Because otherwise it would be letting down a whole bunch of people. Worst of all, people would start saying things like, "Wow, those socialists are just politicians," or "Those socialists said some things in the election that they had no intention of keeping."

I am glad I had the opportunity of discussing interim supply. I think this government has some problems, as all governments have. It has some problems with respect to promises it has made, but the very greatest problem that this government has is this, and I will say it to the public --

Mr Johnson: Right now it's you.

Mr Stockwell: Maybe it is me. Maybe I am their biggest problem. Maybe the member is right. But I want to remind the government members of the things they promised just so they do not forget. I would not want to see them fall off the soapbox they preach from or used to preach from. I do not want to see them do that, or fall out from under their halos. So I am going to promise that I will keep reminding them of these things until they fulfil them all.

The most important problem this government faces is that fateful day on August 19, 1990, when its leader, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, made these promises and these statements, because they are socialists and they have always told us that they will do as they say. They do not like parties that make promises and break promises. They have said it right in here. They do not like parties that will just say anything to get elected and they do not like to list a catalogue of promises they cannot keep. This is their big problem: They have gone into power with those promises and commitments outstanding and they are falling well behind in a lot of their commitments and promises.

The other problem the government faces, all of this aside, come next election, is that the day the election was announced its leader sat downstairs in that studio and said five times that Premier Peterson was a liar for not fulfilling his campaign promises. He said that five times. They have two problems: They have a catalogue of promises they have made and a leader who called another leader a liar for not fulfilling his campaign promises.

Interim supply is an interesting debate. It allows the opposition time to go over some of the motions and legislation and to go over the last election and look the people across the floor in the eye and say: "Tell me when you're keeping your catalogue of promises. It is getting very difficult to defend you."

Mr Drainville: After listening for a considerable length of time to the rhetoric and hyperbole of the honourable member opposite, I must say that I have been noting with regularity the verbal inexactitudes with which he has peppered his discourse.

In his attempt to pillory the Premier in terms of the comments he made on the day the election was called, I must say, as a member who has sat across from the honourable member for Etobicoke West, that on many occasions his own speeches and his own comments and interjections during the House have not been, let's say, without some inflammatory aspects. Words like "bunk," "unreal," "garbage," "that's embarrassing," "resign" and a number of other things that would be totally unparliamentary for me to mention here have been uttered by the honourable member.

I must say in those terms, when he says to us over here that he defended us, he could not defend us because he cannot stand on anything that he believes. He attacks the government, but does he put forward his own agenda? No. He raises the Agenda for People, in my view a fine document that indicated the direction we want to go in in Ontario. If he says we have not complied with promises, indeed we have not, and it is a credit to this government that we have been willing to accept the financial difficulties and challenges that we have.

I must say, in terms of this constant attempt to vilify by making himself look noble in the process and by saying that he defended the government, we know the truth of this situation, and the truth is that he is trying to make others look bad at the expense of not putting forth one wit of credible policy or evidence.

Mr Bradley: The member had a lot of interesting things to say, but one of the things I was surprised at was that he did not raise the issue of Niagara farm land disappearing.

Mr Stockwell: I did.

Mr Bradley: Perhaps he did and I just missed that part of the speech. The reason is that we have a situation where the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario is attempting to expropriate land from farmers in the Beamsville area.

There is a Martin Schuele who, it says in Friday's St Catharines Standard in an article by Carol Alaimo, "is a rarity among Niagara farmers -- he's optimistic about his future. That's why he cannot believe the Ontario government wants to pave over part of his vineyard to make way for a massive development at the same time the province is pushing for farm land protection." He wonders why, when the farmers of the Niagara region are forced to keep their land. They cannot sell it; they are restricted by rules of the province from doing that, and by the regional municipality, though it appears to be changing its mind. On the other hand, this government, to set the example, would pave over prime farm land in the Niagara region.

I am a person who believes in the preservation of agricultural land. I have said so on many occasions in this House. That is why I have spoken to and directed questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Food indicating there should be sufficient support for those farmers so they are able to retain their farm land.

I heard the Premier of Ontario in Beamsville announce that he was going to protect farm land in the Niagara region, criticizing previous governments for this. Here we have the Ministry of Transportation bulldozing ahead, expropriating land from farmers who are working hard to save that land. They want to farm that land, and we have the province, led by the Minister of Transportation, doing the opposite. What was most flabbergasting was the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Food apparently knew nothing about this.

Mrs Marland: It is really amazing to hear the member for Victoria-Haliburton get up on his feet and talk about verbal ineptitude -- I think those were the words he used in accusing my colleague the member for Etobicoke West -- when this member for Victoria-Haliburton, I would suggest, is a past master at verbal ineptitude.

The difference -- this member obviously, although he has been here a year, still is not able to see it -- is that the member for Etobicoke West did not promise the Agenda for People. He did not campaign on the promises contained in the Agenda for People. The Agenda for People was the New Democratic Party's campaign promise. It was this socialist government's promise to the people of Ontario, and it is the most insulting campaign literature the people of Ontario have ever been exposed to.

We have a Minister of Education, which I will give just as an example, who will not even visit St James School in my riding, to come and see the kind of conditions those students are trying to be educated under.

We have had all kinds of examples where this government on the one hand talks about how much it cares about the people of Ontario, and at the same time is ignoring the basic needs and rights of those people of Ontario. We can talk about housing, we can talk about health care and we can certainly talk about examples in education. When we look at the kinds of cuts hospitals are having to make in this province today and the whole responsibility for the provision of health care, this government simply does not care.

1620

Mr Johnson: I listened with interest to the member for Etobicoke West and I heard him mention that he did not know what he could tell his constituents. He was having trouble trying to find the things he could tell his constituents about this government. I would suggest that he tell the people in his constituency that many years of bad government in Ontario, leading up to the government this government inherited, is one of the main reasons we are having the difficult time we are having today.

There are more reasons. There are reasons their federal cousins have contributed with the free trade agreement, for example. Certainly the federal government is trying to bring our country into the global economy and most would say that is inevitable, but how they did it is the thing that is so serious, and the fact that they did not plan as well as they should have. They did not have the ability to foresee the future as they should have.

Here we have a member of that party, albeit a provincial member, who says he does not know what to tell people. I suggest that maybe he should tell the people that this government unfortunately inherited a situation that is very tragic, a situation where we found ourselves more in debt than we had anticipated. With the lost industrial and manufacturing jobs, personal income tax revenues are down. People are not buying as they usually do, and the fact that retail sales tax revenues are down has made it very difficult for this government in any way, shape or form to deal with some of the things it said in the Agenda for People that it might like to do.

I think he might remember this and might tell his constituents that this is one of the problems we have to deal with. The fact that this government made suggestions of what it might like to do should it be in government I think is very honourable and some day in fact may be true.

Mr Stockwell: I would comment on the member for Victoria-Haliburton's statement, but as usual it is not worth commenting on, so I will move on and comment on the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

The funny thing is that when I tell constituents I run into that they have a lot of problems, like the recession, that the federal government is not their friend, and that there is the GST, free trade and all those things, do members know what they say to me? They say, "Gosh, Chris, weren't all those things in place when they made the promises?" and I say, "Yes, they were." "Wasn't the GST going through?" I say, "Yes." "Wasn't free trade in effect?" I say, "Yes." "Weren't we in the middle of a recession?" I say, "Yes." "Weren't the Conservatives in power federally?" I say, "Yes."

Then they say to me: "You'd think, Chris, that these people made these promises solely on the proviso to get elected. I don't think they meant them. I don't think they were sincere. I think they just said this so they could form a government." I say: "Even though the GST was there, free trade was negotiated and the government was in place federally, even though all the things were there and you say they're using them as excuses, I say you don't know the socialists, because the socialists wouldn't do that. They're too sanctimonious, too righteous. They have far too many soapboxes to preach from."

The New Democrats have this problem out there and they are going to have to deal with it on a riding-by-riding basis. The whisper campaign -- and I will let the members opposite in on it because it is a secret -- is that they made promises they could not keep. Some people are suggesting, like their leader, that people lie when they do that, but I say they would not do it.

Ms Harrington: This afternoon is an opportunity to look at the interim supply bill. It is also an opportunity, as we have heard today and for several days last week, to assess and reassess this government, the past, the future and the present. I would like to look at the direction of this government, and I would like to also comment on some of the previous comments that have been made with regard to this bill, as the opposition has done.

First, with regard to the previous speaker, it is certainly very obvious and evident to everyone in this chamber that some people just live on a stage, which is a wonderful thing to do if you can, to be in high drama at all times. I did not think too many people could top our own Minister of Culture and Communications, the member from Stratford appropriately enough, who had such a sense of drama over the weekend, with the Prince and her shoe, but certainly this member can try to do that. This member does live on a stage, but the people of Ontario do not live on the stage. They live in the streets, in the homes of Ontario. I ask them. They are the ones who are judging at this moment the evaluation of this government. Obviously that is the way it should be.

The member for St Catharines last week put forward the argument that this government is no different than others, and I would like to touch on that. Also the member for Markham last week made the statement and went into many details about how this government has no business sense, and I would like to address that issue as well.

Last Thursday, I arrived home on Thursday evening and my husband had been watching the House in session. I guess he does this for entertainment. He was telling me how he was very impressed with some of the statements from the member for Brampton South, some very co-operative attitudes, some reaching forward and working together. I appreciate this. Some of the things he was saying today were that we should reform the process, that we as a new government should try to look at this House and how it functions, as well as our interaction with the whole province, and try to bring forward some new ideas to make how this Legislature operates more relevant to the people of Ontario.

I also would like to put forward my own personal view that within the last year -- this is a time to evaluate how our government is doing and where it is going -- I believe we have made a substantial change in attitude in Ontario, and I would like to address that point.

First, I think it is appropriate that we look at the challenges we face. I think everyone would agree that one of the major challenges we face is bringing the spending under control in several large ministries. I think this has been the case for several years. For instance, in the Ministry of Health over the last decade, the increases each year are in the order of 8%, 9% and 10%, and this cannot be sustained.

Other ministries, such as the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Education, are huge spending ministries, and we have to deliver these services to the people of Ontario in a way that is affordable. Everyone knows that. What we have to do then as a government is take much care in evaluating these huge ministries. We cannot change them overnight because they are so important to the people of this province. They do not turn around on a dime.

Second, what we face is not just a downturn in the business cycle; we face a major restructuring of manufacturing in this province, something that is very difficult because the government is not in control of this situation. It is a worldwide interaction. Yet we have an obligation to help the people of this province to plan for the future and have some vision as to what kind of jobs we will have in the future for our children. We cannot say it is not our business. We have to be involved.

Third, what we face in this province is a national constitutional crisis that we have to be involved with. I would like to tell the members here and also the people watching that tonight at 8 o'clock in this very chamber -- it will be televised -- our select committee on Ontario in Confederation will be meeting with the federal joint parliamentary committee to discuss our vision for the future of Canada. I certainly invite everyone to come to the chamber -- it will be open -- and also to watch on television.

1630

The bottom line is that the government is facing not just one but three enormous challenges. An illusion is being put forward -- and it is a very plausible one at times -- that there is a great difference, a great gap between those people who believe in equity in society and those people who believe in efficiency. I am here to tell members that we have to believe in both.

Most of us on this side, as I think the opposition may have pointed out in the past, may have got involved in politics because of a social justice issue. I must admit that I got involved with environmental concerns locally and then I was involved with women's issues. Those are my roots, that is what I believe in, that is why I am here. I do not deny that. But the creation of wealth is crucial and we as a government have to address that. Why? Because social justice issues are impossible to change effectively without a healthy economy. We can look at it as a pyramid. On the base of that pyramid is our taxation base, our jobs situation. What we collect in taxes, we can then reform the system with, but it will not work unless we have a healthy economy.

Before this year, there was enough gravy in the system that things could be changed. Now there is no more gravy. It is going to be a difficult time. What we have to do is have a level of trust in our society. We have to work together because of the huge problems I have just described.

I would like to give members a sense of an event in my riding this weekend. On Saturday evening there was a conference in Niagara Falls. It is a beautiful place to come for a conference. We have lots of facilities. At this conference, we had several officials from the Catholic school boards across Ontario. I had an opportunity to talk with them to find out how they feel about our government. We also had the Minister of Education there speaking to them. There was a level of understanding from officials of the Roman Catholic school boards across Ontario that we face a difficult time. There is considerable trust, I would put forward, and co-operation. They are in fact willing to co-operate with their coterminous public school boards and co-operate with the government. We are all in this together.

The previous speaker was talking about problems of believability. I think it is up to all of us in this House to put forward in our own personal way whether and how this government can be believable. We have to be honest. We have to be straightforward and tell it like it is.

Let's assess where we are at this time. About last August, getting towards the anniversary of the election, many people, including the press, wanted to evaluate this government. This is from the Toronto Star. It says, "But there is evidence that, after a difficult first year, Rae has sorted out his priorities."

Success "depends on co-operation from business. One of the unanswered questions" -- and I put this to members and the people of this province -- "is who in the business community will step forward and work with a government that fairly and squarely won last year's election and has a mandate to govern to the mid-1990s." We are here, we are extending our hand and we are asking the same question the Toronto Star asked, "Who is willing to come with us for the benefit of this province, for the benefit of the future?"

The Globe and Mail, towards the end of July, made this comment in an editorial, "There need be no conflict between progressive, compassionate government and basic economic literacy." That is what I am telling members here today. We have to put those two things together.

I would like to give just a couple of more quotes to see if I can interest anyone.

One of my friends in the Ontario Home Builders' Association whom I have met with, Al Libfield, president, said a few months ago about our budget, "I think in the long run it will mean more jobs."

The mayor of Windsor said, "There seems to be a real willingness on the part of this province to play ball with manufacturers and also to stimulate research and development and diversification in the economy."

When I was elected at the municipal level, there was a great deal of tension between the provincial and the municipal levels over not co-operating together. I do not want to speak out of turn, but I believe that relationship is improving. It is very key that we work in partnership with the municipalities across this province, so it is our responsibility as government to try to build confidence. But it is a two-way street.

I would like to give a few quotes from the Premier, to show that is it not just myself: "Confidence is so important. Wealth creation is crucial. 'Competitiveness'" -- a word that we heard quite a bit about this last weekend -- "is a word that makes a lot of sense to me. Prosperity, the creation of wealth, attracting investment, encouraging innovation, encouraging...entrepreneurship, change, accepting markets, making them function effectively, rewarding innovation, creating profits -- these are things which have to happen in any society. ...unless these things happen, it becomes very difficult for that society to function effectively or fairly. In fact, it becomes impossible."

Those are the words of the Premier. Co-operation is important, and I would put forward that management and labour have for too long been working in two solitudes.

This is also a quote from the Premier, what he would like to see: "Let us see a business leader" --

Mr B. Murdoch: I hope it is not too long.

Ms Harrington: My friend the member for Grey, I am sure, would like to hear this.

Picture this: "When a business leader goes down to the Empire Club and says: 'Enough of this nonsense, attacking trade unions. We have got to get them involved and get them more involved, not less involved, in how we do things.'"

On the other hand, the Premier would also like to see a trade union leader go in front of an audience of workers and say: "Look, folks, we have to be concerned about wealth creation. We have to be concerned about the efficiency and productivity of our firms, because unless that happens, we simply will not be able to sustain the kind of life that we have grown used to and that we need to have in this province." Those are the realities.

In August, I believe it was on my anniversary, I went to speak to several clubs. One was the Rotary Club. Another was the landlords of the Niagara region, so I really had quite an anniversary. At the Rotary Club, after speaking to them for a few minutes, in closing I said: "I know, gentlemen, that I did not see any of you, that I recall, at my nomination meeting a year ago, but be that as it may, we are in this city together. We are in this province together and we must work together." That is the two-way street that I was talking about.

I would like to tell the House and the people of this province a little bit further. Ten days ago, under the auspices of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, we had our first meeting of the small business committee of our caucus. I would like to let everyone know what the mandate of this committee of parliamentary assistants is, because I believe, and I think our caucus also believes, that small business and business in Ontario is important, as I have just stated.

The mandate of this committee is to ensure "that the Ontario government has a positive, co-ordinated approach to small business," and I take that seriously. The mandate is also "to help ensure the government's agenda is implemented in a manner sensitive to the success and growth of small business in Ontario." It is also to screen "new legislation and rules to make them as responsive as possible to the realities of how small business operates."

1640

This government is new in Ontario. It has been here a year. But I remember going 10 years ago to a federal NDP convention in Vancouver, BC. At that point, I believe there had been an NDP government there in the previous decade. When stepping off the plane in Vancouver there were lobbyists coming up to the delegates giving us pamphlets from the small business community of British Columbia saying how well it had worked with the New Democratic government in British Columbia back in the 1970s, and they were trying to influence the federal NDP convention at that time.

I would also like to throw this in for the record. I grew up in Saskatchewan, and way back then Tommy Douglas was the Premier. If members would care to look at the record of the economy of Saskatchewan back in those days, one could certainly see that there was an economy that was healthy, that there was an economy that was balanced, and that the government of Tommy Douglas looked out for all the people in that province, and that is what our government has to do as well.

The bottom line here is that we have to build confidence for the economic future of this province, but I would also like to add that at the same time we must not compromise our principles. We came here with concerns about the environment. We came here with concerns about labour reform. We came here with concerns about how energy is generated in this province. We will continue to bring that baggage with us because that is what we believe in. Those are our roots.

In closing, I have one further matter. I wish to look at some of the attitude I find coming the odd time from members of the opposition, the attitude of, "Let's go back to the good old days." It seems that somewhere there were good old days we could go back to. I do not know whether it was the 1950s or the 1960s or what sort of Tory era this was, but I would like to say that I went to university in the 1960s. It was a wonderful time; it was a wonderful experience. From my point of view, everything was great in the province. Subdivisions were expanding across the towns of Ontario. We were looking towards nuclear power. There was, we hoped, a new car in every garage; that was the aim of life. There was progress at any cost: "Bigger is better."

I think we have to rethink those good old days and see if that was the reality back then. It was for me; I had those privileges, the opportunity. Maybe it was people who were WASPs, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, but that was not the reality back then for many other people. Let's deal with reality here.

What about the disenfranchised, whether it was women, disabled people, minorities or native peoples? Members opposite should just think about what life was like for people back in the good old days. We do not want to go back to the good old days. We want the good new days ahead.

I would like to end by giving the members a little flavour of what I heard last weekend at the conference we convened at the University of Toronto on the Constitution of Canada. We heard some very powerful thoughts. One of the most powerful speakers there was a person from the Assembly of First Nations, Gordon Peters. He said to us as a government and as a group of people representing all of Ontario -- there were 130 people there -- he pleaded with us, saying: "We must end the denial of our existence as native people. Let's think about that. End the denial of our existence." I think maybe that is what we have to do. In those good old days we denied the existence of very many people in Ontario, not because we wanted to but because that was the way it was.

I would just like to finish off by telling the members a little bit more of what Gordon Peters said: "Since the Indian Act of 1924, our value as a people was rejected. We want simply to live side by side with respect, as many other people in Ontario want to. We want to live, as native people, by natural laws in harmony and we are still extending our hand with love and respect to the people of Ontario, to the people of Canada." I hope we as a government, with the help of the opposition, can evaluate where we are going and do the very best possible job for the people of Ontario.

Mr Grandmaître: I have a whole lot of respect for the member for Niagara Falls, but what I have just heard from her is: "This is life. This is what we're faced with. These are the facts of life." I accept that we have to deal with the facts of life, but I would like to remind the member that 14 months ago, when the NDP prepared its agenda for the future, this is where it failed. I am not going to chastise the members opposite for saying: "We've made a mistake and we'll take a second look at our budget. We'll take a second look at our programs." But no, they are not willing to talk about these things in the House.

Ministers are afraid to make statements, so how can we deal with these difficulties they are going through? They are asking us to work with them hand in hand. How can we do this when ministers do not even show up in the House? How can we improve the programs? How can we work with government members? The good old days are gone. Members opposite are the new government. They are supposed to have new approaches. We want to know what these new approaches are. We want to work with them, but they do not have a program. All they have is a deficit for the next four years that will bring down the financial --

Hon Mr Pouliot: We went home.

Mr Grandmaître: Thank you. Another minister, the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is leaving. It is not important for him that he should resolve the problems of this province. Maybe when he gets back I will give him another lesson. I just want to remind the member that we want to work with him, but he should bring us things to work with.

Mr Stockwell: I listened to the comments of the member who just spoke, both in the House and out of the House, and I will say I have a tremendous amount of respect for her. The real concern I have with the presentation and with the statements that were made is that they are looking for some kind of olive branch from the opposition so that we may work together to build a better Ontario, etc. I think that olive branch must come from across the floor.

Some of the concerns that have been outlined in this House very pointedly have been made by the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties: the concern about ministers not making statements, of not being involved in any sort of decision-making, even the committee process itself, where rational and responsible recommendations that are made to pieces of legislation are dismissed. Then we hear announcements that come back to this House from the Solicitor General with respect to Sunday shopping. His position on Sunday shopping, to the previous speaker, is, "Either you accept this marginal amendment you would like and buy the whole package or it is nothing at all."

1650

Before the government can go around resolving the ills of the world, I think it has to start looking at itself and -- I will harp on this till the day this House rises and goes to the next election -- at its Agenda for People. Maybe they should analyse that Agenda for People and admit that it was farsighted --

Mr Christopherson: Hear, hear.

Mr Stockwell: I am sorry. I mean it was farfetched and impossible to fulfil. Until they do that, how can they expect anyone, from constituents, the electorate, to the opposition parties, to give them a shred of credibility when they still have this parcel outstanding without any hope of endorsing or implementing it? It is not a credible position.

Mr Perruzza: I am very pleased to be able to respond to some of the arguments made here this afternoon. It would seem from some of the comments and suggestions made by both Liberal and Conservative Party members that the NDP, in government for one year, has brought down all the ills that have ever been cast on the people of Ontario.

They quickly forget that the Conservative Party has a federal partner which has been in government in very good times, in booming times, and the Liberals also governed this province during boom periods. They heaped large amounts of tax on the people of this province and the people of this country. They committed themselves and overextended themselves to programs which this government now essentially has to honour -- big commitments.

I remember a little while ago, in a by-election somewhere in Quebec, the federal Tories going in and dumping all kinds of money into the province to elect Lucien Bouchard. Lucien Bouchard turned on Mulroney and company, but that was big money to elect that member. Those were good times.

The provincial Liberals taxed everybody on everything imaginable. There was the commercial concentration tax. They devised sneaky, backdoor ways of getting into everyone's wallets, and they got into so many different kinds of programs that we now have to honour.

Mr Bradley: I was surprised that the speech by the member for Niagara Falls did not deal with a couple of items that I thought it might. First of all, I thought she might refer to the computerized axial tomography scanner that is very much needed in the Niagara Peninsula. She would know there is a lineup now of some five or six months for people who need the use of a diagnostic tool such as the CAT scanner, and I know she would be supporting this initiative that I have raised many times in this House. Whether at Niagara Falls or Welland or St Catharines, wherever the CAT scanner or CAT scanners are located, I know she would consider that to be important.

A second item that I thought might be mentioned was the $100 that used to go to those students who worked so very hard to achieve the title of Ontario scholar. I was at Lakeport Secondary School last Friday night. What had happened there was that one of the parents, matched by the members of the teaching staff, had provided the funds for the Ontario scholarship, because these people felt so badly that those students who had worked hard -- this was a reward for hard work and for excellence, two things we want to see in the province of Ontario -- had it pulled out from underneath them without any notice. This was something that was always proposed to the previous government, but we felt we should reward excellence and hard work on the part of those students.

The last thing I want to mention, because the Minister of Culture and Communications is here, is that I am very disappointed that TVO, having heard the disappointment of some members of the Legislature that question period was being moved from 11 o'clock or 11:30 to 12 o'clock -- as usual, the chairman of TVO in his own style, or someone over there, has now ensured that question period does not start until 12:30. So those who are genuinely interested but who do not have cable TV and have to rely on Ontario's educational television network, TVO, now have to wait until 12:30. One would hope the minister would intervene to ensure that would not be the case.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls, you have two minutes.

Ms Harrington: Thank you very much for the opportunity to put forward my ideas and thoughts in this House. I want to reiterate the message that I was not trying to give a meaningless olive branch to the opposition, because I know that is in most cases quite useless; it is unreal is what I am saying.

The message I was trying to convey is that for the future of this province there has to be a confidence, a dealing with this government in a way that says that, yes, we are the government, yes, we are making decisions, and the business community should be dealing with us. It is as simple as that.

I also want to reiterate what the member for Brampton South originated, which is that there should be and could be reforms within the processes of this Legislature. It has probably been around for centuries, going back to the British system, and there are many traditions. Traditions are good, but we also have to look at whether they are impeding the progress of this province.

I appreciate the responses from the other members. I did not get a chance to go on about cross-border shopping, which is something I am very concerned about as an economic consequence in my community and across the whole province. It is something that is tied up with this whole idea of confidence as well. We have to have confidence that our way of life is worth supporting and is better than anybody else's. I do not mind people shopping over there if they have to; I understand that. I am saying we have to realize what is different about Ontario before we go spending our money over there, and realize the consequences.

Mr Cordiano: I am delighted to have this opportunity to reflect, and obviously we in this House are all reflecting on what has taken place over the last year or year and a half with respect to the new regime that now leads this province into the future. I have listened very carefully to the previous speakers talk about what took place in the last year and a half.

I was very interested in some comments that were made about the last election. Members have talked about the spirit of co-operation. I know the Premier, upon being elected, talked about changing the nature of the way the business of this House is conducted and the spirit of co-operation that must rise above all else to make this place run better. I know there are good intentions behind that. I know most members would want nothing more.

I am sorry to say that we did not get off on a very good foot and that in fact the tone of the last election was quite a nasty one. I can remember not just the leaders of the parties discussing their disagreements vitriolically, with language that perhaps was not heard before for quite some time, but at all-candidates meetings throughout the province, the same thing was repeated over and over again. The tone was quite shocking.

Of course, politics is a tough business and a lot of the members sitting opposite --

Mr Perruzza: It had to be shocking.

Mr Cordiano: It was shocking to see some of the people who were involved in the all-candidates debates and some of the things that were said, quite frankly. The level of debate had declined quite a bit. Not to be personal, I would simply say that we got off to a bad start. All things being considered, that was behind us and we put that behind us.

1700

But I would say to members opposite, to those who are in the governing party, that it is quite important to understand that there is a level of co-operation that is necessary, not just in this House, not just among members, but throughout the entire society, and that we need everyone's co-operation, not just to make this place run, but to make the economy run, which is our priority today, which should be everybody's priority across the way there and of everyone on this side of the House as well, because, my friends, what we face is a disaster, a crisis, not just a crisis of confidence but a real crisis.

Interjection.

Mr Cordiano: I heard the member squealing in the background there, but I did not quite make out what he said. I will ignore what he is saying because I want to carry on with the debate and I am sure what he is saying is so unimportant and trivial that it makes no difference.

Let me just add that the members opposite may laugh at what they see as efforts by the opposition to reach out and talk about what needs to be done and the efforts we make on a day-to-day basis to actually help this government out with respect to what I think it needs in terms of the support, the efforts, the ideas and the new approaches we might take. I know members in our caucus are genuinely concerned about making this government do a better job, not just bringing this government down for the next election, although we all wish that on this side of the House, and that will inevitably happen because of its own doings, not ours. Everyone understands that. Their own making; that is what is going to happen.

But I would say that there are members in our caucus who are genuinely concerned about the plight of all our citizens and the plight of our children and their future, and the children of the members opposite too, and what is going to happen because they are governing this province. I am concerned about that. That keeps me awake at nights, and I am sure there are lots of people who would agree with me.

Interjections.

Mr Cordiano: So to my friends who are yelling and screaming on the other side I would say that they should be concerned about what they do. They should be concerned and get involved and not sit there on the back benches at times quietly, at times fuming.

Interjection.

Mr Cordiano: I have plenty of time. If the member is around I will let him know what I think for the next hour, although I have respect for my other colleagues and I know they wish to speak this afternoon, so I will not take the rest of the time that is available to me.

I do want to say to them that our business is serious and that we have serious and fundamental differences of opinion, the kinds of differences of opinion that my friends on the other side would fail to understand because they have no comprehension of what we are talking about -- not all; luckily there are those on the other side who do understand those differences of opinion and can respect that we come from different, and fundamentally different, points of view. Therefore, I would think there is some hope still for the people of this province that we may come out of this quagmire, although I am not confident of that.

Let me just say that upon being elected, this government did one very important and fundamental thing that for ever characterized the way in which it was going to operate. What did they say after the last election? They said: "Lo and behold, we've won. We have a majority. We had a list of promises we made to the public. Now we're going to have to examine those." In all good conscience, people reflect upon what they say and obviously need to refine that over a period of time, because we are facing four years. A majority government impels or compels a government to examine its position periodically over and over again. No one would say that should not happen.

But what did these people across the way do? Upon being elected, they said: "Who do we have to look after? The very people who were looking to defeat the previous government are the people we need to help at this time, because they helped us win this election."

That skewed the agenda. That threw them right off the road. Since that time they have never recovered, and I am sorry to say that I do not have confidence this government will recover from that veering off the road. There has been a 13.4% increase in expenditures, and my friends a great deal had to do with the fact that millions upon millions of dollars were spent on their friends -- lavishly spent on their friends. There are a lot of friends out there that they had in the last election. Unfortunately for us, the previous government failed to realize that. We made quite a few enemies and they became the NDP's friends. They made them their friends.

In that kernel of truth, what I am saying is that they changed the way in which relationships were going to be conducted around here. People could negotiate and bargain with this government, and as long as it had their support, things would be different.

I am sorry; that was not a very good start. The kind of money that was thrown at those interest groups was phenomenal. We saw a tremendous increase in spending, and to this day we have the remnants of that in a deficit that is going to exceed everyone's expectations.

That is a fearful thing, because we spoke -- I know the member for Niagara Falls is very well intentioned and one of the good members of this House and does her work diligently. We served on committee together and I have a great deal of respect for her. I know she means well and I know her intentions are good. I know the things she is concerned about are the very things I am concerned about, but I need to tell them that the crisis in confidence exists because of the very strong signals that were sent out there, because of the fact that the deficit was produced -- not just a deficit, but the kind of deficit that was produced, the kind of expenditures that were undertaken, billions of dollars that go to the kind of expenditure which says to people, "We have no confidence in the future, but we're going to look after you today because we simply have no confidence in the ability of you, the public, to reach forward and do your best, not just for yourselves but for your families as well, and into the future."

What we need to see is not the kind of deficits that are run up by this government, which will be run on into perpetuity, for the next four years at least, four years of deficit spending that will have exceeded all that came before it in the previous 126 years of Confederation. That is a disaster. By any standard, that is a disaster.

The fact is that for the first time since 1949, we have seen revenues decline in this province. That is an unmitigated disaster. No one is saying on that score that it is their fault, but what I fear is what the Treasurer has indicated in the past little while, Floyd of Nickel Belt, who thinks he is going to be an auctioneer, who says: "You got a nickel? I'll sell you something worth a dollar." That is the message he is sending out these days. He is going to sell the assets of this province, and everybody is laughing out there. They are saying, "We're going to have a fire sale. Let's get warmed up and get our money together, because we can go out there and buy the assets of the province for a nickel on the dollar," or some ludicrous amount like that.

It is absurd, at the worst possible time, to suggest they are going to sell off assets. Everyone knows that this is the worst time to sell assets, yet the Treasurer has indicated his intention to pare down the deficit using the province's assets. It is totally ludicrous.

It says that they simply do not understand what is required. What is worse is that they are straitjacketing themselves, because these deficits will produce an inflexibility on the part of the government to finance what is desperately needed, and that is a restructuring of the difficulties we see in our economy today.

1710

Governments need to react and be flexible. They need to set an agenda that says, "We are not just going to talk the language of co-operation and getting people together." What we need are governments that understand the fundamental relationship between all the partners in our society, to say to people: "We are not just going to say, 'Let's sit down and talk about a partnership.' We're going to actually make you participate in what is happening in this society. We're going to create equality of opportunity because we're going to ask you -- not just suggest -- we're going to demand that you get involved in what is happening in our society through the real participation of people from all walks of life in our economy, and we're going to do that by developing programs which will foster that kind of co-operation, that kind of participation."

My friends opposite have simply failed to understand that. They have no idea that what is required is the kind of co-operation, the kind of participation which says to small business -- and I know the previous speaker talked about the small business committee of parliamentary assistants --

Mr Wiseman: If you had it so right, how come you are over there?

Mr Cordiano: Accidents do happen once in a while.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Lawrence has the floor. There are a lot of interjections which really are out of order. Please give him a chance and you will have your moment in the sun to reply to the honourable member.

Mr Cordiano: I would simply say to the member that it takes a lot more, once one is on that side of the House, than he imagines. I think that is the realization he is coming to today.

I was talking, before I was so rudely interrupted, about the small business committee of parliamentary assistants which, I would like to remind members across the way, was started under our administration. My friend and colleague the member for Guelph was at the time the chairman of that committee. He initiated that committee and got it going. We did some good things when we started that committee. We created the new ventures program. Are members listening over there? This was a real initiative by small business people who were interested in what was happening with small business. We got the new ventures program off the ground. It has been one of the most important and successful programs; a very small program but very important in getting a lot of small business entrepreneurs launched who otherwise would not have had the opportunity.

The new ventures program was the kind of thing members opposite could learn a lesson from. They could do a great deal more for small business with the money that is available, and it does not take a whole lot. They could increase the participation of people who are interested in starting their own small business. They could reach out to small business in a real way and not just an imagined one in the kind of rhetoric we hear from across the way that says, "We want your co-operation." On the one hand they are doing this with small business and on the other they are slapping them silly. The kind of impression people get from this government is, "We want your co-operation," and the Premier goes out and makes speeches, and on the other hand they talk about additional regulation for small business, which is choking them.

We know we are losing potential capital investment in small and medium-sized firms because there is this lack of confidence or a crisis in confidence. I honestly believe it is going to take a great deal of effort on the part of this government to change that. The confidence is simply not there and people are unwilling to invest. I hope that does not last too much longer because it is disastrous for our province and for our economy. The first thing we need to do is to bring back that confidence. If people have confidence in the future, they are willing to invest in plants and equipment which take them into the next five years. They need to have the confidence that this government is genuinely willing to participate with them and to listen to the concerns of the small business community, and all business, for that matter.

We heard comments earlier about restraint and the fact that this government now is talking restraint when a year ago it was not talking restraint at all. It was talking about how we need to do this and how we need to do that, and we saw the result in the last budget -- $10-billion worth of initiative in additional deficit spending. The language of restraint is odd for a government that was basically elected to get things done.

I compare this first year of the government's life to what happened when we were the government for the first time between 1985 and 1986. My friends across the way participated and were supportive of the government of the day. We had an agreement, but we got a number of things done which otherwise would not have been done.

Look back at that time of co-operation. Look back to the kind of efforts that were made during that period of minority government and the kind of co-operative initiatives that were undertaken. There is no comparison with this government, no comparison whatsoever with the amount of legislation that was introduced and the initiatives of that government in minority. The Peterson government between 1985 and 1987 was incredible.

Hon Mr Pouliot: What about after 1987?

Mr Cordiano: Between 1987 and 1990, they still cannot compare to the level of effort and the initiatives we put forward. There is simply no comparison.

Mr Perruzza: You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Mr Cordiano: I was trying to be charitable. I am not going to comment on the lunatic ragings of the members in the back there, in the fourth row, because I do not want to stoop to the level of the members on the other side.

Hon Mr Pouliot: He called the members lunatics, sir.

Mr Cordiano: I am being interrupted, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Transportation hears things I did not hear. The honourable member for Lawrence has the floor. He can continue. You will have the opportunity of questioning him as soon as he has completed his remarks.

Mr Cordiano: Mr Speaker, I thought I heard some lewd and rather shrill voices in the background and I was thrown off in terms of the kind of decorum we have in this place. The fact is I am not used to hearing those outbursts from members in the fourth row.

I just wanted to say, as I was rudely interrupted once again, that this government has basically found itself in quicksand. It failed miserably in the first year to get itself going. It had what amounted to a very action-oriented agenda and it has not done a damned thing -- very little. A number of major and important initiatives which were talked about in the last election, interestingly enough, were reversed by the government. I need not go over those again.

We fought three elections on auto insurance. We fought on the basis that they were going to bring in public auto insurance. We disagreed. We thought it was a foolhardy idea. We put that view forward and they won the last election. What do they do? They are sitting on their hands instead of bringing forward the agenda they won an election on. One of the things was auto insurance and they said they would restore the right of people to sue. I do not agree with that, but there were a lot of people out there who did and voted for them on that basis.

1720

Mr Perruzza: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr Cordiano: The government should be ashamed of itself. It cannot face itself in the mirror, having told a lot of people that it would be elected -- and I remember the debates. I remember quite well the member for Yorkview and the member for Downsview. People talked to me about their comments in the last election at all-candidates debates. It was clearly printed in their election brochures: "We want auto insurance that's government-run because we want the people of the province to have a say in what is going to happen," and on and on, on every one of those issues that they promised. They made huge promises, went around boasting that they were going to do this and that, and they are sitting on their hands.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am not clear on something. Although I wanted to attend, and I am the member for Downsview, I think that the member --

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry, that is not a point of order. You will have two minutes to reply.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, the member is telling an untruth.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Lawrence has the floor and you do not have a point of order. I am sorry. Please resume your seat. You will have an opportunity later.

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member did mention, however, that we did have all-candidates meetings. I do not recall me going to any all-candidates meetings --

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. All-candidates meetings is not a point of order. If you have some comments --

Mr Mammoliti: The point is, Mr Speaker, that the member mentioned --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Yorkview will please resume his seat. You will have two minutes to reply. He can correct his own record and you can correct yours.

Mr Cordiano: I am quite shocked that the member opposite is not clear about very many things. When he says he is not clear on one point, it is quite astounding. If he did not attend any all-candidates meetings, I would say he will be attending quite a few in the next election. I can assure him of that.

Mr Mammoliti: I hope you are there.

Mr Cordiano: I will be there any day, any time. Let me just finish off, Mr Speaker. I know my other colleagues want to have some time to speak. I do not want to take the entire afternoon.

I mention the fact that when this government came in, it was very concerned about consumers. I know this party has a great tradition of protecting consumers, not only on auto insurance but on a number of other matters. To talk about increases in hydro rates of upwards of 44% over the next three years is simply outrageous. There is no concern for those people who are on fixed incomes, who will be hard-pressed to maintain their independence in their own homes when they are going to be hit with rate increases of this kind. The members opposite should think again and think hard, because that is not consumer protection. That is consumer ripoff at its finest.

I am very concerned about that. A great number of my constituents are seniors and simply will be put out of their homes because they cannot afford the rate increases that are being talked about on the other side of the House. It will be an absolute disaster.

In conclusion, the government should reverse itself again. They should understand what they are dealing with and the period of time that they are dealing with it, understand that they need to constantly revise the game plan, because they simply did not have a game plan that made any sense. I can understand having to go back to the game plan and say, "What are we going to do this week?" They should get off that treadmill and determine what they need to do to restructure the economy in this province, because that is of fundamental importance. If they have not got that in place, they have little else that is going to follow.

They cannot run a province like this if they do not have a game plan that says, "We are going to make the economy our number one priority." They will leave a legacy that is going to be beyond comprehension. It will be a monumental disaster for our children. Now is the time to do it. They are approaching a midterm over the next year. Now is the time to think hard on those difficult decisions they are going to have to make.

They should make the economy the priority and stop thinking about how to redistribute that shrinking pie. They should understand that this pie has to grow and they will have more people involved in that process. By getting more people involved in that process they will have the co-operation and understanding of all of the people of this province, the business community included. Unless the government understands that fundamental principle, it simply will fail miserably.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Lawrence for his participation. Now the time has come for questions or comments.

Mr Tilson: I congratulate the member for Lawrence on his remarks. I think the highlight of his speech here this afternoon was the lack of confidence by members of the public within Ontario and outside of Ontario in the policies of this government. It has to do with investment. We have had investors come to most of our communities and talk about the lack of confidence they have, whether it be the policies on labour, finance, the whole issue of the deficit financing.

I would have thought this government would have looked at the mistakes of the federal government in the 1970s when spending was rampant and the deficit went up and up and up in the federal government. What is the government going to do when a deficit gets so high? Taxes.

People are not making money. People are going bankrupt. Companies are leaving the province. The sources of revenue are drying up. How are they possibly going to pay off this unbelievable deficit they are creating? We look at the newspapers. The financial pages every day tell us what is happening to business in this province.

Business to this government is evil, and I think the sooner it realizes that business can help the people of this province, can help the government of this province run an effective operation, the better. The government should take a look at its policies, review them and be a little more favourable towards the business people of this province.

Mr Perruzza: I would like to respond very briefly to some of the comments that were made by the member for Lawrence. They impact directly on the way government is seen and honesty in government and the confidence that the people have in their government's ability to govern effectively.

When I hear talk about budgets and when I hear talk about deficits, it is interesting to note that when we came to power, this province, instead of being in a surplus situation of some $28 million or $29 million, as was pronounced by the then Liberal Treasurer of the province, Nixon, in fact we were in a deficit situation of billions of dollars. The exact number is not quite known, but it ranges somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion.

That was a deficit, and the honourable member talked about that. He suggested here today that perhaps he did not believe his own Treasurer when he talked about this province being in a surplus situation. In fact, it was very much in a deficit situation, and those commitments continued until March when the commitments that had been made by the Liberals themselves ran up that debt to somewhere around $8 billion. The figure is not quite known. But honestly, Mr Speaker, when the member looks over here and says the member for Downsview attended an all-candidates debate, I can say that my Liberal friend, the member I ran against, did not want to attend any candidates debates and talk about the finances of this province before the good people of Downsview.

1730

Mr Cousens: We hear members from the Liberal caucus talking about the New Democrats and really criticizing them for their failures. The member for Lawrence fails to remember the fact that many of the programs that are now being implemented and followed through by the New Democrats really originated with the Liberals and the high-spending habits of David Peterson and that large majority they once had, from 1987 on. They destroyed the level of confidence people had in politicians as a whole. They had a chance to do something for the people of Ontario. They had a time when things were very high and successful in the province, yet when they talk now it is as if they pontificate from a high mountain and have not been there themselves.

Well, they were there. When the Liberals took power they had a chance to do something and show leadership. They did not do it. They came along and increased taxes heavily. Their spending increased as well. They did not put any money away for the rainy day we are having now.

Unfortunately we have something worse on that side of the House with the New Democrats. If there is anyone who knows how to spend money they do not have, it is this group. When we have a deficit that is going to explode far beyond $9 billion -- it is probably going to be $12 billion or $13 billion -- let's understand that Ontario is living beyond its means. We in our society have to sit down and face up to the fact that we have to say no to certain things and control those spending habits. Maybe the ministers could begin to control the spending on parties and some of the things they are doing, but there are far bigger things they need to do than that. Those are symbolic gestures.

We in this House have a chance to show some leadership to the province on how we can bring the economy back. It is not through the high-spending habits this government has.

Mr Mammoliti: The member for Markham started out okay, but at the end of his speech he screwed things up a bit.

Nevertheless, I am here to respond to the remarks of the member for Lawrence. Frankly I have to congratulate him for his consistency in babbling on as his government did for almost six years. He spoke for a lengthy period, perhaps 20 or 25 minutes, and I really do not know what he said. I do not think he said anything.

He stands there and lectures us, this individual who shares the ideals and concerns that half my constituents share: the Italian community and what it stands for, its beliefs. He stands here and lectures us, after he has singlehandedly -- with all of his government actually, not singlehandedly -- supported the car insurance companies. He stands there and lectures us on car insurance after he has made the rich richer? He stands there and has the audacity to lecture us? I do not know how he stares himself in the face in the morning; I really do not. In terms of Bill 162, so many Italian people from his riding come to me and ask, "Why did he do this to me?"

He stands there and says I did not go to all-candidates meetings. I do not know where he heard this information. I attended a few of them but the person who was running against me from his party did not have the audacity to show.

I do not know where these lectures come from, but I do not think he has the right to do it. I do not think he has the right to stand here and lecture us, no right whatsoever. He should be ashamed of himself.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. This is the maximum participation we can have in questions or comments. The honourable member for Lawrence has two minutes to reply.

Mr Cordiano: I will not even attempt to respond to the trivial, inconsequential and banal comments made by the speaker immediately before I stood up. I simply want to say to him that whether he attended all-candidates debates or not did not matter; quite frankly, that he won had less to do with his presence than he thinks.

In any case, I want to say to my friend the member for Markham on the comments he made about deficit spending that we all have lessons to learn on that, my friends. Each and every one of us has a storied past. Our parties all have deficit spending in their histories of one kind or another, so let's not talk about lectures from one side of the House to the other to the other. Let's simply talk about what is the case today.

We started off, my friends, in this province with a fiscal picture not too long ago --

Mr Perruzza: It was in the red.

Mr Cordiano: My friend the member for Downsview may think otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that they got hold of the reins of power. The Treasury was theirs and they could have simply reduced what was there by making some changes. The Treasurer decided not to. He decided to look after his friends who supported him in the election. He decided to write off the SkyDome's debt immediately. Therefore, of course they have a deficit on their hands. Governing is making tough decisions and we see the net result of those tough decisions. They would like to deficit-spend to the tune of $10 billion this year and over the next four years, unprecedented in the history of this province. I say to my friends that no one in the history of this province has spent as much money in deficits as they are about to over the next four years.

Mr Tilson: It is a pleasure to address the House on the subject of interim supply for the period up until December of this year. My comments, I hope, will be very brief and will deal with three areas, two affecting my riding and one of a more provincial nature, all of which of course affect the spending in this province and the whole operation of the financial position of this province.

As a new member, I discovered section 123 in the rules of this House, which enables each party, once each calendar year, to take a subject and debate it. I suppose the purpose of that is twhether situations can be improved, whether an opposition party, for example, can offer constructive criticism to the government to try and persuade it to change the direction in which it is going. There may be other reasons that enable issues to be brought forward in each specific committee. Our party chose the subject of the closing of registry offices and the effect that had on the economy, particularly in the rural areas of this province, and on the efficiency and the cost. The decision had been made with very little consultation by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Our party chose that subject.

Accordingly those proceedings took place in August. Delegations came to the committee and spoke on various subjects. Reeves, mayors, lawyers, surveyors, the president of the Canadian Bar Association and others came to speak on the concern they had with respect to the closing of various registry offices around the province and how it would affect those individual, generally rural communities. We proceeded with that.

Notwithstanding that those hearings were going on, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations proceeded to close a number of registry offices even while these hearings were going on -- even before these hearings were going on. Specifically, Toronto and Arthur -- I think there is another one, Bowmanville; I stand to be corrected, but there was a third one -- were closed while the hearings were going on, before the committee had an opportunity to express an opinion on the direction in which the ministry was going.

The point I wish to raise is relevant to the whole subject of interim supply because it involves the financial operation of this government, whether it is efficient or not, and the effect on the economy in the various municipalities in which these registry offices occur. Two of the areas, Arthur and Durham, instituted legal proceedings against the government of Ontario, mainly with respect to an injunction, hopefully to obtain a court order forcing the government not to proceed in the direction of closing the Durham and Arthur registry offices. The court proceedings proceeded, I think it was in the first week of October, before weekly court here in Toronto.

1740

I have made these comments at the standing committee on general government and I made them as a point of personal privilege in this House. The solicitor who acted on behalf of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to object to the application for an injunction, made three comments, which I am going to read again to this House. If these remarks are true -- and they appear to be at this point unrefuted. I am pleased the minister is present in the House because I hope she will stand up in her two-minute response to refute the statements that have been made. Now is the opportunity. We asked the government members to have the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations attend before the general government committee and, for some unearthly reason, she did not appear. Well, she is here this afternoon and I will be looking forward to hearing her thoughts.

The solicitor made the following comments to the justice who was hearing the application for the injunction proceedings. Unfortunately there is no transcript of these proceedings. These remarks came from notes that were made by individuals who attended the court proceedings. The first of the remarks made by the solicitor was, "The general government committee is of no significance."

I am not a member of the general government committee, but I am my party's critic for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I attended part of those proceedings and it made me wonder, "Why am I attending section 123 hearings when a solicitor, an employee of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, says that the general government committee is of no significance?"

It goes beyond section 123. It goes into the other hearings. The general government committee has held public hearings around this province not only on Bill 4 but also on Bill 121. Substantial time has been spent by members of the public to attend these meetings. Substantial time has been spent by members of all sides of this House in attending these public committee hearings. To say that the general government committee is of no significance is an astounding statement for a solicitor acting on behalf of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to make.

The second comment that was made was -- and again I acknowledge that I read these statements in the House when I raised my point of privilege -- "The general government committee is really just a way of creating political heat."

This government has spent a considerable amount of time boasting how it consults around this province, and part of the process presumably is through the committee hearings that go around and talk on all subjects, whether it be Sunday shopping, cross-border shopping, housing, financial -- any topic. That presumably is part of the committee process and the consultation process. For a solicitor acting on behalf of the ministry to say that the general government committee is really just a way of creating political heat, I do not understand that. I do not understand how a solicitor acting for the ministry could make such a statement in a court of law.

The third remark made by the solicitor, which is the most astounding of all the statements, is, "The general government committee is composed of six members of the NDP and five from the other two parties, and all the NDP members could be absolutely counted on to stick to the government's position of closure."

I understand that obviously there is party policy, but hopefully government members who attend these committees are capable of thinking for themselves. They are not trained seals. I know we make the remark in jest -- not in jest; in all seriousness on many occasions -- that they are trained seals, that they vote the way their masters, their ministers, tell them to vote.

But let us take the issue of the closing of registry offices. Some of the members on the government side have registry offices in their ridings. I think one example is the member for Cambridge. I believe he has a registry office in his riding in which that subject has been raised. Surely, if he was sitting on the committee, he might oppose the policy of closing registry offices if it affects his riding and particularly if it affects the economy of his riding. I do not mean to single out that member. In fact, I could be wrong, and it may not even be his specific riding, but there are government members who have ridings where registry offices are being closed which directly affect them.

For a solicitor to simply say that all the members of the NDP could be absolutely counted on to stick to the government's position of closure of the registry offices -- why are those members even there? Are they not there to stick up for their local constituents? Are the allegations we have been making really true? Are these members really trained seals?

It goes beyond the issue of the closing of registry offices, whether it goes into housing or whether it goes into any other subject that we talk about. Hopefully, the members will be intelligent enough to vote in that specific area. The world is not going to fall apart if they vote against government policy. So why can they not think for themselves? Either that or the solicitor is wrong and these statements were not true. These statements that have been made by the solicitor have yet to be contradicted by the minister.

I found out new things as a new member of this House when I attended before the committee. It was really quite an experience. We had everything thrown at us; we had closure.

Motions were put forward which were quite logical. Were these statements made? If the statements were made, maybe we should have the solicitor come, maybe we should have the minister come. If the minister is busy -- and I realize she has a busy schedule -- maybe the parliamentary assistant should come. Maybe there is a whole slew of people who could come, and perhaps someone who was present in the court -- unfortunately, as I say, there is no transcript -- to refute these statements, because it affects not only the members of the opposition but also members of the government. It affects their personal credibility.

I made a motion that these individuals attend before the committee and clarify it, deal with it and remove this cloud that was hanging over the issue of the committee. Not only were we not allowed to debate on that subject, but it was voted down with very little discussion. In other words, the fact that closure was put on us illustrates and says that the third point is correct, and that they are trained seals. Otherwise, what have they got to lose by allowing us to debate that subject? We might even be able to assist them. Believe it or not, we might even be able to put forward constructive criticism that could assist them on this subject, the process of dealing with the public, the process of dealing with constructive criticism.

The government is trying to put forward policies. I understand the minister. She stood up in this House and basically her position on the issue of registry offices is that they are trying to save the taxpayer money. We still have yet to hear figures from her on the subject of what it is going to cost to close those offices, what it is going to cost to consolidate the offices.

The example I have given is the subject of the Guelph registry office. They moved the Arthur registry office to the Guelph registry office. I understand all the Guelph documents, which have not even arrived in Guelph, are going to be kept in the basement of the Guelph registry office. The documents are going to be brought up from the basement by a dumbwaiter and that will mean more staff, more cost and more inefficiency. It will be more inefficient and more time-consuming to search a title for Arthur in Guelph than when the registry office was in Arthur.

I asked about the issue of cost. Are we going to hear in a few years that perhaps we should expand the Guelph registry office or perhaps should build another registry office? On it goes. Of course, then there is the whole story of the Perth-Almonte situation. The flip-flop on that has been debated exhaustively, and that was done without consultation. That change was done without even the members of the committee, the very committee that was studying the issue of the closing of registry offices, being allowed to debate it. We were not even informed.

1750

My office, as critic for this particular portfolio, found out the afternoon of the morning in which the minister was in Perth telling the Perth staff that that registry office was going to be closed. The ministry did not even have the courtesy to call my office, as the critic for that portfolio, to tell us.

The whole process I found very strange indeed. I believe that unless the minister and other members of the government stand up and remove this cloud, it is going to challenge the entire committee system. If these statements are not refuted and are said not to be true, if the minister is not prepared to stand up today and say, "No, those statements weren't made and there wasn't even anything close to that," then there is something wrong with the system. We will have a great deal of difficulty asking members of the public to come and make submissions and presentations to committees.

We will have a great deal of difficulty, I will and the other members will, because members of our ridings who want to come and make presentations to the government are going to say: "Why should we? If we are against your policy, if we cannot persuade you to change your mind even minutely and put forward an amendment" -- we have a solicitor for the government saying that all NDP members could be absolutely counted on to stick to the government's position -- "why bother coming to the public hearings?"

There was a motion put forward by the members of the government at the standing committee on general government that essentially boiled down to the fact that the minister investigate herself. That was an astounding position to take, because it was also alleged by the individuals who were present -- there was a specific reporter from the Globe and Mail who questioned the solicitor who acted on behalf of the ministry about these statements: Did the solicitor have instructions to make these submissions, because solicitors do not make statements or positions of the government without receiving instructions?

It went beyond what the solicitor said. It went to what the minister's position was. Perhaps not the minister, but someone over there in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations gave the solicitor instructions. At least that is what the solicitor said. I think that needs to be clarified. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations needs to stand and say, "Not only did the solicitor not make them, but I didn't even give instructions for those statements to be made," because otherwise the cloud will continue to rain.

Yes, the minister was asked to investigate herself and she wrote the committee members a very brief letter. I think it consisted of five lines. It essentially said that she reviewed what was said with the solicitor and she simply said -- I am paraphrasing what was said; I am sure the minister will produce the letter and I hope she does -- that she did not believe the statements were offensive. The fact is the statements were made.

Mr Mammoliti: You woke up.

Mr Tilson: I wish the member would wake up, because for us to participate in committee discussions for the rest of his term -- I understand there will be no more surprise summer elections; we will hopefully be holding committee hearings --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Should the members of the public, the people of of Ontario participate in public hearings or should they not?

I rose in this House on two occasions on a question of personal privilege and the Speaker made his rulings on both of them. They were against my request and I will respectfully accept that. His decision was that the standing committee on general government, if it felt there was some wrongdoing, would make its proper investigation, or it would come back and ask the House to proceed with some sort of investigation.

Unfortunately, the third point made by the solicitor still stands, and that is that the six members of the NDP could be absolutely counted on to stick to the government's position of closure of the registry offices and not to do anything else, any other policy.

If the government members want this to end, then they can vote it out, notwithstanding the fact that this particular topic affects members of the public in their constituencies. I do not know how the members, particularly some of the rural members of the government, are going to answer to their constituents on the subject of registry office closings.

I can assure the government that any public committee I go on, I am going to refer to these statements until the minister stands up and corrects them, says that these statements were not true, or if they were true that she is going to do something about it. If she made the statements, then we have really got a problem: a minister of the crown saying that the entire standing committee on general government is a sham. Then why meet? It is just really a way of creating political heat.

This is an issue that certainly has given me great concern, being part of that committee process on the two housing bills that have gone around this province. Is it all futile? Is this government really going to listen? Is it really going to accept suggestions that are made from members of the public and members of the opposition?

There is no question there is a lot of bantering that goes on back and forth between all sides of the House, but is this government going to accept constructive criticism even though that constructive criticism goes against its policy? Is the government prepared to do that?

It is approaching 6 o'clock. I would suggest that perhaps we adjourn the debate.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member does not have to adjourn the debate. He can continue at his leisure.

Mr Tilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can only say that members of my caucus will not let this issue die. It is a subject that gives us all great concern. Although only two members of our party on the average normally attend the general government committee, on this subject there were perhaps four or five members who would attend and they, I believe, expressed their concern individually around the province.

Many of us are affected in different ways: the loss of jobs; the fact that, for example, Durham is going to be coming up shortly. Common sense tells us that when you move a registry office from a community which has had that service for 100 years, take it away completely, take away the jobs -- we do not know what it is going to cost; we have had no estimates as to what it is going to cost with respect to the leases that are perhaps going to have to be written off, or the added costs of consolidating it; for example, when Durham is moved to Owen Sound, what jobs will be lost? When the answer is, "Oh well, the people in Durham can drive to Owen Sound to work," they are going to find that rather unsatisfactory.

Aside from the issue of the cost to the general public, submissions were made at public hearings as to what it is going cost members of the public, the whole cost of searching titles, the whole cost of preparation of surveys. Aside from the possibilities of greater mistakes being made, some of the communities have individual title problems which just affect that particular community and quite often solicitors are most familiar with those specific areas. Yet this government is going to take that out and move it to another area where solicitors will be dealing with a subject that they may not be that familiar with; it may take some time.

There is the whole cost of renovations. We have repeatedly asked what the cost will be to renovate these other registry offices.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member may continue his participation in the debate when interim supply is next debated.

The House adjourned at 1800.