Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Mr Eves moved resolution 35:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that sexual abuse of patients by health professionals is a serious problem as evidenced by the fact that the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons heard 303 reports of sexual abuse by physicians and others, that the essence of the relationship between a health professional and a patient is based on trust, and further recognizing that patients are vulnerable, and must be protected, the government of Ontario should pass legislation which would:

(a) Amend the Regulated Health Professions Act to include two levels of the offence of sexual abuse of patients: (i) sexual impropriety and (ii) sexual violation as defined in the final report of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

(b) Develop a penalty range for sexual impropriety, including reprimand, apology, fine, temporary suspension of certificate of registration, with conditions, or any combination thereof.

(c) Amend the Regulated Health Professions Code to include a fine up to $20,000 and mandatory revocation of certificate of registration for five years for health professionals found guilty of sexual violation.

(d) Amend the Regulated Health Professions Code so that upon application for reinstatement, the discipline committee, the council or the executive committee must require the applicant to fulfil specific requirements including:

-- Having the college publish a notice of application which informs all health professionals of the intention of the applicant to apply for readmission, and outlines how to contact the college with any relevant information prior to the applicant's readmission hearing,

-- Providing a written brief demonstrating the ways in which readmission would be in the public interest,

-- Making good all financial losses caused by his or her sexual abuse,

-- Filing a statutory declaration setting out in full his or her business or employment activities during the period following revocation of his or her licence,

-- Filing a certificate from his or her treating professional detailing the course of treatment entered into and stating the treating professional's opinion of the applicant's compliance with the treatment goals and the success of treatment overall,

-- Filing a certificate from an independent assessor who has evaluated the course of treatment and formed an opinion as to its success in ensuring that the applicant poses no danger to future patients,

-- Filing a series of documents prepared by the treating professional and the assessor, including an assessment of how the abuse occurred, an outline of specific rehabilitation goals and whether or not they have been met and a list of specific changes in behaviour which have occurred through the rehabilitation process,

-- Filing a re-entry plan developed by the independent assessor, which includes substantive safeguards to prevent further sexual impropriety or violation,

-- Demonstrating a commitment to ongoing rehabilitation therapy, including submitting quarterly reports to the college on the status of his or her recovery.

In hearing an application for reinstatement, the discipline committee would be required to carefully consider each of the aforementioned documents, as well as testimony from the applicant, the treating professional and the independent assessor as to the applicant's understanding of the harm done by his or her abuse and the effectiveness of rehabilitation in this case, the specific changes in behaviour which have taken place, the commitment to ongoing rehabilitation and specific rehabilitation goals, the proposed safeguards in place should the health professional be reinstated, and any practice restrictions including monitoring which are recommended.

Having reviewed all evidence regarding the rehabilitation of the applicant, the discipline committee must be convinced that:

-- The evidence presented, including expert evidence, satisfies to a substantial degree of medical and psychological certainty that the applicant will not abuse patients or other vulnerable persons in the future,

-- Readmission would be in the public interest.

(e) That the Minister of Health and the Treasurer of Ontario establish a survivors compensation fund to receive all moneys paid as fines for sexual impropriety or sexual violation. In addition, the health professional must pay into the new fund the equivalent amount for fees paid by OHIP as "services" when, in fact, the health professional was sexually abusing the patient. As well, proceeds from a levy of 1% of the annual membership fee of the appropriate body should be forwarded to the fund as a clear demonstration by the medical profession of its collective responsibility to patients who have been harmed by a member of the profession; that the procedure for this remedy be established in consultation with the Women's Health Bureau of the Ministry of Health.

Mr Eves: I want to say at the outset that I must commend the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for taking the initiative that it has taken in this case. I want to let members know that in the gallery here today are George Morrison, president of the college, and Linda Franklin, communications director of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The relationship between a patient and a health professional is one which is based on trust. Patients are extremely vulnerable and must be protected in our society.

The Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients of Ontario found that patients are not protected. In fact, the independent task force commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario heard 303 reports of sexual abuse by physicians and by others. So far this year, 149 patients have complained to the college about sexual abuse by their physicians. Sexual abuse of patients by health professionals is a serious problem.

As I said at the outset, I would like to commend the college, but I would also like to congratulate Marilou McPhedran, chair of the task force, and members of the task force for a job extremely well done. It is obvious, when one leafs through the lengthy report, which includes some 60 recommendations and a legal appendix in the form of draft legislation, that each member spent countless hours working on this project.

1010

I and, I believe, other members of my party are committed to a philosophy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse of patients by doctors and other health professionals. We believe in the rationale behind zero tolerance, for the seven reasons enunciated by the task force:

1. Sexual abuse of patients is not acceptable because it inflicts serious harm.

2. It is particularly harmful in that the violation of the patient's trust makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the patient to place his or her trust in health professionals again, providing a major obstacle to recovery in itself.

3. Sexual abuse by a health professional is an excessive abuse of power.

4. Tolerance of sexual abuse by health professionals tarnishes the public trust in health professions, including trust in the majority of health professionals who are providing caring and appropriate care.

5. Zero tolerance is the only philosophy consistent with the protection of the public, which is the primary task of self-regulating bodies.

6. Zero tolerance provides a very clear standard for measuring the effectiveness of policies, procedures, practices and education programs designed to deal with sexual abuse by health professionals.

7. Zero tolerance provides an extremely clear standard of acceptable conduct. It clarifies where the appropriate boundaries in a physician-patient relationship are and will result in an awareness of the presence of sexually demeaning attitudes and behaviour.

We are pleased that a number of groups and organizations have adopted this zero tolerance philosophy. Some of those that have done so to date include the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association. We believe that all self-regulating health professionals have a responsibility to their patients to ensure that college procedures and polices are sensitive to sexual abuse.

When doctors take on the responsibility of life and death, they also take a Hippocratic oath which enshrines them with absolute trust. The oath reads in part as follows: "In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction, and especially free from the pleasure of love with women or with men."

My resolution is in response to the findings of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients and, more specifically, on some of its key recommendations.

First, I think we should talk briefly about the new definitions of sexual abuse. I am supporting the recommendation of the task force that the Regulated Health Professions Code and Regulations contain a new definition of sexual abuse which is much more specific and contains two levels for the purpose of determining penalty.

The task force recommended that the Regulated Health Professions Act include two levels of the offence of sexual abuse of patients: the first level, sexual impropriety, and the second level, sexual violation. Two levels of abuse will allow colleges to relate penalties to the nature of the abuse and to create a distinction, ensuring a more severe penalty for more severe forms of abuse and provide clearer definitions for sexual abuse. Under the definitions of sexual abuse established by the task force, sexual violation is the most serious.

The penalties established for these two offences are as follows. The recommendations are that all colleges "should develop a penalty range for sexual impropriety, including reprimand, apology, fine, temporary suspension of certificate of registration, with conditions, or any combination thereof."

I believe that any health professional found guilty of sexual violation should have his certificate of registration revoked automatically for five years, with stringent conditions required to achieve reinstatement. While this penalty may seem severe, it is appropriate for the offence defined as "sexual violation" for the following reasons.

Any health professional who has sexually violated has committed an act that has inflicted serious harm, often illness, to his or her patient. He or she has disregarded the health and wellbeing of their patient in pursuit of meeting their own personal desires.

A health professional who has sexually violated has also seriously betrayed the fundamental trust that society places in a member of a regulated health profession. This damages the integrity of this profession as well as harming the individual patient.

Rehabilitation programs for sexual abusers are not developed to the extent required to ensure an abuser no longer poses a risk of harm to other patients, especially when we cannot identify prospectively that a particular individual will not re-offend, even after attendance at a rehabilitation program. The criteria put forward by the task force allow for the exceptional case where a physician abuser may be able to demonstrate complete and certain recovery.

The penalty also does not remove any legal right the health professional may have to earn a livelihood. Rather it removes a privilege of performing authorized acts in the scope of practice within a health care profession.

In keeping with what the task force has recommended, I believe the mandatory penalty should be imposed after the discipline committee has found a health professional guilty of the second level, sexual violation, with automatic revocation of the health professional's licence or certificate of registration for five years as well as a fine of up to $20,000. The Regulated Health Professions Act code should be amended to require the college to apply specific reinstatement criteria when a health professional found guilty of either sexual impropriety or sexual violation applies to have a suspension lifted or a licence reinstated.

I have several cases here that I will go into in my remarks later on, in proper rotation, as well as some very brief remarks about the survivors' compensation fund, but I might just end my first 10-minute segment with a statement about what I find very disturbing with respect to -- it may sound like I am picking on physicians, but I am not.

I happen to be a member of a professional body myself. It is called the Law Society of Upper Canada. In my opinion the Law Society of Upper Canada, although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, certainly takes professional misconduct in a far more serious manner than has the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario up to a few months ago. I do not understand those physicians out there who think this is somehow an infringement upon their rights. They do not have a right to sexually abuse anybody. They have a privilege of practising medicine when they behave in a professional manner. I do not understand how somebody thinks that a lawyer, for example, should be disbarred and for ever prohibited from practising law because he or she stole money, but if you rape a patient, that is all right. "Suspend me for six months, so I can make my payments on my car and my house, and I will go back to doing what I was doing before."

I do not understand that logic, and that is the heart of this resolution. I think it should apply to all 24 health care professions.

Mr Wessenger: I am very pleased to speak on this resolution. This resolution recognizes a major problem with respect to sexual abuse of patients and I believe all members of the House share a concern that this problem be addressed.

Our government is committed to taking the necessary action to deal effectively with the problem of sexual abuse of patients and we are committed to the principle of zero tolerance of sexual abuse. I am pleased that the College of Physicians and Surgeons has also accepted the principle of zero tolerance. We are determined to deal effectively with the problem. Our government has already recognized this in the Regulated Health Professions Act by requiring each health profession to set up a patient relations committee and also by sending a letter to each health profession requiring it to devise a patient relations program.

1020

The task force of the college has 60 recommendations and this resolution by my friend deals with five of them. Our position is that we want to study the recommendations of the task force to refine them and ensure there is an effective enforceable process to deal with the problem of sexual abuse. Our ministry is committed to the processes of an interministerial working group to study the final report of the task force and to discuss its recommendations with all health professions, consumer and public interest groups.

There are certain issues I would like to mention that I think will have to be considered by this working group. Should we amend the act or deal with it in the regulations with respect to the matter of the definitions? Should the definition of standards apply to each health profession or should we have different standards with respect to different health professions? What may be appropriate to a physician or a psychologist may not be appropriate to someone like a pharmacist, because of the question of trust. I think we have to look at that whole question.

We have to consider the definitions themselves because we may need some changes or additions therein.

With respect to the range of penalty, the penalty sets out a mandatory five-year suspension. There may be some circumstances where in fact we should perhaps look at a lifetime ban, because there may be some offences that are so serious that they warrant a lifetime ban. With respect to the whole question of rehabilitation and re-entry, I think these are very complicated requirements and I believe they need further study.

There are many questions with respect to the survivors' compensation fund. Should there be one fund for all health professions? Should there be a separate fund for each profession? Should the contributions to the fund be based on a flat fee, as recommended, or should the fee be related to the whole question of risk? There is no question that in certain health professions there is a much higher propensity to have the problem of sexual abuse than in others, because of the nature of the relationship of trust in certain health professions. Of course there is the other question of who should administer the fund.

I think the task force is a major step forward in dealing with the whole question of sexual abuse. I am certainly looking forward to seeing what we can do and the best way of implementing the report and how it can apply to other health professions. I think it is important that we consult and work with the other health professions to determine how the provisions should apply to them as well as to physicians.

I will be supporting the resolution in principle. I am supporting the fact that we must take action in dealing with this very serious question of sexual abuse. We must refine and define a system that effectively deals with the problem so that we may eliminate it from the whole area of health professions.

Ms Poole: As the official opposition's critic for the minister responsible for women's issues, I am pleased today to speak in support of the resolution by the member for Parry Sound.

As members know, only a few weeks ago the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario received the final report of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients. As members know, that task force was chaired very ably by Marilou McPhedran.

I would like to begin by congratulating the board of directors for the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They have shown enormous sensitivity. They have shown that they are willing, indeed eager, to be in the forefront on this issue and to resolve the problems that have occurred in the past. I really commend them for taking the initiative to form this task force. I would also like to congratulate the task force under Marilou McPhedran's chairmanship -- I guess I should say chairship -- for its enormous contribution. This is the first report of its type in North America. It is extremely comprehensive. It goes to the heart and soul of the issue. If members look at the size of it, they go through everything from guidelines to a history of the problems to comments and case studies. It is an extremely valuable document for this Legislature.

I am very pleased that the member has brought forward this resolution. Some people have said that it is extraneous, indeed unnecessary, because, after all, the College of Physicians and Surgeons has already taken steps to implement the report even though it was only tabled several weeks ago. The Minister of Health has been extremely supportive and has indicated that she intends to move quickly. However, I feel that the member for Parry Sound is to be commended for his commitment to raising this issue and seeing it resolved. I think any time public attention can be brought to an issue like this, it is extremely important.

The abuse of patients by those entrusted to care for them is abhorrent to all of us and there is no excuse for that betrayal. Because of the unequal distribution of power in the doctor-patient relationship, women are particularly vulnerable to their physicians. The physician is in a position of authority and trust.

Whatever the reason for seeking treatment, women are relying on their physicians to care for them and to get them well. When doctors abuse their patients, not only do they deprive them of the treatment they originally sought, but they inflict even more harm. Sometimes it is physical and most often it is severely emotional.

One of the key themes of the McPhedran task force report is that any sexual activity between a patient and her doctor is always sexual abuse. This is what the task force calls zero tolerance. This is the standard it proposed for drafting policies, procedures and programs to deal with the problem.

What does zero tolerance mean? Zero tolerance means we do not tolerate sexual abuse by our health care providers. It means we do not support the ways sexual abuse by physicians is implicitly supported. It means we work towards developing enough support for victims so that they can come forward and heal. Zero tolerance means we work diligently towards educating doctors, other health care providers and the public about appropriate behaviour and attitudes, so that abuse cannot occur as a result of ignorance. Zero tolerance finally means we continue to support touch as a crucial healing part of the practice of medicine.

While this resolution does not specifically mention zero tolerance, the standard is implicit in the various items the member has proposed. In fact, if members look at the member's resolution and the report, they will find much of the wording is quite similar, in some cases identical. One problem with the resolution is that it is not quite comprehensive enough. I guess it is very difficult to make a comprehensive resolution that would equal the weight of the McPhedran report.

This resolution focuses very heavily on the mechanics of reinstating physicians once they have been found guilty and penalized for an offence or abuse. While that is an important component, I think an attempt to put together legislation has to be more thorough and more comprehensive. I fear it would be premature to jump in with piecemeal solutions to such a sensitive and important problem. The parliamentary assistant mentioned several ways in which we need to work more on this problem and make sure we have absolutely the right solution.

As I mentioned earlier, the McPhedran task force is the first of its kind in North America. It has shown that in Ontario we have been able to take a leadership position on the issue and that it is an issue of great importance not only to women but to the medical practitioners of this province.

If we believe that sexual abuse of their patients by doctors must never be condoned under any circumstances -- I think we do believe that in this Legislature -- then surely we must tackle the whole problem, not just particular aspects and ramifications. As I said at the beginning of my comments, this resolution may not be comprehensive enough, it may not go far enough, but at the same time I think every member of this House should support it for its intent, direction and specific recommendations.

Any time members bring to this House issues of such importance, I think they should be encouraged and supported. It gives me great pleasure to say I will be voting in favour of the resolution by the member for Parry Sound.

1030

Mr Winninger: I am pleased to join in this debate today. I certainly welcome the resolution put forward by the member for Parry Sound. He made some remarks, just in closing, regarding the Law Society of Upper Canada and the kinds of onerous penalties imposed on lawyers, culminating in disbarment for life.

I am unaware, however, that the law society has the kind of concerted sexual abuse prevention program that is contemplated in this resolution. I think the law society might well look at this resolution as a model to fill a gap that I think exists, because the public well knows that sexual abuse and harassment do not just go on in the offices of health professionals. Members of the legal profession often see highly vulnerable clients come to them, perhaps fleeing from domestic violence or family breakup, clients who might place implicit trust in the lawyer and transfer some of the affection that is denied to them elsewhere. I think the lawyers, just like physicians and other health professionals, have a very high standard of conduct that they should abide by.

The problem of physician abuse of patients is not a new one. In fact, in the Corpus Hippocraticum of 2000 BC, concerns were expressed about physician-patient sex. Then again, the report to which my friend the member for Parry Sound has referred, the report of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients, documents that in 1784, Benjamin Franklin led an inquiry into physician-patient sexual relations and voiced his concern regarding physicians taking advantage of patients through the misuse of hypnotism, or mesmerism, for example.

The Canada Health Monitor survey, which was authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons in October of this year, showed that over 8% of women in the 25-to-44-year range have been sexually harassed or abused, so the problem, as the member for Parry Sound has indicated to the House, is a well documented one. How might we come to grips with this? The resolution is certainly a good starting point, I would submit, for the manner in which we as a House concerned with the problem of sexual abuse and harassment might address it.

Sexual abuse is certainly a gross breach of trust. It is clear that physicians and other health professionals have a fiduciary responsibility to their patients which confers on them the highest order of conduct and that nothing short of that can be accepted. This is why I was pleased to see that the College of Physicians and Surgeons so quickly responded to one of the recommendations in the interim report of the task force, that there be zero tolerance. The resolution of the College of Physicians and Surgeons adopting the zero tolerance principle is certainly commendatory.

However, more steps have to be taken to ensure that the goals of zero tolerance can be actively implemented and monitored to ensure that sexual abuse of patients will not tolerated, to ensure that there is no implicit support given to physicians who abuse their patients, to ensure that support is developed for the victims of sexual abuse and harassment so that they might be encouraged to come forward and disclose instances of abuse and harassment, and at the same time commence the necessary process of healing themselves of the effects of victimization. Furthermore, the public and physicians in general need to be educated that sexual abuse is very inappropriate behaviour when it comes to patients.

Finally, there has to be a caring and nurturing touch that cannot be removed from doctors treating patients, because that too is part of the healing process.

I believe our Ministry of Health is being responsive to the recommendations that an overall comprehensive plan be developed to address sexual abuse prevention. While the resolution by the member for Parry Sound is a commendable starting point, as it incorporates recommendations 24 and 56 of the final report, there is certainly more comprehensive and thorough review and consultation that has to be done with the stakeholders and with the consumer agencies. In conclusion, I would suggest that once the service providers and advocacy groups have been consulted, a sexual abuse prevention plan, a permanent and lasting and durable one, can be designed and implemented.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate. I am quite familiar with this issue. I would like to begin my remarks by complimenting first the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for beginning the task force on what I know has been a difficult and painful subject for the profession to deal with, and to even discuss in some cases. I see that Dr Morrison is here in the members' gallery this morning, and I hope he will relay my comments to the members of the college. To him personally, I will say I have a great deal of respect for the work he has done and the leadership he has shown.

I know how difficult it was for the college and for all of the members of the profession to initiate this discussion, to then expose themselves to the kind of debate that is occurring not only in this Legislature but in the media and in the press. I think that is a very good example of the kind of leadership we need to have in this province in order that important issues of public concern can be seen to be dealt with not only by those of us in public office, in positions of leadership, but also by those who assume positions of leadership within their own professions. So I express my compliments to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

I would also like to compliment Ms McPhedran and the task force for the outstanding job they have done in raising public awareness and creating sensitivity among doctors in this province, and for doing something else. They have also created awareness that it is not just the doctors of this province who should be concerned with the whole question of sexual impropriety between care giver and patient.

I use the term "care giver" very deliberately, because as we looked at the Regulated Health Professions Act in committee, we realized that this kind of contact between care giver and patient was something of concern not just for doctors but for other care givers. Psychiatrists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, chiropractors, chiropodists -- many, many professions that have intimate physical contact with patients are becoming aware that they too have an obligation to act with the highest conduct and standard of propriety in their professional relationships with their patients. This is a very important step that we have taken.

We Canadians -- and I speak for myself; I am quite shy about talking about matters of sexuality and a sexual nature in public. We do not like to do that. We particularly do not like to talk about sexual abuse. We do not like to talk about child abuse. We do not like to talk about incest. We are a very private society. But we know that if we are going to change attitudes and behaviours, if we are going to end violence against women and children, if we are going to ensure appropriate conduct among professionals and their clients and their patients, then we must talk about these things.

I also congratulate the member for Parry Sound for putting this on the agenda. I would point out that his motion is a verbatim statement of the recommendations of the task force chaired by Ms McPhedran. It is a verbatim recommendation to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and to the government of Ontario, because it suggests legislative change. But Ms McPhedran's mandate, given to her by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, was to make recommendations about the doctors.

1040

There are now 24 professions about to be regulated in Ontario, each of which I believe has an important responsibility to its patients and to its clients in the matter of sexual propriety and sexual behaviour. They also have, as professionals within a profession, an important obligation to the people of this province to clearly state what their plan is going to be to deal with this issue within each of those professions.

What I mean by that is that under the new act, every college -- and the college is the disciplinary and the governing body, the self-regulator and the governor of the profession -- will be required to develop programs of public awareness as well as standards of conduct for its members. This was a very important amendment that was included, an amendment posed by the Liberal caucus and accepted by the government. I appreciate and applaud them for their support of that amendment, because it is the beginning. Over the course of the next little while, each of those colleges will develop a program to begin to address this very important issue of sexual impropriety.

But that is just the first step. The recommendations of Ms McPhedran and her task force as it relates to doctors go much further. I know of the debate, often heated -- sometimes more heated than I would prefer -- that is going on within the medical profession. I believe that debate is important in every one of the professions where a professional has intimate contact -- and perhaps not such intimate contact, but still contact -- with a patient.

I believe it is very important that the professionals understand their obligations and that they also understand that if they cross that line, they will be held accountable and responsible not only by the patient whose trust they have shattered, whose life they have changed, but also by their governing body and by those of us in public life who speak out on behalf of those whose trust has been betrayed.

The idea of the fund, I think, is a good one. We discussed that at committee and I have a number of quotes, but time does not permit me to read them again into the record. They are in Hansard. We support the concept. We urge the government to move forward. We believe it is important to do this for all of the professions. We believe there needs to be some legislative change, and we will be supportive of that change. It is my hope that today we will all agree that this is an important issue.

Mrs Mathyssen: Like many Ontarians, I have watched with horror in the past months as women, one after another, came forward to openly and publicly talk about how they had been victimized and violated by the doctors in whom they had placed their trust. I truly understand the motive behind the member for Parry Sound's resolution. The blatant betrayal of vulnerable patients by their physicians is repulsive. I understand the member for Parry Sound's sense of revulsion that this could happen, and with such shocking magnitude in terms of the numbers of physicians and patients involved, because I share in that revulsion.

Very clearly, the recommendations made by the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients and put forward by the member for Parry Sound in his resolution must be acted upon. Zero tolerance of sexual violation must be the order of the day.

I was also encouraged by the member for Parry Sound's remarks that not just physicians but the other 24 health professions governed by the Regulated Health Professions Act be included. Unfortunately, the task force commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has in fact focused rather exclusively on sexual abuse among doctors. Its many recommendations were quite naturally appropriate to the medical profession. I feel that at this point the discussion needs to be expanded. It is essential to consult with the other 24 professional groups. Their input will provide useful information and ideas about combatting sexual abuse so that the objective of zero tolerance can truly be realized. We must be sure that in our haste to act we do not inadvertently jeopardize that final goal of zero tolerance. The input from other professional groups will help to highlight which of the task force provisions belong in the omnibus act and which belong in profession-specific acts or regulations. It is very important that this issue is properly resolved. We must do it right.

I would also like to point out that the added benefit of fuller consultation will be the raised awareness and understanding of health professional sexual abuse with those other 24 groups and the general public. This awareness is probably the first and best vehicle for ending this crime against the vulnerable.

One final concern I have with this resolution pertains to the amendments recommended by the task force. They raise some issues in terms of administrative law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must have a resolution that is effective from a legal and practical perspective. In order to avoid the pitfalls that could jeopardize this resolution, I would support the appointment of an interministerial working group to consider the member for Parry Sound's resolution as well as other task force recommendations and amendments not included here. This, combined with the consultation, would be a powerful and effective tool to end sexual abuse.

I would like to conclude by congratulating the member for Parry Sound and thanking him for his efforts on behalf of the women and children who have suffered unspeakably at the hands of those who should have been committed to keeping them safe. It is incumbent upon this House, all health professionals and the people of Ontario to achieve our goal of zero tolerance and to put an end to all abuse.

Mr Eves: I am encouraged indeed by the remarks made by members on all sides of the House this morning. I might say at the outset, because it certainly sounds as if we are picking on physicians here -- it is ironic that because the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is the only body that has had the intestinal fortitude to come forward and do something about the problem, naturally the debate and the comment centres around that report and that profession. But I do want to make it quite clear, if my resolution does not, that my resolution applies to all 24 regulated health care professions. I do not think that thought should be lost.

There are some very disturbing cases of abuse, which I think have culminated in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario even starting its task force in the first place. Recently, on October 28 of this year, the Globe and Mail published a poll conducted by the Canada Health Monitor and Price Waterhouse Management Consultants which confirms studies in the US. Up until that point in time all studies of sexual abuse in terms of numbers and percentages had been done in the United States and none had really been done in Canada.

In the United States, studies found, generally speaking -- I am paraphrasing here -- that approximately 10% of doctors had been guilty of some sort of sexual abuse or improprieties during the course of exercising their professional duties. The study in Canada found that 8% of women say they have been sexually harassed or abused by their physicians. In fact, that figure may not be a true and accurate figure and may be a little on the low side, because there was a huge difference between female patients who were contacted by a woman as opposed to a male interviewer. Naturally, I can readily understand that a woman patient would feel much more comfortable talking to a woman interviewer with respect to this particular type of problem.

1050

I also want to talk about a couple of specific incidents, because I think it is important for the public to realize what some patients are undergoing out there. In October 1990, a doctor, accused of encouraging one of his female patients to press her face against his naked pelvic area, was cleared of sexual impropriety by the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The doctor described this incident as a form of bonding, designed to help his patient overcome childhood traumas. The victim accused the doctor of two separate incidents. The doctor denied the second incident.

The five-member discipline committee dismissed the complaint on three grounds: first, the patient was inconsistent on dates and details of the incidents; second, she waited 18 months before registering her complaint, and last, she went back to consult the doctor after the first encounter and allegedly allowed another incident to occur. The woman's actions are consistent with those of abused or assaulted women.

In 1988, a Metro doctor, who specialized in ultrasound, was convicted on two counts under section 149 of the Criminal Code of Canada of indecent assault on a patient and one count of sexual assault of a patient under section 246 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The third incident occurred after the doctor had been notified of the investigation into his conduct by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The doctor, who had been convicted in a court of law, pleaded guilty to the allegation of professional misconduct at a disciplinary hearing conducted by the college.

One of the doctor's victims was a mentally handicapped woman, with a history of child and marital abuse. The committee heard testimony into this matter from the doctor's psychiatrist, a patient of his who is also a nurse, several doctor friends and the doctor's wife. They all testified to the doctor's upstanding character and stated that it was not in the doctor's nature to assault his patients. They also talked about the devastating effect these incidents had on the doctor. No consideration was given, that I can see, to the effect on the patients in these incidents.

In its report on this case, the committee stated that it felt the punishment should fit the offence. It took into consideration that the doctor had served the sentence imposed by the district court of Ontario, that he had suffered public and professional humiliation, that he had pleaded guilty before the committee and that revocation was unnecessary to protect the public from this doctor.

The committee decided that the public would be best served by a penalty that would permit the doctor to continue to practise, but on strict conditions and subject to the following penalty: The committee ordered that the doctor be reprimanded and the fact of his reprimand be recorded on the register -- quite serious stuff. It also required that his licence to practise medicine be suspended for two years but, third, it said the penalty of suspension itself should be suspended, subject to certain terms and conditions.

Those terms and conditions included -- I do not know how much detail we want -- that the doctor could continue to practise medicine as long as he continued to receive treatment and guidance from his current psychiatrist or from a psychiatrist of his choice acceptable to the registrar. They required that the doctor waive the confidentiality of doctor-patient relationship between himself and his psychiatrist and direct the psychiatrist to deliver a quarterly report on his progress to the registrar. Third, they directed the doctor to direct his employer or his chief to submit to the registrar on a quarterly basis a report of satisfactory conduct. Last, the doctor was required to have an attendant present during all specialty examinations of female patients.

There was a minority opinion to this judgement, which I think is important, which called for the revocation of this doctor's licence. This opinion, to my mind, more realistically addresses the issue. The author of this minority opinion stated:

"It is the mandate of the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to ensure that the public is well protected from substandard care by those whom it has licensed. But also, and equally important, it must ensure that when a physician violates the solemn trust bestowed upon him or her and fails in his or her unique responsibility as a private custodian of a patient's vulnerability and takes advantage of that vulnerability, all while using the camouflage of being a respected physician, and does so not once but on three separate occasions, then the degree of violation of that trust becomes academic and the penalty for such behaviour should reflect the committee's gravest concern." It went on to say, "The doctor's professional peers should view such repeated activity as a most serious breach of professional ethics, utterly reprehensible and totally unacceptable."

Not only has the college in the past been guilty of penalties which I think are far too lenient, but it has also had a problem with lawyers and judges, in that on some occasions when it has taken, in my opinion, appropriate action, we find the courts overruling and throwing out its recommended penalties for reprimand and suspension. I think that too goes to the root of a much larger problem in our society today.

We are not just here, although I know it sounds like it, talking about physicians and their abuse and their recognition of reality in today's society. This seems to be ingrained in the legal system, in the judiciary and in the attitudes of at least some members of those professions, who do not seem to understand how serious an offence this is. As the member for Oriole and the former Minister of Health has so appropriately put it, I think, these are issues we do not seem to want to talk about in our society today.

Finally, we do have a body that has had the intestinal fortitude to confront this issue head-on, and I would ask it not to give up on its resolve to pursue what I consider to be a very important issue in society today.

I regard my resolution as merely a first step with respect to many health care professions, and other professions in society as well, I might add. I believe there is a difference between the trust which health care professionals have and some other professions. Most of the time, I think it would be fair to say, the trust that is placed in such professions as the legal profession or the accounting profession tends to be of a monetary nature as opposed to being a trust of one's physical and mental person in itself. That is the abuse we are trying to address, or starting to address with my resolution here this morning.

I have talked to the current Minister of Health about my resolution, and although she was not totally happy with the wording -- neither am I -- I do believe it is a first and important step in going out and consulting with various health care professions and developing legislation which all health care professions can adopt, embrace and embody. Hopefully this will also lead to other professions, such as the legal profession, recognizing zero tolerance in dealing with abuses of this kind.

One thing that does concern me is the fact that during the last week in November just past, the discipline committee of the college handed down a decision with respect to a Sarnia physician, suspending his licence for six months. This physician was convicted in a court of law of abusing 10 different women, although I must say none in the course of his relationship with them as physician to patient, but they were nurses, members of hospital staff and mothers of several young patients.

1100

The fact that this decision was made just two days after the task force final report was released by the very same self-regulating body concerns me greatly. I know this decision was about acts that took place over a period of several years and I know this particular situation, if we can describe it as that, was not in a direct doctor-patient relationship.

But I want to compare it to action the Law Society of Upper Canada took with respect to a lawyer who had been found guilty of sexually assaulting two employees of his, not in his legal profession but in another business operation he had. He was found guilty in a court of law. He did not have any direct relationship with these people as clients. He was disbarred for ever: do not pass go, do not collect $200, you are out of here.

If the legal profession can take those steps, surely the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons can do better than a six-month suspension and, "Don't ever let this happen again because if we ever catch you again we're really going to throw the book at you; you're going to get 18 months next time." That is a joke. It ridicules the task force report. It is time people started to take these things seriously. What the task force report means to me is not just 60 pages of documentation; it means changing attitudes and making the tough decisions that are going to lead to a correction of this problem in society.

I want to speak briefly about the survivors' compensation fund, and I do mean briefly. It was an amendment that has been introduced during committee and unfortunately not accepted, but I believe we must come to grips with this issue as well. I do not think that asking any profession to appropriate or give 1% of its annual dues towards a fund to help individuals that have been abused by any profession -- I do not care what it is -- is an unrealistic request. As a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada I can contribute one heck of a lot more than 1% of my annual dues to a fund for lawyers who make mistakes. I do not think it is unrealistic. In fact, I think 1% is extremely low. I do not know how anybody could have voted against that amendment.

I ask the government to take this matter seriously. I know legislation cannot be developed overnight. I know this involves more than physicians only. It involves at this stage what we are debating here, the 24 self-regulating health care professions in the province. I encourage consultation. I do not expect the minister to come forward with legislation next week or even in the next couple of months, but I do think we have to get serious about this and get on with the job at hand so that we can develop together, with these professions, a code of conduct and appropriate penalties, where required, that will certainly deter, prevent and educate members of these professions so we can protect the patient and women at large in society.

I am not standing here as a smug lawyer. That the law society does not have a zero tolerance philosophy I think is a disgrace to members of my profession, quite frankly. Unless we as professionals and as individuals in society start to treat these problems seriously and deal with these problems in an appropriate manner, this abuse is going to continue in society. We have to meet this problem head-on. I would encourage all members, regardless of their political stripe, to support what I think is merely a first step down the road in trying to rectify a lot of things that have gone on in the past that I do not think should be allowed to go on in the future.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Mr Mammoliti moved second reading of Bill 160, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 160, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

Mr Mammoliti: Those in this Legislature who know me know I am a fair person and that I would like to see harmony and agreement at all times. If that means we have to sit down sometimes and hash things out and battle and squirm, then that is what we should have to do. My bill talks about giving the opportunity to certain people to do exactly that, sit down and talk.

We all know Bill 162, the infamous Bill 162 that was introduced and passed in July 1989. That bill spoke of a multi-employer benefit plan. More specifically, subsection 5a(1) states, "An employer, throughout the first year after an injury to a worker, shall make contributions for employment benefits in respect of the worker when the worker is absent from work because of the injury."

My amendment is actually to subsection 5a(9). The people who know Bill 162 will know this particular section has a deadline, that deadline being January 2, 1992. Needless to say, January 2, 1992, is only a blink away, just down the road a few days, so I am urging that this goes through. I will speak a little more on it in a second, but I am urging all members in the House to pass this unanimously in that if it does not go through unanimously, it just will not work.

What will happen if it does not go through unanimously from all three sides will be chaos. The employees will then be put in the position of finding funding on their own for this multi-employer benefit plan and the employers will opt out, which means that some employers -- not all employers, but most employers -- will opt out of the plan. They will not have to contribute. What does that mean to employees? It means they have to find money, and they have to dish a little more out of their own pockets in terms of contributions.

1110

It also means, from what I can understand, that there will be chaos in some of the legislation out there in terms of who is responsible for what; the Income Tax Act, for instance, and the Pension Benefits Act. There has been some discussion on where the legality is towards contributions and who will be responsible. In their present form, the multi-employer pension plans are not structured to make contributions, and this could bankrupt some plans.

In addition, they do not have the administrative capacity to manage the additional Workers' Compensation Board requirements. The plans are not structured to make contributions, and it is illegal to do so under the Pension Benefits Act.

Many injured workers would not be covered, causing undue hardship. What are the workers supposed to do? If members will remember, in 1989 this particular clause in Bill 162 was pushed through at the last minute, from what I can understand. There was not much time for debate, there was not much time for anything. The bill was pushed through and we are seeing problems now.

The problem now is that only two of the current negotiating bodies have negotiated. That leaves the rest of them, actually 26 collective agreements, that have not been negotiated. What does that mean? It means that come negotiation time in 1992, we are going to have some pretty angry employees when their employers say, "Because of this particular act, we no longer are responsible for contributing." The workers I speak to -- I come from a background of workers myself, and I would also be upset if I sat down with my employers and they said, "Sorry, because January 2, 1992, has passed, subsection 5a(9) states clearly that we are exempt. We are not going to pitch in and give any more money to that body, those trustees we are supposed to give out this money to." The employees will be upset. What does that mean at work? At this point, I guess we can all just assume, but it is reality.

If my amendment goes through, not only today at second reading but third reading as well -- again, I am hoping it will be unanimous consent -- it will give the employees and the employers a chance to negotiate, a chance to sit down and talk about who is responsible for what, when and where, and it will give them till 1997 to do that, so it gives them ample time.

I will mention again that only two of the bodies have negotiated this and it leaves 26 that have not, so it is very important.

There is an argument that may come up in terms of legislating. I have had a couple of members talk to me about this already, saying that perhaps it is the Ministry of Labour that should be looking at this as opposed to a private member. I think it is everybody's responsibility, and if I do not take it on, if I do not make this known, if I do not let people know this is an issue, then maybe nobody else will take it on. My answer to the couple of people who will perhaps be bringing it up later is that maybe they are right, maybe it is their responsibility, but we are talking about workers, we are talking about individuals who are going to have to dip into their pockets come January 3 to pitch into their own contribution package.

We have to understand that employers have already -- the status quo is there -- given in the past. It is a saving for the employer and it is going to be drastic for the employees. So I plead again -- and I am looking forward to hearing some discussion on this -- to members across and members from the government side to please look at this and give unanimous consent for both second and third reading. We do not have time to go to committee. January 2 is the deadline.

Mr Offer: I am pleased to join in the debate on this particular bill because I think it raises an important issue and one which should be rectified. Certainly we will be standing in support of this legislation in terms of the issue that has been raised and the way in which it can be solved.

I would like to indicate very briefly that what this bill seeks to correct is that the Workers' Compensation Act requires an employer to make contributions for the employment benefits, such as health and welfare, pension plan and life insurance benefits, of a worker whose is absent from work due to a compensable injury for up to 12 months after the injury has occurred. That is what the act now requires.

However, on January 1, 1992, in a short two or three weeks from now, employers in what are called multi-employer benefit plans are exempt from that requirement. So in just a few short weeks, that requirement under the Workers' Compensation Act, which requires an employer to make contributions, will not apply to multi-employer benefit plans.

It is clear that if the contributions are not maintained, many injured workers, and we could be talking about thousands of people, will not be covered, which will cause, without any doubt, undue hardship. After January 1, 1992, there will without doubt be two classes of employers and workers. First, employers who make contributions and those who do not and, second, workers who receive coverage by their employers and those who do not. What the bill clearly does is, in principle, seek to remedy that by extending the requirement to make contributions for some years down the line.

I have received letters from the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference; the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario; the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95; the Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees; the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local 128, and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, who have written in support of the legislation. I have also had discussion with Gerry Raso of the sheet metal workers' conference and as well from Kate Acs of the provincial trades council, again, all in support.

So we stand in support of the legislation and for the solution to the issue which is going to come about. But to all those who sent those letters and to all of the people who are represented by those who sent those letters and to those to whom I spoke over the phone, I think we have to be very clear as to what process we are going through here.

No matter what the member for Yorkview has stated, this is not government legislation. Make no mistake about it. The government, knowing full well what the issue was going to be, and the Minister of Labour -- and I am glad the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour is here today -- did not see fit to bring this forward in terms of government legislation.

The government has not embraced the initiative that the member for Yorkview has carried out in his legislation. For those members of the government to send out a message to those people who have written me letters that this is some government initiative is absolutely erroneous and I dare say is playing with those people who are going to possibly fall victim to this particular issue.

If the government had the commitment, if the government took the responsibility, we would have already dealt with this legislation by a government initiative. Saying that they agree with this, the members on the government side put their heads down in shame because they know that is correct. Just two weeks ago we dealt with government legislation that talked about reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act as it applied to the construction workers. That was an initiative which was introduced by the Minister of Labour and supported by our party and by the third party. That is an initiative which is now going to be law in this province.

1120

I understand why he introduced the legislation, but the member for Yorkview would have done very well to have tried to convince his own caucus colleague the Minister of Labour to stand up, make a statement and introduce government legislation. They have not done that. It is absolutely clear that though we on this side very much agree with this legislation, the Minister of Labour and the government have not stood up and introduced legislation, and we know why: They do not yet embrace this concept.

It does not matter what the members on the government side say, we know what the process is here. If the government is in favour of this initiative, then it has the Minister of Labour, and it is the Minister of Labour who should be standing in his place talking about this bill and why it is important to the government. We do not have that.

The second point I want to make is this -- and for those who are watching, I am very upset, as I am sure you can see, Mr Speaker. I am very upset that members on the government side would seek to use this issue, would seek to use the many thousands of people who will be hurt by this particular matter, who seek to use this by not having the Minister of Labour --

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If we agree on this, what is the point of arguing?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order.

Mr Mammoliti: Let me finish, Mr Speaker, please. To say that I am "using" is wrong.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Mississauga North has the floor.

Mr Offer: I speak with great conviction on this, and passion, because I do not like what the government member has done in this respect. This is a matter which is going to affect thousands of workers. The parliamentary assistant, who is looking at me, knows this. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Labour did not bring forward this piece of legislation. They know very well we stand in favour of it. We support this legislation but we are here on December 11; not another week is going to pass in this Legislature. The members on the government side know that, as we speak here today, there are now countless pieces of government legislation that have to go through second reading and that this bill is not going to proceed further.

That member knows that because the government has not seen fit to place the priority on this type of issue that it should have. We on this side are in support of the legislation. We are in support of the principle. We are in support of curing the problem that is going to arise on January 1, 1992. We are shocked that the Minister of Labour could not have stood in his place months ago and said: "This is the bill and we need reading, we need passage," because we know as we stand here, with but four days left in the Legislature and countless pieces of legislation already to be discussed and already set down for how the last four days are going to proceed, that this bill will not be one of them. I will not let anyone who has written me a letter or whom I have spoken to be taken in by that type of procedure. I think it is irresponsible.

I would have liked to see the Minister of Labour bring forward this piece of legislation. We could have given it passage, as we did but two weeks ago to the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act as it affects the construction industry. We did that two weeks ago. We stood up in support, we recognized it was an important issue. We recognized that this is the way in which it could be corrected, and we did so. The government has not seen fit to address this issue the way it did the other issue. We are going to make certain that those people who very much agree with our stance in support on this issue recognize that the government did not have the commitment, the Minister of Labour did not take the responsibility and, as a result, this particular problem will exist January 1, 1992, because of the inaction of the NDP government that now forms the government of the province.

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill 160. I would like to indicate at this time that we recognize the importance of passing Bill 160. We recognize that this is going to amend subsection 5a(9) of the Workers' Compensation Act and it is going to require employers to make contributions for employment benefits of a worker who is absent because of injury during the first year after the injury occurred. We realize that if the legislation is not passed by January 2, 1992, it is going to put some of the employees in this province in an extremely uncomfortable and difficult position. We certainly agree with the principle that this needs to be passed.

However, I have had an opportunity to talk to many of the individuals the Labour critic for the Liberals has indicated he has spoken to. I have spoken to the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers. I have spoken to the International Union of Operating Engineers. I have spoken to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I have spoken to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I have spoken to the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. I have letters here from CUPE, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, the Carpenters and Allied Workers.

I guess the most shocking revelation for me was the fact that these organizations today believed that this was government legislation. They were absolutely surprised, shocked and amazed that this government did not initiate action and had not demonstrated care and compassion for the workers, when it knew it was so imperative to bring this bill forward at this time before the end of this session. I did indicate to them this was a private member's bill and, yes, the Minister of Labour should be here on behalf of the workers in this province and indicating the priority.

In fact, I would indicate to members if the government were to bring in a bill this afternoon, our party would be quite prepared to approve the three readings. However --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. Interjections are out of order. The honourable member for Waterloo North has the floor and may proceed.

Mrs Witmer: It is extremely unfortunate that the government has chosen to use the process of a private member's bill to introduce such an important piece of legislation, which, as I indicated before, if not passed, will create -- I would not say chaos, but it is going to create undue hardship for many people in this province. This is a most inappropriate use of procedure for the introduction of a bill. I ask the government why it chose to take this route and put the opposition in a position where there is not an opportunity to thoroughly discuss and debate this issue. Why did the government not initiate this action? Why is the Minister of Labour not here today to speak to this issue? Why was this not a priority for this government?

1130

I would like to refer back to Bill 158. Bill 158 was the construction bill which dealt with the Adams report. I would like to talk about the very co-operative manner in which it was developed. I would like to talk about the way in which the two partners, the employers and the employees, were brought to the table. Issues were presented and they were asked to resolve the issues.

As a result, the government approached both the member for Mississauga North, the critic for the Liberal Party, and myself and asked for our co-operation in the passage of that bill. We certainly agreed. We realized the need, the urgency, to pass the bill before the end of the year and were quite amenable in order that the needs of the construction workers in this province would be met in time for them to enter into negotiations in 1992.

Why did the government not do the same thing for Bill 160? Why did it not ask for our co-operation in the swift passage of this bill? I am confident, as I indicated before, that we would have been quite prepared -- in fact, we would be quite prepared this afternoon -- if the government were to bring forward this bill, to pass it quickly through the three readings. However, we are very disappointed with the process the government has used and at its lack of concern for the workers, because there will be undue hardship created if this bill is not passed this session. The government had an opportunity to introduce the bill, but it did not.

I would also like to mention at this time that we are very concerned, because although they did not have time to bring forward this bill, they have had an opportunity to go off on tangents around the Workers' Compensation Board, a board which we know is totally out of control. Instead of ensuring that this issue be brought forward and dealt with effectively, they have gone off on a tangent. They are now holding six months of hearings to take a look at occupational stress.

I would like to read from what the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation has to say. According to the study they commissioned, which was done by William M. Mercer Ltd, "Compensating for occupational stress under Ontario workers' compensation is going to produce more than 9,000 claims, costing upwards of $178 million annually." This is going to open the floodgates to so-called stress-related claims. It is going to create more financial hardship for the WCB, which already imposes the highest average assessment rates on employers of all Canadian jurisdictions. The unfunded liability, $9.9 billion, represents future payments for which the WCB has not put aside the money and amounts to some $30,000 for every business in the province. They go on to say, "It's highly irresponsible for the board to advance this proposal without assessing the financial ramifications and the impact."

This is the type of issue that the Workers' Compensation Board is dealing with instead of dealing with the issue in Bill 160, which would protect the workers in this province. As I have indicated, they are off on tangents. They cannot handle what they have at the present time and yet they go ahead and look at the inclusion of stress.

I find it totally unbelievable because I understand that although there was a bit of limited discussion around the issue contained in Bill 160, they did not proceed. They did not encourage employers and employees. People have been left in the dark and given no encouragement whatsoever. I indicate at this time that although I agree with the principle, I am extremely disappointed that there has been no leadership demonstrated by the Minister of Labour. I am disappointed that he is not here today on behalf of the workers in this province who will be impacted if this bill is not passed today.

I find totally unbelievable the lack of government initiative when it has had ample opportunity. They have been so busy these last few weeks introducing one bill after another, indicating to us that we must sit here until midnight every night to pass the numerous bills that are so extremely important. Yet obviously Bill 160 was not an important issue for the government. They have chosen to use a private member's bill to put forward this initiative. To me that demonstrates a lack of concern for the workers in this province.

I suggest to the member that we will support this bill today. I believe it is absolutely essential that there be co-operation and consultation between employers and employees in this province. This extension is going to allow for consultation. It is going to allow for co-operation. Certainly that is what is necessary. I understand that negotiations are going to be resuming for the building trades in May of this year. Most of them probably will be finalized by September. I agree that more time is needed to resolve this issue and it needs to be resolved in a co-operative and consultative manner. I will certainly support it.

However, I will be introducing an amendment. I do not support the five-year extension. In talking to the groups, both employers and employees, I understand that a one-year extension would be quite reasonable since all of these negotiations are going to take place within a very short time and they can resolve this issue within one year as opposed to the five.

Mr Hope: One thing I ask you to do, Mr Speaker, is to pinch me to see if I am sleeping and dreaming about the Liberals and the Tories actually taking the side of the workers, especially hearing what came out of the member's mouth about Bill 162 and how they consulted.

Interjections.

Mr Hope: Mr Speaker, as you can see, the bears are getting a little hungry because they knew this was going to be coming out. It is important. When we talk about Bill 162, they talk about consultation. I remember being the consultation part. I want to move back members' memories memory a little.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The member for Chatham-Kent has the floor. He has limited time, so please allow him the opportunity.

Mr Hope: I could go on for ever about what the Liberals did with Bill 162. I will refresh members' memories back to when workers took the doors of Queen's Park and it took the Leader of the Opposition to settle them down, because of the ungodly things the Liberals were doing out there with Bill 162.

We talk about making the changes. I was coming in here and I thought it was going to be a kinder, gentler place in discussing this major amendment that was being proposed. They criticize the government and ask why the Minister of Labour did not bring it in. Let me tell members what the opposition is doing with pieces of legislation today. They asked why we have to sit until midnight. Well, if they would quit talking for two to three hours on issues, putting the public and members to sleep -- we have to deal with these issues and this is the most appropriate way of bringing it in so we can expedite it and make sure it is there on time for the benefit of the employees and the employers to discuss this major issue.

The funny thing is when I hear the member from the Liberal Party say that the member for Yorkview brings this in --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. Interjections are out of order, particularly when members are not in their seats. Please allow the member for Chatham-Kent to proceed with the debate.

Mr Hope: It is amazing when the bears are this wide awake in the morning. I thought this would be an important debate about what was going on. One of the important things I must add around this bill is that there was a comfortable feeling of the employees and the employers during Bill 162 hearings. An employer had put an objection across. What happened? A member who is now running for the Liberal leadership, the member for York Centre, automatically introduced something without any consultation around this.

An hon member: You're right out of this.

Mr Hope: He says I am right out of this. Let me tell you I have a non-partisan view -- it is from the Legislative Assembly research office -- that says in the briefing notes what happened around that whole thing. Nonpartisan is basically the issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please address the chair.

1140

Mr Hope: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I am trying to get their attention to make sure they understand what is being discussed today.

One of the important things around this part of the bill is to add an ability to do it. The other part is that Bill 162, as we all know, was a so-called solution to unsafe working conditions in workplaces. When they introduced it they said, "Let's not fix the workplaces, let's fix the workers' compensation." This was their attack on the working people of this province.

One of the unfortunate things is that they make reference to labour relations stuff. They did not hear the labour movement saying, "We withdraw our services." We participated in that. What these members are looking for is a compromise to make sure they can work it into the collective agreement. I guess they had a similar situation like this with the employer health tax. How was it compromised in that industry of that nature?

It is important. If I had my choice around this part, I would make sure the employers who have created unsafe working conditions for employees were responsible for a lot longer than one year. It is not the fault of the individual that he gets injured by an unsafe piece of equipment or an unsafe part of the workplace he is working in.

They ask why the Minister of Labour did not bring it in. The whole bill needs to be refined to make sure the protection of workers is there and to make sure the health and safety issues are addressed in that nature. I would like to go on for a long time, but I know a number of members, because of the remarks being made -- but one of the things that is very important --

Mr Offer: Here we go.

Mr Hope: I am going to speak a little softly so they do not have to yell so much across and maybe everybody will be able to hear what they have to say.

Interjection.

Mr Hope: It would be nice? Okay, I will keep it down to a low roar.

One of the important things we are trying to establish here is a mechanism in place that both the employers and the trade unions work out a compromise deal that would be beneficial to both. I question the amendments the Conservatives have put forward saying they need only one year because negotiations are coming up. Are we pushing them and forcing them into it or should it be done in a compromise? If they give them until 1997 and they do it in one year, then 1997 falls out the door, we will not need it.

Around these multi-employer fashions of discussions, it is important because there are a lot of workplaces out there that are not big corporations and we work around these programs to make sure that we can provide excellent benefits for individuals. But why does it have to be on the backs of the workers, who have not created the unsafe working conditions, to pay for the workers' compensation for one year? I have to ask that question.

Mr Offer: You speak as though we're against the bill. We're in favour of the bill.

Mr Hope: The heckling keeps coming across. I am in favour of the bill. I am even going to go one step further and say there should be a total revamp of the Workers' Compensation Act to make sure it is beneficial to all the people who are injured and accident victims. That is where the important part is. Now I would like to hear the Liberals and the Tories stand up and say the same thing. No, because their friends are on the other side.

Mr B. Murdoch: You said you would be quiet.

Mr Hope: I said I would be quiet. Good point. I will bring it back down. Seeing the time that is there, I am going to make sure my other colleagues will be able to participate. I will be supporting the bill and I will do everything possible to make sure it is there to help the workers.

Mr Cordiano: There is really only one issue with respect to this proposal today, the private member's bill being advanced by the member for Yorkview. I must say to the member for Yorkview that he is doing the right thing. He is bringing forward this on principle and I think he is well aware that everyone is in favour of this. No one is against it, but there is really one issue.

What it comes down to is the government is unconcerned, at very best unaware, which we know it is not. The minister does not intend to bring forward a government bill, which is the only thing that can advance this in an expeditious fashion to ensure the deadline is met. That is the end of the issue right there, the substance of it. Nothing further need be said about this.

The fact that we are dealing with a private member's bill today demonstrates only one thing: that the government does not see this as a priority. Therefore, had the member for Yorkview -- at best the member for Yorkview was duped into this by bringing forward a private member's bill which he knows full well may not see the light of day.

Many a well-intentioned private member's bill --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many conversations going on. The member for Etobicoke West, please.

Mr Cordiano: Getting back to what I said, the fact is that the government knows full well that the only thing that would see this bill go through is a government bill that is initiated in this House, brought forward into this House by the Minister of Labour, that would see the deadline met, extended for a year, two years, whatever the period required to get agreement from all parties concerned.

No one is debating the substance of this issue. No one is debating the principles on which this is being initiated. What is in question here is the manner in which this is being proposed. In fact, I would go one step further and say that the government does not care about this, because it does not intend to do anything about it. We would like to ask the Minister of Labour, and it might not be a bad idea to ask the Minister of Labour directly, does he intend to extend the deadline? Is he about to do this within the short period of time that remains in this session to accomplish that? It is a simple question which requires a simple answer. If the answer is no, then we are justified in saying the government does not care whether this deadline expires at the end of this year. That is the end of the story. There is no other issue here.

The fact that the member for Yorkview brought forward this initiative speaks to his concern for workers. But I must say to the member for Yorkview, as well as his colleagues who are sitting in the back benches today -- and I see no cabinet minister here in the House this morning, which simply indicates that the government had no real intention of bringing this bill forward -- it is simply a matter of bringing forward a process in this House which we know will succeed if the government intends to do the very thing that it says it wants to do.

By going through a private member's hoopla here, we are just simply not going to get the bill through. It is not going to result in the extension of the deadline. Is that not, after all, what we want to accomplish? The members in the back benches can sit there feeling as uncomfortable as they like but, quite frankly, none of us on this side are suggesting for a moment that the extension not be granted. We fully support this, so there is no reason in the world that the government should not bring forward legislation which will extend the process we are talking about in terms of the agreement which needs to be reached.

Let's see the minister bring the bill forward. There is still one week in which to do this. There is no reason in the world why the government cannot do this if it really wants to. That is the issue: Does the government really want to?

The member should not hide behind a private member's bill. I would say to the member for Yorkview that he should not try to be the person who prevents all the criticism from flowing to the government because they failed to do the right thing, which is to extend the deadline. If he is going to stand up as cannon fodder for the government, so be it. But he should not lead other people into thinking this is going to be government legislation when in fact everyone knows that it will simply not result in that being accomplished.

Mr Runciman: I have a few minutes to participate in this debate. I want to indicate that we are supporting the measure, reluctantly. We have some very serious concerns in respect to the process which have already been talked about. I want to put a number of things on the record, though.

The member for Chatham-Kent was complaining, essentially, about the long speeches and the time it is taking to get business through this House, talking about three-hour speeches wasting the time of the public. We are having to sit till midnight now. I want to say that in my view, they ain't seen nothing yet, because I think we are faced with an unprecedented situation in this province.

We have an admitted liar sitting in the cabinet of the province of Ontario: a liar and a slanderer. I want to say that we are not going to allow it to occur. The opposition parties are united in this matter.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I must apologize; I did not hear. I understand, if you said anything -- order, please. The member is an honourable member, and if he has said anything which offends this House, he will withdraw it.

1150

Mr Runciman: I simply said what a cabinet minister has already agreed with and has accepted responsibility for, and, especially since you did not hear it, I am not going to apologize.

The member for Chatham-Kent also made disparaging remarks about the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in respect to union workers and their concerns for workers across this province. I want to say that I take offence at that, and I have a lot of difficulty with any member in the socialist government --

Mr O'Connor: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask you to check Hansard and have him withdraw that remark, because it is clearly on Hansard, unparliamentary language.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. All members in this House -- order, please. The member for Oriole, order, please. In reply to the member for Durham-York, all members in this House are honourable. I have asked the member for Leeds-Grenville to withdraw whatever he said that I happened not to have heard. I take his word.

Mr Runciman: I appreciate your intervention. I wanted to say, in respect to the NDP suggesting that it is the only political party in this province that speaks on behalf of workers, that is nothing less than ludicrous. What it does is it speaks for union bosses; it does not speak for workers across this province. Members simply have to look at the rhetoric at the Ontario Federation of Labour convention, where we talked about even tougher labour legislation in this province where we are losing thousands and thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs which will never appear in this province again, or look at what is happening with General Motors in Oshawa now, where there may be 3,500 jobs lost.

The labour leaders in this province are not prepared to sit down and compromise and adopt common-sense approaches to worker-management relationships in this province. Those are the people this government is representing; those are the people who are costing thousands and thousands of jobs in this province. So members opposite should not get up with these phoney arguments saying they are representing the workers. This government is not acting in the best interests of workers in this province and neither are its union bleeder chums.

If members want to talk about the Workers' Compensation Board, we support a complete revamping of the Workers' Compensation Act. We have only to look at the significant debt, the unfunded liability -- very significant indeed. We have to take a look at what this government is doing right now. It is apparently not concerned. We look at the funding through the health organization set up by the Solicitor General where everybody's relatives and every union boss's relatives have been hired. Who is paying for that? The employers of this province, through assessments of WCB. We do not see much being done about that. We see the WCB renting a big building downtown --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Order, please.

Ms S. Murdock: First of all, I guess as members of this House -- I certainly know on a personal level that when I ran, I talked about all the programs that we as New Democrats intended to try to implement. But I know that once we got elected and once I got elected, I represented all of the constituents in my riding. I did not represent just workers; I did not represent just employers.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go on that way. It is your time.

Ms S. Murdock: Anyway, I represented all of my constituents, and that includes both workers and employers. I have never espoused that I represent only workers. I represent everyone, and on that basis I want to say that the other thing I thought of when I came down here as a new member -- probably somewhat naïve in the process of how this place works -- I understood that private members' hour was something that was worth while and important. In fact, one of the complaints has been that this hour has been rather ill-used in terms of the kinds of things that have been brought forward.

Having said that, I think this bill brought forward today by the member for Yorkview is well worth it, and unfortunately, due to the way things work in this place, it will be speedier going through the private members' process than going through the regular process of bringing forth legislation into this House.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga North, order.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. I would ask members to please refrain from holding conversations. The member for Sudbury.

Ms S. Murdock: Unfortunately, the way the system works in this place, it will be speedier going through the private members' hour process, particularly since both parties opposite have stated here that they will be supporting it.

I think there has to be a history lesson in this House today, and the history lesson is on Bill 162 hearings. That is the history lesson. I am somewhat astounded to have heard some of the things that I heard this morning, because this was told to the previous government during the Bill 162 hearings.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. I would ask for your co-operation. I can hardly hear anything in this chair. Please refrain from heckling. The member for Mississauga North, please refrain from heckling. The member for Sudbury.

Ms S. Murdock: Many of the mobile workers in the construction industry -- because this is the industry that is most affected -- will often have more than one employer in a given year. As a consequence, contributions to their benefits packages are made by more than one employer.

It is unfortunate that some of our members in this House have not grown up. However, given that, the history lesson that I want to teach today is that in the Bill 162 hearings that went through this province --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. The member for Sudbury.

Ms S. Murdock: I just want to remind all of the members that the Bill 162 hearings clearly stated that this was going to be a problem, that January 1, 1992, was too soon. Frankly, it is unfortunate that we have to bring in an amendment this way, but all we are doing is extending it.

I would remind all the people who are watching this or sitting at home and wondering what is going on that it was not our government that caused this problem; it was the previous government. I would like everyone to remember that.

Mr Perruzza: First of all, I would like to thank the honourable member for Yorkview for bringing forward this very important piece of legislation for our review. It is something we definitely need to talk a little about.

It is quite evident that the emotions this bill has elicited from all sides of the House are indicative of the kind of scenario that workers across this province are faced with now, particularly in relation to the Workers' Compensation Board.

I do not have enough time this morning to be able to cover the wide range, the entire gamut of the issues that relate to the Workers' Compensation Board; however, it is noteworthy to mention that we did not create the mess that exists now at the Workers' Compensation Board.

We have, however, taken some steps to correct some of the deficiencies and some of the difficulties that workers are now experiencing there. We have appointed a new leadership, who have taken on their jobs very responsibly and are planning to correct some of the deficiencies that are inherent within the system.

1200

What we are talking about today was a late amendment added to Bill 162. I believe it was called the Ellis-Don amendment; if I were a Liberal here today I would be ashamed because Peterson's brother-in-law wrote his own ticket and the amendment was named after him. We are here today trying to correct yet another terrible mistake perpetrated by the former Liberal government on the workers across this province.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please refrain from making these noises.

Mr Mammoliti: I am glad to see that everybody is supporting the bill. Now it is time to vote for the bill and I am hoping I will get that unanimous support I asked for in my opening comments. I am pleased to pass on a message as well from all those labour leaders, and this is coming from their mouths: "Please, please forget your feelings towards the NDP government. Forget your feelings. Try to contain yourselves and please give us unanimous support on this bill. It has to be passed before the new year."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Mammoliti: Those, honourable members, are the words of the members they have spoken to who belong to those unions. Members may be yelling and screaming, and to a degree I can understand that because I do my fair share of yelling and screaming in this place as well. But I do it at the appropriate times. I do it when I feel it is necessary. It is wonderful that members are taking their frustrations out on us. Perhaps members may feel a little insecure, I do not know, but do not take it out on this bill and do not take it out on those workers. I am hoping members will support it, but I see madness. I see people screaming and yelling. Do not take it out on the workers. We need it.

Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Should not the Minister of Labour be here now?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Eves has moved resolution 35.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

1210

WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

The House divided on Mr Mammoliti's motion for second reading of Bill 160, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 58

Abel, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carter, Christopherson, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Eves, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marland, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch, B., Murdock, S., O'Connor, Offer, Perruzza, Phillips, G., Poole, Runciman, Tilson, Villeneuve, Ward, B., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

Nays -- 3

Arnott, Jordan, Stockwell.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to go to third reading.

Some hon members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent. The majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification: Is there a way of finding out who is opposed to this?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on a matter that has just gone through, which was very important to us on the opposition side: What rule is it when the Minister of Labour does not see fit to come and vote in favour of this type of matter?

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1215.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr McClelland: Brant-Haldimand is a prime example of how the NDP government is treating issues of environmental quality in the province of Ontario. Wetlands and other lands which deserve protection, such as areas of natural and scientific interest and regionally identified environmentally sensitive areas, continue to be impacted upon.

The conservation authority budget has been reduced by interim cuts, despite the government's promise that this would happen only if all other transfer funds were also to be cut. The discovery of illegally disposed of biomedical waste and other materials has raised concerns, not only on the Six Nations Indian Reserve but also in other parts of the province, as the spectre of midnight dumping as a reality is driven home.

Concern is increasingly being raised and expressed about surface water quality in the rivers and streams and the quality of ground water, which is a very important source of drinking water.

In the adjacent riding of Brantford, despite firm promises from the local NDP member that he would have Mohawk Lake cleaned up, nothing has happened. In Norfolk, several large developments are planned in sensitive areas, and although the issue was raised in the House, the NDP government has failed to declare a provincial interest in the Long Point area, despite its being a UNESCO biosphere.

The Liberal caucus is very concerned about these issues and the NDP government's inactivity. Tomorrow I will be meeting with a range of interest groups in Brant-Haldimand, together with Mr Ron Eddy, the Liberal candidate in the by-election that will held whenever the Premier finds the courage to face the people. With no elected representative in this House, it is much more difficult for the citizens of Brant-Haldimand to have their environmental and other important concerns heard and subsequently acted upon.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Eves: I have received several letters and telephone calls from constituents who are concerned about the proposed labour legislation.

Jonathan Shaw, general manager of Shaw-Almex Industries, has made several points in correspondence to me which are quite alarming. Mr Shaw states that he is very seriously contemplating relocating his business to the United States or Europe. He goes on to say:

"If many of these measures are adopted, the only possible message being sent to business (who drives the very economy on which we all live and survive) is that the Ontario government does not want our business or our co-operation, and the direct result will be a substantial loss of Ontario jobs! And this fact will rest squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Industry and the Premier."

I also received correspondence from the president of the Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce. I want to quote directly from her letter because she explains the concerns of constituents quite aptly. She says:

"At this time in the Parry Sound area, every effort must be made to maintain existing manufacturing jobs. The incentives offered by US states encourage competitiveness and prosperity. These current proposals raise the cost and risk of doing business in Ontario. Northern Ontario has been devastated by a variety of economic factors which have left the north in a deteriorating crisis situation.... With Ontario still reeling from the recession, this is not time to upset the balance between management and labour. Please urge the government not to act on these labour relations proposals."

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 224

Ms S. Murdock: I rise with pride because the Copper Cliff Royal Canadian Legion Branch 224 is celebrating its 60th anniversary today. This branch is named after a man by the name of Mr R. L. Beatty, who started off as a clerk in a grubby little mining town without any sidewalks or anything at the time, the town of Copper Cliff, and over the years grew and developed until he became the president of the International Nickel Co of Canada, at the time it was called that, before it become Inco.

They named their branch after him because of the contribution he made to the community and how much work he did with people and families and the workers in that town.

Copper Cliff is a small community just outside the larger community of Sudbury. It is very much interested in what it does and how it keeps itself.

The Royal Canadian Legion has done much work in maintaining the community interests. It keeps its people together. Tonight they are having celebrations at the Royal Canadian Legion Hall, which is right next to the arena. I hope everyone in Sudbury plans to attend and help Branch 224 celebrate its 60 years of operation. I congratulate them and wish them to have many, many more.

ST JEAN DE BREBEUF SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Curling: Joining us in the members' gallery today are a number of members of the St Jean de Brebeuf Parent-Teacher Association from my riding. Also present is the local separate school trustee, Mr Harold Adams.

These parents are here because of their concern for the education, safety and welfare of their children. They are here to ask the Minister of Education to ask this government to put an end to the substandard conditions that students and teachers at St Jean de Brebeuf Separate School are compelled to put up with each day because of overcrowding that has reached a critical level.

The current building was built to accommodate 275 students. The current enrolment is 479 students. Washroom facilities are inadequate and much of the outside recreational area is occupied by portables. This situation can only get worse, as the northeast part of Scarborough is one of the fastest-growing areas in Metro, if not in the province. We can, in the next few years, expect to be the home of many hundreds of school-age children.

We know that Ontario is in the midst of a serious recession and that provincial coffers are being stretched, but can we as a society afford to shortchange our children? I appeal to the Minister of Education to look carefully at the very real needs of our growing community when next year's capital funding allocations are being decided.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Education, who seems unconcerned about the confusion and uneasiness that exist around the province concerning religious education.

Last night, approximately 600 people converged on the Simcoe county public school board council chambers because they feel the NDP government is attempting to steal Christmas from them.

School boards, principals, teachers and students are extremely anxious about the celebration of Christmas this year. This anxiety is the direct result of a government and a minister that sit quietly as school boards, principals and teachers are left to interpret what is religious indoctrination as it applies to Christmas concerts and Christmas decorations. Trustees and parents who gathered at Barrie last night heard the story of a banner being torn down from a school in Simcoe county because it carried the words "Merry Christmas."

All this has resulted from the Minister of Education and this NDP government. They have abrogated their responsibilities. The minister has had a memo on his desk that clarifies the status of Christmas concerts, but he refuses to sign it. Perhaps I should remind the minister that there are only 13 days left until Christmas. The minister has transformed that favourite Christmas song "Silent Night" into "Silent Months."

I urge this government to clarify this issue and return Christmas to the parents, students and children of Simcoe county and all across Ontario.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Winninger: I rise in the House today to recognize those individuals, those activists for fairness and equality, who stepped forward to make their views known at the Employment Equity Commission public consultation meeting in London yesterday and the day before. The holiday season is a time when our thoughts traditionally recognize the fundamental equality of humankind. I am excited that this sentiment was clearly and directly expressed and acknowledged at the employment equity hearings in London, where the constituency I am proud to represent, London South, is located.

We have heard much about the need for economic recovery in Ontario. Real economic recovery is a result of employment equity for all members of our province. Women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities and native persons have an equal and decisive role with all Ontarians in learning, training or retraining, and working to build an economy strong with our diverse skills and perspectives.

Commissioner Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré reported there was general support for mandatory employment equity at the London hearings. I praise the fairminded supporters of employment equity in London. Their strength and goodwill may give us a new twist on an old saying and we will all recognize that what is good for people is good for business.

1340

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Phillips: Yesterday we got the news that another business in Ontario may be closing its doors and moving to the United States. Canadian Auto Workers officials said the Oshawa Buick Regal plant may be closing its doors by the end of 1994-95, leaving about 3,800 workers out of work.

On December 4 in this House the Premier was asked by my leader, the member for St Catharines, if he could guarantee that the people working in the automotive industry in St Catharines would still have their jobs at the end of his term. The Premier said at that time that he was working very closely with the automotive industry in encouraging and allowing for new investment in Ontario.

It is clear from recent events that the Premier is operating on a completely different wavelength from the major business leaders in this province. He has not been able to convince the automotive industry that Ontario is the place for future investment. In fact, this government has gone a long way towards driving business out of Ontario and possibly leaving another 3,800 people out of work.

On December 2, Ken Harrigan, the chairman of Ford Motor Co of Canada Ltd, said: "Queen's Park is doing everything possible to put roadblocks in the way of economic recovery. Not one NDP policy initiative is aimed at stimulating economic growth and competitiveness within the province."

This is the reality of the state of business in Ontario. When is the Premier going to say to the 3,800 workers in Oshawa that he will move to protect their jobs? Will he assure them that they have nothing to fear? What is the Premier going to do to ensure that the people of Ontario have a bright economic future?

CREDIT COUNSELLING

Mr Tilson: I recently received a copy of a letter to the editor from a Mr William Day of Alliston in the riding of Simcoe West. Mr Day very ably expressed the concerns of a large number of my constituents with regard to the decision to cease funding to the credit counselling program. I would like to read his letter into the record.

The letter is to the editor and it says:

"Two weeks ago, the Ontario government announced that it will cease to fund one of our social programs called credit counselling. This program was initiated 25 years ago by the PC government and has since been endorsed by subsequent PC and Liberal governments. The funding is equally matched by our federal government. The pullout by the current NDP government terminates further federal obligation. The program dies! The repercussions of this demise are serious and multifaceted.

"Most families are in debt to a greater or lesser extent, usually based on relative income. Due to the current recession and to free trade, more businesses are failing here in Ontario or are simply moving out of province. As a result, the number of people left unemployed has swamped the unemployment insurance and welfare programs. In many cases people cannot bail out of their financial commitments because the value of their property is less than that which they initially paid. Programs such as credit counselling allow people to reach a realistic compromise during periods of hardship in such a way to ensure their self-dignity and self-esteem.

"The side effects of being in an untenable position of debt can be devastating to the family unit and to society. Family stability weakens. Antisocial behaviours ensue: alcoholism, child and spousal abuse, impaired driving, assaults, and destruction of public and private property.

"The pullout by the provincial government at this time is shortsighted and irresponsible."

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS

Mr Malkowski: I would like to respond to the statement made by the member for Mississauga South on cochlear implants last Monday. With respect to the W5 interview, my views on cochlear implants have clearly remained on the editing room floor. I do not oppose government funding on cochlear implant research or development, nor do I oppose the surgery as an option for deaf adults. I would also like to clarify that cochlear implant surgery is not even considered by the medical profession as an option for hard-of-hearing people.

During the Ministry of Health's time of consultations, I presented the views of the deaf that had not previously been considered. I recommended then and continue to invite the deaf, deafened, hard-of-hearing and consumer groups to participate in this process. As a member of the provincial Parliament with responsibilities for disability issues, I feel this is my duty.

I would like to read to members a portion of the Canadian Association of the Deaf's position paper on cochlear implants, one of the views which I presented to the Ministry of Health.

"The Canadian Association of the Deaf recognizes that cochlear implants may be of assistance to some adults, particularly those who have been deafened later in life. However, we urge caution on the question of implanting the device in young children.

"Cochlear implants do not restore hearing; they only translate certain environmental sounds into electrical impulses.

"There is no proof that the device improves the educational achievements of the deaf children."

The World Federation of the Deaf, which is affiliated with the United Nations, supports CAD's position in this matter. My own personal view is in favour of providing a full range of information and options for the deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Hon F. Wilson: Listening to the views and concerns of the people of Ontario is a vital part of how this government creates public policy. Our willingness to listen has been demonstrated by initiatives we have undertaken in areas such as rent protection, family support and the employee wage protection program. Members of the public shared their opinions with us in these areas and helped to shape government policy. We know the value of public consultation, and this weekend we will take a big step forward in public participation in government.

Starting Saturday, December 14, people across Ontario will have access to the public consultation process on 13 key economic and social issues through a new phone-in service. The Ontario 1992 telephone number will be publicized in newspapers across the province, along with a coupon that may be mailed in to request information. Our efficient, automated telephone service is able to handle 600 calls per hour. The service is available in both English and French and is accessible to anyone with a hearing disability.

People will be invited to leave their name and address so ministries and commissions can send out information on topics of interest to the callers. They will be provided with background information to help them get more involved in the issues, including information on how to participate in dozens of public consultation meetings throughout the province. This service allows us to hear from all Ontarians, no matter where they live. We are continuing to provide the public access to the government we have always believed in.

This program will require no new money. Funds for the program are drawn from the communication budgets of the ministries and commissions involved. What is more, money is being saved. Setting up this service will cost about $977,000. Additional charges for long-distance calls will depend on the volume of inquiries. Providing similar access for each of the 13 consultations separately would cost several million dollars. As an added benefit, advertising these consultations together makes it easier for people to get involved in more than one subject.

The Ontario 1992 consultation process concentrates on a balance of economic and social issues. Some of these have been announced and are under way, including employment equity, fair taxes, the 1992 budget and waste reduction. Others will be under way shortly.

Public meetings will be held across the province on many of these issues, but our new phone-in service is a critical part of our consultation efforts. By just picking up a telephone anyone in Ontario has the opportunity to find out information on many vital issues, and then has the chance to ask questions or express views. That is what true consultation is all about.

I would like to acknowledge the valued help of my legislative colleagues the member for Niagara South and the member for Hamilton Centre in bringing these consultations together in a working committee before turning the project over to my ministry for implementation.

I am certain members on both sides of the House will find this a valuable service for their constituents. I look forward to working with all members to ensure Ontarians enjoy the benefits of this program.

RESPONSES

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr Bradley: I thought the minister was going to rise to announce that the Ministry of Transportation and all its employees and jobs promised would indeed be going to St Catharines, but it is simply a reannouncement of what we already exposed to the House, that is, this special consultation committee to enhance the NDP government.

What is most interesting is the first thing I saw when I looked at the back of this: "For more information, contact" -- you guessed it -- "John Piper, 325-7644," the person who orchestrates the entire NDP government, the Premier's whereabouts and so on.

We recognize the committee that is going to co-ordinate this is made up of NDP operatives. We finally got the secretary of the NDP off the committee after we exposed that in the House, but all the people who work for the ministers who are NDP patronage appointments will of course now be in a position to make these decisions.

1350

I suggest that instead of what they have, the telephone number should be 1-800-NDP-SHAM. That would be an appropriate number because I notice you have to give your name and address if you want to get a response to this. They want your name and address. That fits in with what we found on the secret memo we got from the chief government whip, which says, "They should be keeping lists and using names creatively. This is an opportunity to establish new support bases across Ontario." It also says, "The participating ministries must agree to resource the project."

Therefore, "If there is other vital information that is needed to the people of Ontario, we'll take the money away from that so that we can have people phone in and increase the lists so that Jill Marzetti will be able to send even more fund-raising letters out to the people of Ontario." We can bet that all of them will be there.

We know this consultation kickoff was held at the NDP provincial council, so this is not particularly new. We know it is based on the approach to the budget hearings of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs last summer, where they hired Alpha Consultants to bring to the various committee hearings people who were favourable to the government position -- the only people in Ontario who were, but they happened to show up at that particular meeting.

This is a seemingly redundant service that is going to cost $1 million. It is not going to create any new jobs in Ontario. Everybody has got a job over there in any event. It will perhaps improve the NDP membership list. I can imagine those full-page ads that will be talking about: "Life is Good, Ontario. Preserve It, Conserve It."

My last comment on this is that I do not know why they are even going through this process, because the Premier is ordering polls to be paid for with taxpayers' money and then he keeps the results of the polls secret to the NDP caucus. I do not know why they are going through this sham in the first place. I am sure our Treasury critic will be able to help us out.

Mr Phillips: I would like to comment on the announcement. As my leader pointed out, it is part of the overall communications plan that we have already seen. In terms of saving money, though, I think we should all recognize that the government will be placing some very expensive ads. The Fair Tax Commission, part of this consultation central co-ordinating committee program, has already hired 15 to 25 community animators. They are being trained today at the Guild Inn. What will these 15 to 25 people do? They will be out in the community animating. That is clearly an additional expense.

The Fair Tax Commission also said it is important that all the parties involved in the community education program be connected by computer. There is an entire computer network being set up to work with these community animators. As my leader asked, who is co-ordinating the community animators? Alpha Consultants. Who are Alpha Consultants? We are not all sure. I see from the briefing document here, "Alpha Consultants Inc, 2 Second Street, Ward Island."

Frankly, what we are looking at here from the CCC committee is clearly a major propaganda move by the government. This is the first step: $1 million worth of phones, 20 or 25 community animators being trained today and heading out into the community, a whole computer network being set up so they can communicate on a daily basis. This is not a money-saving program; it is a major propaganda program by the government. I ask this government to take a very close look at it.

Mr Stockwell: Has this government no shame? Have they no shame that they could sit on this side of the House over the many years they did and make outlandish complaints about previous governments? They pull this kind of cheap theatrical political stunt and they do not expect the public or the opposition to see through this? They do not call them NDP hacks. They do not call these 20 or 25 people NDP hacks. They call them animators. They invent names for hacks who are going to go in and set up a computer system to do their best to resurrect this collection of socialists.

A million dollars to boost the government's image. A million dollars of taxpayers' money to help this motley crew boost its image around the province, all in the name of consultation. Now the people of Ontario can get up-to-date news on which cabinet minister is going down today; it is a 1-800 telephone number.

We have no consultation on the government's energy policy. We have no consultation on the government's day care policy. We have no consultation on the government's housing policy. All we get is a congratulatory note sent to the government whip and the member for Hamilton Centre about the hard work they have performed working on this committee.

That is all we get here today, and they left out the president of the NDP. They forgot to thank that person, and I understand she worked very hard to ensure government members got all the propaganda in place, all the animators in place, and they found the money within their budget, the $1 million, when they could not find more than 2% for those who need it in this province.

This party has fallen from any principle, from the ideology they had on this side of the House. They have fallen like no party has fallen before, and this is a sad public attempt to steal taxpayers' money to prop up this government and its sagging public image.

I do not believe they can stand before this opposition today and pass this off as government consultation. They are going to keep the names and addresses of those people who phoned. They are going to keep their addresses and they are probably going to mail them out requests for funding for their party on its own.

It is no wonder we are in debt. We would never stoop this low if we were in government. We would never stoop this low, to take $1 million of taxpayers' money to prop up their own party position.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: The seals are acting up today. It is clear there was not a good fish feed this morning. It is very clear that this government is now reaching all new lows in its efforts to prop up its sagging popularity.

On this side of the House we will have no part of this $1-million expenditure. It is a waste of taxpayers' money, and it is a sad day for the socialists when they will stoop this low to prop up their sagging public image.

Interjections.

QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. After question period on Wednesday, November 27, 1991, the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) raised a point of order concerning the nature of ministerial responsibilities in relation to oral question period and a minister's ability to refer a question to another minister.

Dealing with the first point, members will know that questions directed to a minister of the crown must relate to the minister's official responsibilities as conferred by statute or otherwise assigned.

I begin my review of the parliamentary authorities in this area by quoting citations 409(6), 410(10) and 410(17) of pages 121 and 122 of the 6th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules And Forms as follows:

"A question must be within the administrative competence of the government. The minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his or her present ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio."

"The subject matter of questions must be within the collective responsibility of the government or the individual responsibilities of ministers."

"Ministers may not be questioned with respect to party responsibilities."

1400

I also refer members to the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, which states the following at page 285:

"Questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in Parliament, or to matters of administration for which they are responsible."

These authorities confirm the practice in our own House, namely, that if the minister in question is a minister without portfolio, has no responsibility for a particular program, and is not officially acting for a minister who has a portfolio or program of responsibility, no question can be put to him or her. If the minister without portfolio does have a program responsibility or is officially acting for a minister with a portfolio or program responsibility, then he or she can be questioned on a matter touching on that responsibility.

For example, earlier this session, the member for Scarborough West was minister without portfolio responsible for women's issues. Similarly, in the last Parliament, there were various ministers without portfolio responsible for the government's program for disabled persons and senior citizens. Members were entitled to question such ministers about their respective program responsibilities.

With respect to members who have been appointed to the position of chief government whip, the long-standing practice in this and other jurisdictions is that they are not to be questioned about the duties of that office in the course of question period. In the House of Commons at Ottawa, unlike Westminster, the government whip has no ministerial rank. Nevertheless, neither jurisdiction permits government whips to be questioned in the course of their respective question periods.

It is clear, then, that question period should not be used as a vehicle to question a government member about the duties of an office that is not of a ministerial or governmental nature. The duties of the chief government whip, and indeed all party whips, are of a party nature, although they are exercised in a parliamentary context.

Turning to the specific case raised by the member for Carleton, the House will know that the member for Niagara South (Mrs Coppen) occupies two separate and distinct positions. She is a minister without portfolio appointed under the Executive Council Act and chief government whip appointed under the Legislative Assembly Act.

I have already indicated that the member for Niagara South cannot be questioned concerning her whip's duties. I say further that since the same member has no portfolio or program responsibility and is not acting for a minister with a portfolio or program responsibility, she cannot be questioned about the activities she engages in in her capacity as a member of the government.

In short, given her current responsibilities, the member for Niagara South stands in the same position as a government backbencher with respect to her ability to answer questions during oral question period.

On several occasions in the fall meeting of the House, our practice has been other than what I have just indicated; that is, questions were addressed to, and indeed answered by, the member for Niagara South without challenge or without anyone rising on a point of order. Regardless of whether the basis of the questions was that she was chief government whip or that she was minister without portfolio or that she was both, the question should not have been asked, or answered, given her current responsibilities.

I believe that the reason for this recent departure from our long-standing practice is that this issue has never been raised in the House on a point of order. Indeed, this is the first occasion on which any Speaker of this assembly has ever ruled on this specific point.

Thus, when the member for Carleton rose in the House last week -- and it is to his point that I am responding -- it afforded me the opportunity to review our practices and to report to the House in the way in which I have just done. I hope this clarifies the first concern raised by the member for Carleton.

Turning to the member's second concern, members will know that certain questions asked during question period can raise more than one subject matter, and that in such circumstances more than one minister might have jurisdiction to answer the question. The procedure for dealing with such situations is outlined in standing order 32(f), which reads as follows:

"A minister to whom an oral question is directed may refer the question to another minister who is responsible for the subject matter to which the question relates."

This standing order, then, allows the question to be answered by the minister to whom it is directed, or by the minister to whom it is referred.

The member for Carleton questioned the propriety of a minister referring a question to another minister on the grounds that the first minister had jurisdiction to respond to it. In response, I have to say that it is not our practice to query or examine the rationale for referring a question, as long as it raises a subject matter within the responsibility of the minister to whom it is referred. Furthermore, it is for the ministers themselves to decide which of them will actually answer a question that is properly put to the government side.

This is also the practice in other jurisdictions. For example, Erskine May states the following at page 286:

"...it is out of order to ask a minister for his reasons for transferring a question. It is a long-established principle that decisions on the transfer of questions rest with ministers and it is not a matter in which the Chair seeks to intervene."

The other point that should not be overlooked about the exchange to which the member for Carleton has drawn the attention of the House is that no member is entitled to ask, respond to, or refer a question that does not lay within the jurisdiction of any member from the government side. I am alluding here to matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy or the Speaker.

In the case now before me, the chief government whip was asked a question concerning a letter she had written that dealt with, among other things, a training session for constituency assistants. The question was referred to the government House leader. I say to members that the question was inappropriate for two reasons. First, as I have already indicated in the first part of this ruling, the chief government whip is not entitled to respond to, let alone refer, questions in view of the nature of the position she holds. And second, this particular question should not have been directed to any minister because it touched on administrative matters internal to the assembly as opposed to a governmental or ministerial responsibility. Such questions should be raised with the board or with the Speaker, instead of in the House.

In closing, I thank the member for Carleton for raising his thoughtful point of order when he did. It has afforded me an opportunity to offer some guidance to members as to what kinds of questions can and cannot be asked, answered and referred in the course of oral question period.

I thank the members for their patience in the course of my delivery of this extended ruling.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I very much appreciate the work you have done. It is a very significant ruling for this Legislature. I for one am going to review it very carefully. Immediately upon receiving the ruling, one question immediately jumped to my mind -- I will simply put it to you now; and we will want to discuss this at a later point. Given this very significant ruling you have now made in this assembly, I wonder under what conditions members of this Legislature could ever put a question to the government House leader, having regard to the fact that in this Legislature, unlike a number of the places to which the ruling makes reference, the leader of the government in this House is not, in that role, a member of council, but rather is Minister of Mines, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to name but three.

It is a very interesting ruling. I am certainly going to look very carefully at it, and I wonder just at first glance, for example, how we would ever again, in the face of that ruling, question this or any other government House leader in this assembly, having regard to the peculiar nature of the government leader in this assembly.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point raised by the member for Renfrew North. Indeed, as always, I am most pleased to receive any observations any member of the assembly has with respect to the standing orders and my rulings.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I want to correct my own record, because the Premier has asked, and I think it is a good point -- when I say "the peculiarity of the position," I mean just that. In this assembly, unlike the Parliament of Canada, which I gather has weighed heavily on this ruling, we do not have a government House leader who is president of the council -- or as they do in Westminster -- an office in and of itself. The government House leader in our tradition comes here by virtue of another departmental responsibility. As I understand your ruling, I could only question the current government House leader in his capacity as Minister of Municipal Affairs. I presumably could not question him as leader of the government in the House. I do not think that is intended, but it is one of the issues that is peculiar to this assembly.

The Speaker: First, to the member, I realize that his use of "peculiar" would not apply to any member of this assembly. But indeed, as he has already noted, we have an unusual situation with respect to the chief government whip as well as the House leader. I would be pleased to explore this further.

1410

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

The Speaker: Yesterday, the honourable government House leader raised a point of order about language that had been used in yesterday's question period. I also heard comments on this point from the honourable leader of the third party, Mr Harris, and from the House leader of the official opposition, Mr Mancini. As a result of their comments, I undertook to review the record. Having done so, and before we start today's oral question period, I believe it is important that I take a few minutes to talk in general terms about the use of language in this chamber.

First of all, let me make it quite clear that there is no list of parliamentary and unparliamentary terms. The lists that have been reproduced in Beauchesne's fifth and sixth editions are there for information only and members should not take from these lists that because a certain term was used and ruled unparliamentary on a certain day, that term is for ever to be deemed unparliamentary.

Language is unparliamentary in this chamber, in the House of Commons in Ottawa and in the House of Commons at Westminster, as it is in all of the chambers that are guided by the British parliamentary system, when the Speaker, who has the responsibility to keep and maintain order in the chamber, rules that in her or his judgement, the use of a certain term in certain circumstances is causing disorder and therefore it is unparliamentary in that case.

The second point I would like to make about parliamentary language is that because it is basically a question of order at the time when that language that is deemed unparliamentary is used, therefore, it is usually not useful to go back over a previous day's proceedings and look to see whether or not a term was unparliamentary or parliamentary and that is because the possibility of disorder is then past. There is, however, one very important exception to this practice and that is when an honourable member accuses another honourable member of this House of lying. All members are, I am sure, very aware of this rule and I will use this occasion to explain the reason for this rule.

All members of this House operate from the basic principle that they are all honourable members and that they all speak the truth because they enjoy very special privileges as members. They enjoy the unfettered right of free speech. This privilege brings with it responsibilities and that is why, therefore, it is expected that they all speak the truth.

Yesterday, the honourable member for Oriole (Mrs Caplan) used certain words in an interjection that I did not hear and therefore could not ask her to withdraw. I have since been able to look at Hansard and the honourable member for Oriole did imply that the honourable Minister of Northern Development, who had the floor at that point, was lying. Had I heard those words then, I would have asked her to withdraw them yesterday. I am asking her now to please respect the tradition of this House and withdraw those words, which I am sure she had not fully intended to use.

Mrs Caplan: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Oriole.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, might I make a comment on your ruling, to which we submit of course, and ask you to consider another matter. The theory, it seems to me, of the ruling you have read is that because we are all honourable members we cannot impute motives or say that another member is a liar because it reflects on his integrity for us to do so. I ask you to consider this situation. If a member comes to the House and volunteers that he has lied about a given subject matter, it surely cannot be in that case that it is wrong for us to accept that statement at face value and to refer to that person as a liar. I would be grateful to have your comments on that aspect of the ruling in due course.

The Speaker: The honourable member for St George-St David raises a valid point of concern. The distinction to be made of course is the language which is used here in the House. The Speaker has responsibility for what happens in the chamber, but not for what is said outside the House. I can only judge by the comments which are heard in this chamber and of course must rule on it essentially in two ways: First, accusations of lying are not acceptable in the House; and second, any language which leads to disorder in the House. Those are the two occasions, which I believe the honourable member will fully understand.

Mr Bradley: Can this ruling be retroactive to when they were in opposition?

The Speaker: We develop history. Did the member for Parry Sound have a point of order?

Mr Eves: On a point of order and with respect to the honourable member's point to you, Mr Speaker: If an honourable member states in this House that he or she has said something outside the House which is unfounded and untrue, would you as Speaker interpret that to mean that individual is saying he or she has lied?

The Speaker: The Speaker simply accepts the statements which are made by members, and of course since all members are honourable, the statements which are made in the House are the truth.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Conway: My question today is to the Premier. It was exactly one year ago today, on December 12, 1990, that the Premier of Ontario, the member for York South, announced to this Legislature and to the people of Ontario beyond this place that he was determined to impose upon his ministers a higher and more stringent standard of public conduct and, in connection with this clarion call to better behaviour and more stringent standards, he announced and released his new Conflict of Interest Guidelines.

Having regard to the Premier's oft-repeated determination to have a higher and better standard of conduct on behalf of his ministers, I want the Premier to explain to me once again how it is, in light of that first-order commitment, he can accept in his cabinet today a colleague who has admitted to going, in her capacity as Minister of Northern Development and Mines, to a public place, Thunder Bay, and in the course of a conversation with a number of officials knowingly impugning the integrity of an Ontario doctor? How is it possible that the Premier can tolerate that in light of what he said to this Legislature one year ago today?

Hon Mr Rae: I think what happened in this instance, as has been said on a number of occasions and can be said again, is that the minister said some things in the course of a conversation with Mrs Dodds that she very much regretted having said. She has apologized for those statements. She has made it very clear that she regrets what took place, and I am satisfied that the minister has had no access to any confidential information. That is what she has told me. That is what she has told the House. In light of the very clear apology the minister has made, I think the steps the government has taken are reasonable in the circumstances.

Mr Conway: The Premier wants us and the people to believe that the Minister of Northern Development in this case made an honest mistake. Any objective observer would agree, I think, that a mistake has about it the quality of ignorance and inadvertence, an accidental quality, if you will.

What is absolutely clear in this connection is that there was nothing accidental, nothing ignorant, nothing inadvertent about what the honourable Minister of Northern Development did. By her own statement, she went forward and knowingly slandered an Ontario doctor. That is not an honest mistake by any objective standard; that is grave misconduct. In a community setting an individual would not go to the penalty box for this; an ordinary citizen would go to court for this in the name of slander and libel.

How can the Premier characterize this as an honest mistake when clearly, by the minister's own admission, it was not inadvertent? It was not accidental. It was premeditated, it was knowing and it was slanderous.

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite has wound himself up to a point of rhetorical certitude that he may feel he possesses but I am not sure is warranted by the facts or by the situation. I would simply say to the honourable member that his characterization of what has taken place is different from the one I would put on it. I think the minister has made an honest mistake and I would suggest that there are plenty of members around who have made mistakes in similar circumstances.

1420

Mr Conway: My certitude comes from the clarion call that the Premier made to us and the people a year ago today. He set the standard and he has taken on to himself the role of chief justice and arbiter in these connections.

Six months ago I sat in this seat and I watched and I heard my friend the member for Ottawa Centre quite clearly and quite inadvertently breach confidentiality, and quite by accident. She did the honourable thing. She almost immediately tendered her resignation, and the Premier did the understandable thing and immediately and with regret accepted that.

In light of the December 12, 1990, Bob Rae standard and in light of the Evelyn Gigantes precedent of April 1991, how is it that the first minister can accept the resignation of the now Minister of Housing and sustain and defend the Minister of Northern Development who did not, I submit, by the Premier's own standard and his government's own precedent in the Gigantes matter, commit an honest mistake but a serious and grave misconduct for which she ought to resign in good faith and with honour?

Hon Mr Rae: I listened with interest obviously to the rhetorical flights of the member for Renfrew North. I simply say to him as directly as I can that I disagree with his conclusions, with his statements of fact and with his imputations of various kinds of conduct. The Minister of Northern Development has clearly apologized to everyone concerned for what took place in her conversation with Mrs Dodds and has indicated very clearly that she is sorry for what took place.

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I hope she will accept a question on this subject again, because I am trying to understand what she understood about the ministerial rules when she spoke at Thunder Bay last week.

She had the precedent of course of the now Minister of Housing who, having inadvertently released confidential information under the act, resigned. I take it the Minister of Northern Development can confirm for us that when she went to Thunder Bay she knew that if, for example, she released confidential information about a patient or if she released the gross billings of a named doctor she would be in breach of the act and have to resign.

Hon Miss Martel: When I was in Thunder Bay, in the course of the conversation, I did not release any confidential information, anything with respect to doctors' billings or money. At no point in time was any of that information released because I do not have any of that information to release.

Mr Scott: We are all agreed that without the consent of the doctor, if a minister of the crown or anybody else with the information got up in the House or elsewhere and said, "Dr Jones has gross billings of $408,000," that would be a breach of the act and would require resignation.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The doctor said they did.

Mr Scott: If the Minister of Housing would just tone it down for a minute.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Scott: Yesterday the Minister of Northern Development released a background paper which reveals, when you examine it closely, the actual gross billings of a doctor in Sudbury. It contains two documents. The first is a document that lists by name all the doctors under the program, and I refer to the single cardiovascular surgeon in the program, Dr S. S. Aul. There is nothing wrong with that document.

Then a second document is attached behind that with which there is nothing wrong either. It is a case study based on an unnamed doctor in a cardiovascular program whose gross billings are revealed as $708,688. The minister yesterday, on the basis of information prepared by the Minister of Health, released the gross income of Dr Aul as $708,688.33.

I put it to the minister that this is clearly a breach of the statute. There is no other cardiovascular surgeon in an underserviced area in Ontario except Dr Aul.

Hon Miss Martel: The information the member is referring to is information that was released by the Ministry of Health at a public meeting held in Sudbury last Thursday. That meeting was held very much with a broad number of the public and physicians in the community to deal with the question of the threshold.

The Deputy Minister of Health, Mr Decter, made it very clear that the contents of the case studies to which the member is referring had nothing to do with anyone in northern Ontario. He made it absolutely clear at the meeting that they were case studies only to show how the threshold could be implemented, and second, he said very clearly that none of the cases referred to doctors in northern Ontario.

Mr Scott: There is nothing wrong with listing the name of the single cardiovascular --

Hon Mr Rae: You're wrong. Apologize, you're wrong.

Mr Scott: Will the Premier please hold it, because he knows I am right.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please. The honourable member.

Mr Scott: There is nothing wrong with releasing the name of the single cardiovascular surgeon. That was part one of the paper. There is nothing wrong with doing a case study of an unnamed cardiovascular surgeon in an underserviced area. But there is no other cardiovascular surgeon in an underserviced area in Ontario. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Northern Development have both breached confidentiality, and I challenge them both to resign, as did the member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon Miss Martel: I think if the member takes a look at the paper again, there is nothing on that page that indicates the random cases that have been selected are from an underserviced area. In fact the five cases were randomly selected by the Ministry of Health in order to portray to the public in Sudbury what the effects of the threshold would be.

Michael Decter, the Deputy Minister of Health, made it very clear at the public meeting that none of the cases were referenced to northern Ontario.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Eves: To the Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound has the floor.

Mr Eves: Last June the Minister of Northern Development made an honest mistake. She offered her resignation. The Premier said -- and I quote from the Globe and Mail of June 14 -- that the minister was "upholding the principles of ministerial responsibility and honouring the conflict of interest guidelines governing their behaviour."

This time the minister has again broken the guidelines, but has not offered her resignation. What does the Premier have to say now about upholding principles and honouring guidelines?

Hon Mr Rae: What I am going to say is what I have said before and I will say it again. The minister made an honest mistake with regard to a conversation that took place. She has regretted what has taken place and, if I may say so, judging from previous questions asked, much of what is now being said is based on completely wrong foundations of fact with regard to what has taken place in this situation and in other situations.

Mr Eves: I do not think there is any mistake or misapprehension about what the facts are. There is really only one issue here. A cabinet minister has clearly broken the Premier's own guidelines as enunciated by him. She has clearly broken guideline 4. Either she deliberately told an untruth and slandered a doctor's reputation or she revealed confidential information. It is as clear as that. It is one or the other. In either case, she has clearly broken the Premier's guideline 4. Why will he not enforce it?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: The minister has clearly apologized for what has taken place. She has made it very clear that is what has taken place. I would make a simple observation that it strikes me that in the circumstances, in terms of the judgements we are called upon to make, the minister has clearly indicated her understanding of the facts with respect to confidentiality. She has made it extremely clear to the House and certainly very clear to me in every conversation that she has never had any access to any confidential information and that there has been no breach of confidentiality by her -- and as far as the other allegations that have been made by anyone else are concerned -- and in those circumstances the minister has not submitted her resignation.

Mr Eves: Even if we assume the facts as the Premier has just stated them, the fact of the matter remains that the Minister of Northern Development deliberately fabricated a story and slandered a doctor's reputation. The Premier is telling us that the penalty for that is offering an apology. On July 2, 1986, the Premier stood in this House and told David Peterson: "If the government is not willing to enforce the guidelines, it does not matter what they are.... They could have been devised by Moses and brought down from the mountaintop, but if we do not have a Premier who is prepared to enforce the guidelines, they will not make any difference." The Premier set his own guidelines. Why will he not live by them now?

Hon Mr Rae: Not every offence is a capital offence. That strikes me as a rather basic premise. The premise the member is now putting forward is that he can characterize anything that happens in any way he wants, that he decides what happens and then decides on his own exactly what has to take place. In the circumstances, given the service of the minister, given the contributions she has made, given the work she has done on behalf of the citizens of northern Ontario, views expressed very strongly by the head of the medical association in Sudbury yesterday with respect to the extraordinary contribution the member for Sudbury East has made to the people of Sudbury and the medical profession in Sudbury, I would say to the honourable member that I think my interpretation of what has taken place has been fair.

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier as well. Those of us who were in this House prior to the Premier's coronation are really having a tough time swallowing this issue. Time and time again the Premier stood in his self-appointed judge's chair on this side of the House and demanded blood from David Peterson's ministers, yet now we find out the Premier is content with even lower standards than his.

With respect to the Premier's decision to hang tough and keep the Minister of Northern Development in cabinet, would the Premier please advise us whether or not he is aware of any similar circumstance in any parliamentary democracy whereby a member of the executive council has admitted to a fabrication and slander during the performance of his duties and been retained in office? If not, could the Premier tell us why he believes his decision is an appropriate and responsible precedent?

Hon Mr Rae: I can think of lots of situations, indeed even in the House of Commons, I am told, where people have said things about other people which if said outside or inside in the course of temper would be seen as remarks that should not have been made. Members have been asked in the House here all the time to withdraw comments that have been made. It happens in the House of Commons as well with regard to what has taken place.

I would say to the honourable member, again, let's put this thing into some degree of perspective with respect to what is taking place in the province today and with respect to the public affairs of the province. The fact of the matter is that a minister of the crown, who has served well and served the province well, in the course of a conversation with Mrs Dodds lost her temper and said something she now regrets. She has clearly apologized to the House for that and she has clearly indicated that the mistake was made by her with regard to what she said. I think the minister is serving the province with great distinction.

Mr Runciman: The Premier has only been in office 16 months, yet we have seen more examples of scandal, mismanagement, flip-flops and incompetence than anyone could ever imagine. There has been the NDP member for Welland-Thorold, the NDP member for Ottawa Centre, the NDP member for Oakwood, the NDP member for Victoria-Haliburton, the NDP member for Cambridge, the NDP member for St Andrew-St Patrick, the NDP member for Scarborough West, and twice the NDP member for Sudbury East, and we still have no idea of the standards for the Premier's cabinet. Could he give us a hint?

Hon Mr Rae: Put it in perspective: I ask the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville to do that. I know it is difficult sometimes for it to be done. I say to the honourable member that yes, of course some members have made mistakes and some ministers have made mistakes and I have made more than my share. I suspect the honourable member has made more than one or two at times as well.

Some ministers have submitted their resignations and they have been accepted in situations. The honourable member can shake his head as much as he likes, and I respect him for having a different point of view, but I would say to him very clearly that the government has done its best to serve the people well and to serve the people honestly. I think the public record, on balance and in fairness, would show that.

Mr Runciman: If the Premier is suggesting that I have lied or fabricated something in my life in this House, he is dead wrong. I want to tell him that.

I want to briefly go over the Premier's standards. If a member offends a labour union, he gets kicked out of caucus; that is not okay. If a member poses as a Sunshine Boy, he gets fired from cabinet; that is not okay. If a member goes to jail, he gets a promotion; that is okay. If a member deliberately lies and slanders a doctor, that is okay too. These apparently are the Premier's new standards.

I am going to use unparliamentary language, but I think this is a significantly important matter. Apparently the Premier is quite simply a hypocrite of the highest order, and I am not prepared to withdraw it.

The Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville will know that is not an acceptable term to use in the House and I would ask him to withdraw.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I believe this is a precedent that none of us should be living with. I am prepared to leave the House based on that principle.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order.

I would ask the member for Leeds-Grenville to have a moment of reflection, and would ask that he consider that unacceptable language does not contribute to the dignity of the House. I would ask him once again if he would withdraw the remark.

Mr Runciman: I decline, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: To the member for Leeds-Grenville, who is a long-standing member of this House and indeed has a history of active contribution to this House, I would ask that the member respectfully consider what language he has used and would ask him to please withdraw the comment he made.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, as a final response, I am prepared to withdraw the remarks if the minister is prepared to do the responsible thing and withdraw from the executive council.

The Speaker: Do you withdraw the remark?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I regret having to name the honourable member, but I must name the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville. Mr Runciman, you are named and you are asked to withdraw yourself from the chamber for the balance of the sitting day.

Mr Runciman left the chamber.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I want to return to the Premier on the question of his standards. It is quite clear from questions on this side of the House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: This House stands recessed for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1441.

1451

The Speaker: The honourable member for Renfrew North, I believe, had the floor and was about to pose a question.

Mr Conway: I want to return to the Premier, to his standards, and I want the Premier to reflect with me on what we do know happened in Thunder Bay last Thursday night.

About this there is no contest, apparently: The Minister of Northern Development, in her capacity as a minister of the crown, went to a public place and engaged, as all of us in public life do, in a set of conversations. During the course of one of her conversations, the Minister of Northern Development impugned the integrity in quite a significant way, on the basis of the testimony that has been advanced -- the minister has admitted that what she did and said was that she made comments with no basis in truth. That is what she has admitted to having done. That is slander.

Surely the Premier understands that if any of us, most especially this Premier who so eloquently said he was going to raise public confidence by imposing more stringent standards -- surely the Premier understands that he cannot defend and harbour within his cabinet a slanderer.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me quote the words of a Sudbury doctor who is a member of the Sudbury and District Medical Society. He is the local medical society's treasurer. He said that "as far as he is concerned the incident is being turned into a witchhunt against Martel. 'It is really being blown out of proportion.'" These are not my words; these are the words of a doctor who made them yesterday on the front page of the Sudbury Star. I say that to the member only because he has reached his own conclusions as to what took place and its significance. It is clear that others have different views with respect to what took place and what should be done about its significance.

I hope the honourable member would at least agree that it is possible for people to have a different view as to what took place and how it relates to the conduct of public business in the province. The member certainly has not benefited from anything she has done. There is no sign of anything of that kind taking place. The minister made some comments in the course of a private argument with Mrs Dodds and has clearly apologized to everyone concerned for what took place, and in the circumstances we should perhaps put this in some perspective.

Mr Conway: I am quite prepared to agree with the Premier that I ought to put this in some perspective and I will tell members precisely the perspective I intend to apply. I intend to apply the perspective that the Premier so eloquently brought to this Legislature one year ago today when he ascended the pulpit, when he planted himself on the high pedestal and spoke from on high that he would restore public confidence by imposing a higher and better standard than existed before he took office.

There is no doubt about what happened in Thunder Bay a week ago last night. There is perhaps an argument about why it happened, but there is no one, least of all the Minister of Northern Development, disputing what happened. She knowingly impugned the integrity of an Ontario physician.

I say again, the only issue for me and it seems to me this assembly, in this connection, is the Premier's standard. Is he still maintaining in light of what he told us a year ago that he can maintain in cabinet and defend in this assembly a colleague who knowingly slandered an Ontario citizen?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me carry on with the comments Dr Abourbih made in Sudbury, because I think they give some perspective, a perspective that is a little bit different from the one put forward by the member for Renfrew North, who again characterizes things in a way in which he clearly doubts nothing and knows everything. I say to the honourable member that if he listens to what the doctor said, he said that he believes "Martel's comments were not meant to smear anyone." Those are his words, not my words. Those are Dr Abourbih's words.

I want to say to the honourable member, in response to the comment he has made, that it is not a question of defending or not defending. It is a question of looking at the way in which the minister has conducted herself, recognizing that what took place on Thursday night was something she very much regrets. She lost her temper. In my view, it is quite out of character for the member. I am completely satisfied with her overall conduct and with her ability to lead the ministry for which she has responsibility.

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Premier. Does the Premier seriously believe that during a heated discussion such detailed, unfounded remarks just popped into the minister's head and then jumped out of her mouth, or is he really Mary Poppins?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the member for Willowdale that if he is asking me whether or not I believe the account the member for Sudbury East has given to this Legislature, my answer to that is yes. If he is saying he does not believe her, let him stand up in his place and say what he thinks.

Mr Harnick: The Premier really is Mary Poppins. The minister has admitted that she lied. In the course of lying, she slandered a doctor. We now see all the conduct that is not reprehensible in his eyes. I would like to know what kind of mistake is reprehensible and what kind of mistake would cause him to dismiss someone from his cabinet.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member very directly that if he is implying -- the member for Willowdale cannot duck under this. If he is saying very clearly and specifically that he does not believe the account the member for Sudbury East has given in this House, then I suggest he stand in his place and say that.

1500

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Johnson: My question is for the Premier. Media reports quote Tom Hoar, chairman of Canadian Auto Workers Local 222 at Oshawa, as saying that production of the Buick Regal will be moved from the Oshawa number two plant to a US location.

I might add that the Buick Regal is the type of car I drive and I bought it expressly because it was manufactured in Ontario and because I believe in the quality of General Motors.

Concern in the community is based on the possible threat to 3,800 jobs in Oshawa, not to mention the thousands of spinoff jobs associated with this plant. Can the Premier tell us what he knows about this?

Hon Mr Rae: I am glad to answer the question from the honourable member. It also is a matter of significant public importance to the economy of the province. I spoke yesterday to senior officials with General Motors. In fact, General Motors has made no decisions with respect to the lines which will be in the Oshawa plant in the 1994 or 1995 period.

I also think it is fair to say, as I have said in answer to questions from the Leader of the Opposition, that it is the case that General Motors is looking -- and it was emphasized yesterday by its chairman, Mr Stempel -- at the overall situation of the company across North America.

I can tell the honourable member that discussions are still taking place in Oshawa with respect to an agreement between the company and management, as far as I am aware, and from what I was told yesterday, no decisions have been taken with respect to 1994-95.

Mr Johnson: Is it the Premier's view that such reports and rumours are scare tactics, or do they reflect the reality in the auto sector at this time?

Hon Mr Rae: I am firmly of the view that they reflect the reality in the automobile industry across North America. The fact of the matter is that the last year and a half have been very tough years for the automobile industry across North America. It is fair to say it is the view of most of the companies involved that there is some overcapacity in the industry, and it is clear that the companies are looking at the efficiency, the productivity and the capacity of each of the plants in their system. There is no way in which Canada or Canadian plants can be held immune from this reality. We are subject to it because these companies are North American and indeed worldwide in their orientation, and there is no getting around it.

All I can say is that there are intensive discussions going on between the union and the company here as well as in the United States, and it is going to be a situation of some very tough bargaining with respect to the future of plants and with respect to what is taking place. We are prepared to play as constructive a role as we can but, as I say, it would be an illusion to say that the North American industry is not facing some changes.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Conway: I want to return the Premier to that incident in Thunder Bay a week ago last night. He has tried to talk about the opinions of people who were not there. His last answer invited me to consider what some doctor in Sudbury said who was not at Thunder Bay eight days ago. I want to come back to Thunder Bay eight days ago.

We have testimony from two people who were at the actual meeting. One of the people at the meeting has said that the Minister of Northern Development said she had seen a doctor's file and that we would be very surprised when we learned how many charges were going to be laid against him. "It's criminal" is what one of the people at the meeting said. Then the minister, who said these things, said: "What I said was without any foundation. I made comments with no basis in truth."

Those are two testimonials from two people at the meeting. It could not be clearer. I say to the Premier, the people who were there in Thunder Bay agree on the facts of what happened. What happened is that his Minister of Northern Development, for whatever reason, under whatever pressure, as minister, slandered an Ontario doctor. How does that not violate the conflict-of-interest principles that the Premier so eloquently articulated to the province one year ago today?

Hon Mr Rae: I think it is fair to say that the minister deeply regrets what took place and I think it is clear to everyone that she said things she wishes she had not said.

Mr Conway: The Premier has said since becoming first minister and he said with remarkable frequency and passion in the years when he was Leader of the Opposition that there were times when an apology was not good enough.

I want to return to this particular case, because six months ago the now Minister of Housing quite clearly made an honest mistake. We all saw it. I saw it perhaps more clearly than others because she was right across from me. That, I think anyone would agree, was an honest mistake because it had about it the quality of accidentalness and inadvertence.

The testimony advanced by Mrs Dodds and the Minister of Northern Development themselves makes plain that whatever else may have happened in Thunder Bay, the honourable Minister of Northern Development was not inadvertent in her comments. What she did she did knowingly and with some gusto, according to the evidence.

How is it that six months ago the Premier could have accepted the member for Ottawa Centre's resignation and today he persists in defending and maintaining in cabinet an admitted liar and slanderer?

Hon Mr Rae: I would simply say to the honourable member I am sure it is the case that almost regardless of what ministers did on this side of the House, he would be asking for their resignation.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harnick: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development. Today's Toronto Sun quotes Dr Kosar as saying he had a meeting with Miss Martel and he said, "Martel said it's difficult to justify why three GPs would be billing over the threshold...it sure left us with the impression she had information she shouldn't have." That was the doctor's quote.

My question to the minister is, how did she have this information?

Hon Miss Martel: When all this started in Sudbury, and it has been going on for some weeks, I asked the Ministry of Health to provide me with two sets of information, both of which are public information.

First of all, I asked for information with respect to which doctors were on the underserviced area program, because I knew that those who were on the program were exempt from the threshold. I also asked the Ministry of Health to provide me with numbers of physicians or specialists who in fact may be over the threshold by the end of the year. I did that because I was trying to ascertain how many people in Sudbury would be affected.

The Ministry of Health provided me with both these sets of public information: one, a list of doctors on the underserviced area program and, two, the number of people who would be affected. Those numbers, as I mentioned yesterday, are 35 in northeastern Ontario and 17 in Sudbury in total; 13 of those are specialists and four are GPs.

Mr Harnick: Dr Kosar also said, "At one point I mentioned that I didn't make the threshold, and she said, 'Oh, I know you don't.'" How did the minister know personally that Dr Kosar did not make the threshold if she did not have that information in front of her?

Hon Miss Martel: I have no information with respect to the incomes of individual physicians or doctors. I knew very clearly that Dr Kosar was not going to have a problem because he is on the underserviced area program and therefore he is exempt from the threshold.

Again I want to say to everyone who is here that I have never, ever seen any confidential information from OHIP or anyone else with respect to OHIP billings or doctors' incomes.

1510

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr Frankford: I am very interested in today's announcement by the Minister of Government Services. Can the minister tell the House why he opted for a single central ad campaign and phone line?

Hon F. Wilson: I thank my colleague for his question. I am very happy with the decision we have made to run a single set of ads and one telephone line. By co-ordinating the consultations we have realized significant economies of scale. The consultation effort was very cost-effective, and will continue to be. Just as important, a single phone line will make it easier for the citizens of Ontario to avail themselves of information on 13 economic or social initiatives of this government. In short, one co-ordinated process saves on expenses and provides accessibility.

Mr Frankford: The minister has heard members on the other side of the House saying rather cynically that he will be making use of the names of the people who participate in the consultations. Can he assure the House this is not the case?

Hon F. Wilson: Yes, I can. This is a service of the government of Ontario. The names and information --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon F. Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The names and information gathered through this process will be forwarded to the ministries responsible for the consultation effort. There will be no central registry kept of these names at all and they are indeed protected by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Caplan: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development. I would like today to pursue questions from yesterday. We know sensitive information was sent at the request of the minister's office from Kingston to Toronto. We know it was received by Mr Eugene LeBlanc, who is an executive direction of policy, a senior official of the Ministry of Health.

I believe the minister knows Mr LeBlanc. He has responsibility for briefing the minister and members of her cabinet on policies, particularly in the underserviced area program. I believe he rightly would feel he could share with the minister any information, because as minister of the crown she has an obligation not to divulge confidential information.

I believe and I know that ministers every day deal with sensitive, confidential information. I am asking the minister today, because I believe she knows it would be the right and honourable thing to stand aside, if it is correct, as I believe it is, that she did not fabricate without knowledge either in her discussions with the doctors in the east lobby on December 2 or in Thunder Bay on December 5, but did divulge information she had received that was in her possession improperly. I ask the minister today: Will she step aside? Will she do the honourable thing? Will she step aside?

Hon Miss Martel: Let me make it absolutely clear to this member and others in the House I have not seen any confidential information from anyone. Nothing was given to me at any point. No one asked me to review any confidential information, no one called me with any confidential information, no one -- absolutely no one -- has given me any confidential information with respect to physicians' billings or incomes. I have tried to make that absolutely clear.

I have done the best I can to try to minimize what is a serious situation. I have talked to all those people who have been involved. I have apologized directly to them. It is a serious mistake. I regret having made it, but I think I have done everything I can to minimize it.

Mrs Caplan: I am very aware of the extensive briefings she receives as a minister and of the confidential and sensitive information which is in her care. I know sensitive information was sent to Mr LeBlanc. I know the minister has met with him and that he has briefed her. I ask the minister today if she will do the honourable thing and step aside?

Hon Miss Martel: Again, I have not received any confidential information from anyone through briefings or anything else at any time. I have taken the actions I think are necessary and appropriate to minimize the damage I have done. I have talked to everyone who has been involved. I have done what I can to rectify and make amends.

Mr Eves: Has the Minister of Northern Development ever discussed in any way, shape or form the doctor in question with Dr MacMillan at any time whatsoever?

Hon Miss Martel: I was involved in a meeting along with the Treasurer of the province and other representatives of the Sudbury medical association and the regional chair some weeks ago in Sudbury. At that point in time there was a discussion about cases of individual physicians. In the case of one physician in particular, I said I would make every effort possible to arrange a meeting between the Ministry of Health and that particular physician in order that he would be able to work with the Ministry of Health to have a positive resolution to his own situation.

Mr Eves: Did Dr MacMillan or any official from the Ministry of Health in any way, shape or form indicate to the minister that the doctor in question was under investigation or review by the ministry, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario or any other body?

Hon Miss Martel: My apologies to the member. The meeting I was at with the Treasurer was a meeting with a number of other doctors, and there were representatives there from the Ministry of Health. I was not given any information that was of a confidential nature at all by Dr MacMillan.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Hansen: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In October of this year this government made a commitment of $6 million to the horticultural industry in Ontario as part of its $35.5-million emergency assistance package. Can the minister tell the House how this assistance will be available to growers?

Hon Mr Buchanan: When we announced the emergency assistance back in October, in delivering the horticultural assistance our preferred option was to use the net income stabilization account database. We felt that would be the most efficient way of doing it in terms of cost-effectiveness, that it would reduce the administrative cost by using the NISA program. We are very pleased the growers have accepted that and we are working towards having that money available, it looks like at this point, early in the new year.

Mr Hansen: The minister has indicated that the federal government will be providing $26.3 million to Ontario horticultural producers as part of its $100-million national horticultural system program. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Food update the House on this assistance?

Hon Mr Buchanan: My officials are currently in Ottawa, as a matter of fact, working with the federal officials to make sure that this money, the $26 million, will get out as quickly as possible, again using NISA. It is our hope that the money, federally and provincially, can be delivered very early in the new year.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Premier, who I think will appreciate that there are certain events that will shape and define his government. I think the one we are debating here is one of those. I am very interested in the Premier's standards. I do not think there is any question now that last Thursday night the Minister of Northern Development said in a public meeting something that could only be described as chilling. She said that some individual would be charged, that criminal charges would be laid. The minister then, as I understand it, did not rethink her position and that evening go back to those individuals and say: "I'm sorry it happened. I don't know why I did it." That was Thursday night.

Nothing happened in the way of apology on Friday, as I understand it, even though this was a fabrication, even though none of it was true, apparently. On the Saturday, as I understand it, the executive assistant or a staff member of the minister phoned some of the people involved and tried to quieten it down. It was only, as I understand it now, the Sunday when the apology began to kick in.

I am anxious to get from the Premier his standards. Are the people of Ontario to believe and accept that now these are his standards? If a minister makes a major mistake -- I think all of us would agree that nothing could be more significant than this -- and apologizes three days later, is that now acceptable behaviour for the Premier's ministers? Is that now a standard the Premier will find acceptable in his cabinet ministers?

1520

Hon Mr Rae: I think the minister has responded very directly to the questions that have been put to her. The minister has clearly indicated she has apologized for what has taken place. As well, I would say that there are a lot of other allegations that have been made in this House that are completely without foundation.

Mr Phillips: We are talking about the Premier. This is his decision. The spotlight is on the Premier, not on the minister. The minister has made her explanation. It is now the Premier who is making the determination. I went through the events as the minister outlined them for us. On the basis of those events the Premier has made the decision.

There are only two explanations: As long as a minister will admit he or she made an honest mistake and apologizes, that is acceptable behaviour; or this is a unique circumstance and if it ever happens again the minister is gone. The Premier is prepared in this case to allow the minister to stay, for whatever reason. The people of Ontario would like to know which of those two it is. Is the Premier's new standard acceptable behaviour as the minister went through, or is he merely making an exception in this particular case and he will say to the people of Ontario it was wrong and if it ever happens again the minister is gone?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that what took place was not acceptable. The minister has apologized for it. A mistake was made. Do I think it was sort of deliberate? The member for Renfrew North talked about how it was all premeditated and all the rest of it. No, I do not. I think it was an outburst that came in the course of a heated exchange about a situation everyone recognizes is a matter of significant public interest across northern Ontario, for which the minister has very clearly apologized in this House. That and the amount of time that has been spent on it strikes me as an indication of the views of honourable members opposite. I am giving the member the benefit of my views on it.

Mr Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development. In my last question I asked the Minister of Northern Development if she had such a meeting and she said she had a meeting with Dr MacMillan and others. Could the minister please tell me exactly who was in attendance at that meeting?

Hon Miss Martel: There were a number of people at the meeting because we were trying to deal with a case of cardiologists in particular in Sudbury, and it was a very good meeting. There were some 17 people there representing the local members, including the local federal member, John Rodriguez, representatives from the regional municipality of Sudbury, two representatives of the Sudbury and District Medical Society, representatives from Sudbury Memorial Hospital, cardiologists, and a member of the district health council. Dr MacMillan, Dr LeBlanc and one other representative from the Ministry of Health were also in attendance at that meeting.

The purpose of the meeting, which was a meeting I requested, was to allow the cardiologists to present their case to the Ministry of Health, a case which was very much to try to figure out if there was a way they could be exempt in order that they might continue to practise. They provide a very necessary service in Sudbury. I have been working with them for several weeks now to try to have their case heard so that they can continue to deliver that high quality of care in Sudbury and northeastern Ontario.

Mr Eves: My supplementary to the minister is basically the same supplementary I asked her for the last question, which she did not answer. Did Dr MacMillan or any other government official whatsoever, in any way, at that meeting, before that meeting, subsequent to that meeting, or at any time indicate to the minister that the doctor in question was under investigation or under review by the ministry, by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario or by any other body?

Hon Miss Martel: No.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Abel: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. In the present auto insurance system, access to the courts is severely restricted. It is my understanding that the threshold injured drivers have to cross requires that their injuries be serious, permanent and physical in nature before they are allowed to sue. The bill introduced by the minister last week set a new threshold that is different than the present one. It uses a deductible of $15,000 rather than the current wording. How does this proposed threshold compare to the current one?

Hon Mr Charlton: The new threshold we have proposed in the legislation I introduced last week is a threshold which in rough terms would allow about three times the number of people to pass that threshold and gain the right to sue for pain and suffering. However, they will only be allowed to sue for pain and suffering. The approximate number of people under the current system is about 5,000 and under the proposed change about 15,000.

Mr Abel: Will this new threshold allow these people to sue and receive compensation for pain and suffering they may endure?

Hon Mr Charlton: Basically the threshold will allow people to sue for pain and suffering up to the maximums that have been set by the court.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale will please come to order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The maximums that have been set by the court range up to about $250,000, so any pain and suffering claimed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I am asking the member for Willowdale to come to order so that, among other things, the Speaker can hear the response from the minister. Will the minister complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Charlton: Very briefly, the new threshold will allow them to sue for amounts that would reflect, in the courts' judgements, on the seriousness of their injuries.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order, and in particular the member for Willowdale is being asked to come to order very quickly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I must remind the member for Willowdale that if he is the cause of disorder, the Speaker will have no choice but to name the member. I have repeatedly asked the member for Willowdale to come to order. When the House has come to order we can continue with the routine proceedings which at this point is the presentation of petitions.

PETITIONS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marland: I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, object to the terms of the Young Offenders Act. It is time young offenders paid for the crimes they commit, instead of the victims. The victims pay the rest of their lives while the young offenders get what appears to be a slap on the wrist. This is not good enough. We want the legislation changed. This cannot go on."

This petition is signed by 1,236 petitioners.

ST JEAN DE BREBEUF SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Curling: I have the opportunity, Mr Speaker, to present to you a petition on behalf of the constituency of Scarborough North. The petition respectfully reads:

"Whereas St Jean de Brebeuf Catholic School has reached the point of extreme and serious overcrowding: Currently 483 students are enrolled in a school designed and built for 272 students."

I have affixed my signature to this petition according to the standing orders.

1530

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS 83 AND 84

Hon Mr Cooke: Before I call orders of the day, I would like to ask that the order for Bills 83 and 84 for committee of the whole be rescinded and that the bills be ordered for third reading by unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

I am asking the House to come to order. Earlier today it was necessary to have a recess. In order to continue the public business, it will be necessary for this House to maintain order and decorum in this chamber. I respectfully request the co-operation of all members. I would ask at this time that the honourable government House leader kindly repeat the business that I was unable to hear.

Hon Mr Cooke: By unanimous consent, I would like to ask that the order for committee of the whole House on Bills 83 and 84 --

Mr Eves: No, not until we are done second reading of the bill. That is what we agreed. There was not unanimous consent. After second reading of the bills is when you do committee of the whole, not before.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act / Projet de loi 86, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

Mr Mancini: I would like to continue my remarks, which were concluded last night around midnight as the Legislature adjourned. Mr Speaker, you will recall -- because I remember your paying close attention -- that we were speaking about Bill 86 and the government's intention to pass legislation authorizing the 1.7-cent-per-litre gas tax hike which took place last April due to the Treasurer's budget, and a further 1.7 cents that is going to be added to the cost of every litre of gasoline on January 1, 1992, pursuant to the Treasurer's statements and pursuant to the budget that was tabled in the Legislature by the Treasurer some months ago.

Members will recall the debate last night. They will recall that a number of honourable members in fact stated very clearly that we could not support this new tax increase that the government saw fit to move forward. There are a number of reasons for this. We are not opposing the government's legislation just for the sake of opposing the government's legislation. It is far more thoughtful than that.

The implications of what they are doing are very, very serious. I know this happens to me on regular occasions. I am sure it happens to all members of the assembly. When we are back in the riding discussing matters of government taxation and government expenditure in our ridings, we try to advance to our constituents the belief that what the government is doing is basically for the general benefit of the entire province. In this particular case I find that my constituents feel, and I agree with them, it is unfair of this government to continually tax them and spend their money in what many of us consider wasteful ways.

The majority of the constituents in my riding and I believe the majority of the people of this province believe that this government lacks basic managerial skills. They lack the basic skills to administer a corporation as large as the corporation of Ontario. I do not believe it has sunk in for many of the honourable members opposite who sit on the government benches that they are in fact administering a huge province, that there is money coming in and money going out, that they have to look at the books and that they have to be concerned about whom the money is coming from and why the money is going out. I would not be averse to helping the government seek revenues if I thought they were the managers they should be, but they are not.

Mr Hope: It was hard to hold that one in.

Mr Mancini: The honourable members opposite, particularly my friend the member for Chatham-Kent, believe it is okay to tax and spend, tax and spend. If it is spent for worthwhile reasons, fine; if the government mismanages items, fine. Just tax and spend; keep the money coming in; let's sustain socialist policy at all costs.

I mentioned this last night and earlier on today: It is my belief, and the belief of a growing number of Ontario citizens, that we have in place today an antibusiness government.

Mr Hope: Come on. You are fearmongering, Remo.

Mr Mancini: The business community truly believes that. A growing number of people every day, getting up in the morning and going to their jobs, read about plant closure after plant closure, I might remind the member for Chatham-Kent, since he is so interested in my comments. I am sure in your riding, Mr Speaker, as was the case in my riding, New Democrats certainly left the impression that once they were elected, held office and had the reins of power, there would not be plant closures.

They certainly left that impression in my riding. We had New Democrats saying there would not be plant closures. One union boss after another was spouting the line at meeting after meeting. The NDP candidate was spouting the line at meeting after meeting: plant closures would not take place. We would have justification committees, we would have all of these things, leaving the impression that under the NDP there would not be plant closures.

Hon Mr Allen: We never said that.

Mr Mancini: I hear the Minister for Colleges and Universities say, "We had no such plans," or something to the effect of "We said no such thing." What happened to the justification committees? What happened to all those committees they promised? Public justification was the policy of the NDP government. That was a policy only a few months ago and we are not going to allow them to forget that because they won votes by telling people those things. They won their confidence, won their support, won the responsibility to sit across the floor from the opposition on the right-hand side of the Speaker. That was the outcome of the things they said only 18 months ago or less.

My point today is that we are not against just the tax increase but the lack of managerial skills we witness every day, the lack of planning, all the broken promises. This money is going to pour into the coffers for who knows what reasons.

Today my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt outlined in the House for all members to hear about the activities of this CCC committee that has been organized by the government, funded by taxpayers' dollars, presumably by some of the money that came in from the 1.7-cent-a-litre tax on gasoline implemented just a few months ago -- presumably the $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, $5 million or $10 million this committee is going to spend to buy computers to hire what is termed as agitators, or whatever they are called -- animators, agitators. What are they called? What are their functions? I think I know what their functions are. I think agitating is part of the responsibility of these animators. It has been explained to me by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt just what he thinks some of these animators/agitators are going to do.

1540

We are in desperate straits. Why? Because the business community has lost confidence in the policies of the government, because thousands of workers are losing their jobs. Citizens who live next door to the members and myself are not feeling confident about the future. I know they express those concerns to members, as they do to me. Our budget deficit is right out of control.

I say to members in all sincerity, it was not necessary to have a $9.7-billion budget deficit. I think when the NDP government assumed office it made a number of decisions which doubled the deficit. We know we are in tough recessionary times. We know, by the experiences of past governments, that when that happens the deficit rises.

In the early 1980s I was a member of the House. Under the Conservatives I saw the deficits rise because of bad economic times. It was brought back under control in better times. We know that under the Liberals we had deficits and we know we also balanced a budget. We know that when the recession hit Ontario it affected the income of the province and therefore the budget that was inherited by the NDP. We are not denying any of these things. We know that.

Our sister province of Quebec, which does not have the economic base and foundation of Ontario, was able to keep its deficit under $5 billion. Only in Ontario was the government unable to keep the deficit in balance with reality and with the times. The deficit and the budget were reckless. The deficit delivered shock therapy to the business community. The deficit delivered shock therapy to investors around the world. The deficit delivered a blow to people's aspirations and their confidence in the future.

Maybe they could justify this once-in-lifetime, out-of-control deficit for a number of reasons. I would not want to help them, but maybe they could. But that is not all. What is even more disturbing is their four-year economic plan. In four years they want to create as much debt -- and the NDP will create as much debt -- for our neighbours, for our friends, for our constituents, for our children, for all the citizens, as did all the previous governments in the history of our province.

How can we sit idly by, how can we sit back and support the intentions of this type of economic planning? In order to do this they need more taxes. They want more on gasoline, in April and on January 1. "Happy new year. You've got to pay another 1.7 cents a litre for every litre you buy."

It is little wonder that people go to Buffalo and Detroit and wherever else -- Sault Ste Marie, Michigan -- to buy their gasoline. We are driving them there. The government is pushing them there with its Sunday closing legislation, with its taxes on gasoline, with its proposed labour laws and everything else this government is promoting at this time. We are inviting people to shop somewhere else.

We have had hearings on Sunday shopping and we have had hearings on cross-border shopping, and we have been told by community group after community group that there are three principle causes that drive people to cross-border shopping: the cost of alcohol, the cost of cigarettes and the cost of gasoline. The vast majority -- if not the vast majority, if the NDP disputes that, then at least a very good portion of the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands -- of trips made across the border are in fact made for those reasons. If they do not want to agree that it is the vast majority, then let's say a good portion and surely they cannot dispute that.

Our retailers are suffering. Today I was reading that in the past two weeks, let's say, we have heard that Town and Country is going to close all its stores. Kristy Allan is going to close all its stores. Dalmys is on the brink. These retailers, which are in Ontario, need to sell their products to Ontarians so that they can collect tax revenues for the government and employ people. That is what business is all about. You bring in revenue. You pay taxes and you employ people and you make the economy work so that people can plan their education, plan their future and plan their place in this province.

At this point in time there will be no dispute in this House -- I am sure there is no dispute that a good portion of the cross-border shopping is in fact done for the three products I mentioned earlier: gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes -- that our retailers are barely clinging to the face of the mountain. They have their fingernails dug in and are hanging there. Any bit of wind, any breeze and they are going to lose their grip and fall into the pit of bankruptcy and join many others who have already fallen over the last 15 to 18 months.

I say to my colleagues in the House that I have been a member for nearly 17 years. There has never been a worse time to raise the tax on gasoline. The tens of thousands of cross-border trips that are made between Windsor and Detroit will not be diminished by the government's action. No retailer in Windsor or Essex county will be helped by the government's action.

As a matter of fact, I submit to my colleagues in this House that because of this new tax more trips will be made by the people who are already making them, and maybe a few new people will be added to the list. There is a large number of Ontario citizens in Windsor and elsewhere who refuse on principle to cross-border shop, who refuse on principle to spend their hard-earned money in American stores for the basic necessities of life.

We are not talking about someone going on vacation or anything like that. We are talking about consistent cross-border shopping, when you make a determination every day, every week, that you are going to leaving the province and go someplace else to fill up your tank, to buy milk and bread, to buy a case of beer, to buy a carton of cigarettes. We are talking about those people.

1550

We are continually wearing the people down, the ones who are resisting. We are doing our best: "Work, shop, spend, save in Ontario. Create jobs for your friends and neighbours." They say, "What do we get in return?"

What do they get in return? Do they get austerity from the government when we are in a recession? Do they get a government that watches its expenses? No. It hires animators/agitators to go out into the communities to collect lists so that the NDP government can send them letters and tell them what a great job it is doing. That is what we get for our money. Do we get a government that says: "Cross-border shopping is a serious matter. Maybe we should have zones in the province that have a sliding rate of taxes on gasoline along the border areas as they have done for many years in Quebec." No, we do not get that. What do we get? We get a government that brings forward the biggest spend-and-tax budget we have ever seen.

I say to the government members opposite, when they return to their communities and hear of another plant closure or hear of another retailer that can no longer keep the doors open or hear from constituents who have just received their notices that they have been laid off, that their future is bleak, I wonder what the government members tell them. I wonder if they take any responsibility for their actions. I wonder what they have to say.

Tourism at one time was a booming industry in this province. At one time Americans and others loved to come to Ontario. They loved to come to this province, a clean environment, well-built roads, all done before the NDP ever assumed office.

Mr Cousens: It started under you guys.

Mr Mancini: No. I said earlier that the Conservative government that had been in office a long time had actually carried out some policies that built roads and did a number of things which attracted people to this province, and we will not deny what was done before us.

I say to the New Democrats that all this infrastructure was built and paid for before they assumed office. It was all done. They did not have to do it. It was done, and all the tough decisions were made by previous governments, whether they were right or wrong at the time. History will tell us what mistakes previous governments have made.

But at one time tourism was a booming business in this province. I speak to retailers. I speak to people who have friends outside Ontario. I hear a constant theme from them, "The gas taxes and the cost of gasoline in your province are outrageous." I hear from them one constant theme, "We'd love to come to Ontario more often", or, "We would just plain love to come, but the cost is beyond what we can handle at this point."

Mr Speaker, I am sure you have heard the same thing. I am sure all members who sit in this House have heard the same thing. I said earlier in this debate that we are not opposing this piece of legislation just for the sake of opposing. We are opposing it because we have deep beliefs on why this tax is the wrong tax at the wrong time.

I want to take a moment or two to reflect on the situation as a person from northern Ontario might view it. Although I am not from that part of the province, I think I have been in the Legislature long enough and have heard enough northern members speak and have made enough personal and public trips to the north to have had the opportunity to reflect in some small way on what they might be thinking at this time.

I can remember, on a number of occasions when I was travelling through the north, as a member of the opposition in the late 1970s and early 1980s and as a member of the government in the late 1980s, that the equalization of gas pricing was a major issue in northern Ontario. I can remember that when I was first elected and sat in the third party and the NDP members were here as the official opposition during the middle 1970s, they stated very clearly that they believed in the equalization of gas prices for Ontario, meaning that people in the north would not have to pay more for gas just because they happened to live in the north. They said that back then. They said it through the years and I am sure they said it in the last election because that was part of the platform. They said it in the last election from one northern riding to another.

Now that the NDP government has been in office for more than 15 months, what do we it see doing? Do we have before us a piece of legislation that requires the industry to equalize prices in the north and make them comparable to the prices in the south. Do we see that before us? Not at all. We see the same piece of legislation which says: "Yes, that is right, the people in the north will pay the 1.7 cents. They have already paid it in April and over these last few months and they are going to pay another 1.7 cents. Happy New Year on January 1, 1992."

They have to drive longer distances.

Mr Owens: You said that last night.

Mr Mancini: Yes, I said some of these things last night and they bear repeating today. They bear repeating today because I say to my colleagues and my friends across the floor that they and their party repeated that promise many times throughout many evenings and nights here in the Legislature and in one small community, town or city across the north over the years.

1600

We know now that it was never -- maybe never -- the intention of the NDP government to bring in legislation to equalize gasoline prices for northern Ontarians. The fact that they have to drive greater distances for shopping, for work, for health care and for a number of other things is really not taken into account.

"The extra mileage? Well, that's the way it is. You'll just have to put more gasoline in your tank. You'll just have to drive a little farther. You'll just have to take a little more time and you'll just have to spend a little more. That's the way it is. You'll just have to cough up and the money will come to the Ontario Treasury and we'll spend it as we see fit. If we want to hire 25 or 30 animators/agitators so that they can do political work for the government, if we want to spend millions of dollars on computers for these people so that they can do political work for the government, if we want to hire consultants to organize and coach these people along so they can do political work for the government, that's fine. That's what we'll use your tax dollars for. That's our prerogative. We're in government now. We're going to make the decisions. We're going to call the shots. We're going to do as we think we should do. We're going to do that."

I want to take another moment or two before I close and talk a little about southwestern Ontario. I did earlier on in my address to the assembly today, but there are a couple more points I would like to have on the record and I believe deserve to be placed on the record.

A number of months ago members of the Liberal caucus did a tour of the province. We visited a long list of communities and we met with any number of citizens from the communities we visited. In many of the communities we also spoke to the leadership. Sarnia is being devastated by cross-border shopping. I am sure the member for Sarnia is aware of that. I am sure the member for Sarnia knows what these new gas taxes are going to mean for Sarnia. They mean more bad news, fewer dollars spent in Ontario, fewer dollars for retailers and others, more businesses out of business, more jobs lost, more broken dreams, more bleak futures. That is what they are going to mean in Sarnia.

Mayor Mike Bradley, when he spoke to our committee, expressed his concern about the impact of the new gas tax, what it will do for cross-border shopping and what it will do for the Americans, I might add. He recalled that the border city mayors met with the Premier before the budget and they begged -- that was his word -- for relief on the gas tax. That is what the mayor of Sarnia did. He met --

Mr Hope: He is a Liberal too.

Mr Mancini: It does not matter whether he is a Liberal. He is the mayor of Sarnia. Does the member not respect the mayor of Sarnia because of his political affiliation? Is he not allowed to represent all the citizens in Sarnia because of his political affiliation now? Is that what we have come to? Is he not allowed to meet with the Premier and say: "Our city is being devastated by cross-border shopping. We beg the government for relief on gasoline taxes"?

The answer to Mayor Bradley and the citizens of Sarnia and Lambton is very clear. The answer is in Bill 86. The answer is: "No, we will not give you relief on gas taxes. Don't even contemplate it. Don't even think about it. Don't even mention it. But we have something else for you. We have new taxes for you. If you thought things were bad before you met us, they may be worse now and they may get worse."

Windsor's former mayor, who just retired from office, also met with the budget task force that had been formed by my colleagues in the Liberal caucus. Where are the members for Windsor? I know they are all listening. This is what Windsor's mayor had to say, and this goes in spades for all the municipalities in Essex county. Windsor's Mayor, John Millson, called the NDP's 30% increase in gasoline taxes a slap in the face. That is what the mayor of Windsor had to say after the Treasurer introduced his budget after the border city mayors had met with officials of the government and begged for tax relief. He said these taxes are a slap in the face.

The mayor of Sarnia, the mayor of Windsor and all the border city mayors have been very clear, well spoken and, in my view, extremely polite in bringing their case to this government. They asked to be heard. They wanted to be heard. They came to speak for the citizens of their communities, just like we, as members of the assembly, come to speak for our citizens here. They all said the same thing. "Please do not raise gas taxes." As a matter of fact, they said, "We need relief from the current taxes so that we can maintain a retail sector which has been hard hit and which continues to be hard hit." We know the extent of the damage. We have read about it in the last week or two.

We know what we thought of at one time as unthinkable is now thinkable and is in fact happening. Significant chain stores the NDP members used to refer to as wealthy corporations and used to say did not pay their fair share of taxes, and whatever other allegations were made against these businesses, are closing. They are closing because they cannot pay their bills. They are closing because they cannot keep their doors open. The hard reality, the hard facts, the truth is that when that happens thousands of innocent people lose the opportunity for a future. They lose the opportunity to participate and work in their community.

This debate, I say with all respect to the government members, is a little more significant than 1.7 cents new tax on every litre of gasoline in April and 1.7 cents on happy new year January 1. That is how the citizens of this province are going to be greeted on the first day of 1992: "Happy new year. Here's another 1.7 cents. By the way, if you don't want to pay this you can always cross-border shop. You can always go fill your gas tank someplace else."

We need to hear from the government in a very clear and conclusive way how it is going to react and what it plans to do to combat this recession we are in. I remember so clearly how much delight and pleasure the then Leader of the Opposition took when he said he was the only person who had the courage at that time -- maybe he was -- to use the R-word. He was the only political leader in Ontario who was courageous enough to say, "We're in a recession and we've got to do something about it."

Mrs Y. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if we could have a quorum here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

1611

Mr Mancini: I was just saying it was the former Leader of the Opposition who said he was the only political leader at the time who had the courage to say we were in a recession. Maybe he was at that time. He definitely was the first person, as far as I can recall, who publicly stated in the Legislature and outside that we were in a recession. He knew of it prior to the election, during the election and certainly he knows of it now.

Given all that, given what we were told was the policy of the NDP and the fact that they were the only ones -- I underline -- they said they were the only ones who were prepared to combat the recession and they were not going to combat this recession on the backs of working people -- they were the only ones willing to do that -- given all that, given everything they have said and how deep and dirty this recession has become, I say to the honourable members opposite, how can they rise in their places to support this new tax which is a tax on all the people in the province whether their income is $5,000, $10,000, $25,000, $50,000 or $80,000 a year? The person on social assistance will pay as much as the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, and the members opposite know it.

I am waiting to hear from the government. I am waiting to hear their clear conclusive program or plan to fight this recession. I am waiting to hear their clear conclusive plan to fight cross-border shopping. I am waiting to hear their clear conclusive plan to put people back to work. I am waiting to hear their clear conclusive plan to restore faith in the ordinary Ontario citizen and in the business community. We will continue to wait for the government. We will continue to sit here and wait and demand that they act, but we certainly do not have to support this.

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The government has insisted that we go until midnight tonight. I have rearranged my schedule so I can stay here. They know I am six hours away from my riding by air. I know they are responsible for a quorum in this House. I would like a quorum call, please.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

1614

Mr Mancini: I will conclude by saying that I will not support Bill 86. I will not support this new tax on gasoline. I conclude by saying that this is not the right medicine for Ontario. We need economic policy and economic strategies which will do the things I have enunciated over the last 45 minutes.

I want to be absolutely clear. I want to make sure the new members of the government realize this. This responsibility lies on their shoulders. They have the reins of power. They manoeuvre the levers of power. They decide what is going to happen. They decide if this will be a good province to invest in or not. This responsibility lies on the shoulders of each and every member of the government.

Mr Cousens: It is interesting to listen to one of the honourable Liberal members discuss a tax bill, because I never heard any Liberal members speaking out when Mr Peterson and his government increased taxes. They were as silent as the New Democrats are right now. I would like to ask the honourable member, when he has a chance to respond, what he had to say about the 33 tax increases that came down when he was on the government side with the then Honourable David Peterson -- 33 tax increases from 1985 to 1990 -- the largest number of tax increases, the largest volume of increases in money coming into the province.

The Liberals had one of the richest times in our province of prosperity. There it was, coming in. I do not think they ever understood the Old Testament story where the people of Israel were warned that, "You've got good times for seven year so store it up, Joseph." It recommended to the pharaohs of Egypt that they put some aside for the days of famine. We are now in the days of famine. There just is not very much to go around. It is made worse by this government. I cannot let those guys off the hook.

The Liberals have a very poor memory. I just want to remind the people of Ontario of the 33 tax increases and the fact that the money that was taken in by the Liberals really was just thrown to the wind, because there is nothing there in the coffers now.

When we went into the election of September 6, 1990, the then Treasurer said: "There is some $20 million surplus. We are really doing well." It turned out they were several hundred million dollars in debt. I would be very grateful if the member for Essex South would make some comment on those 33 tax bills.

Mr Hope: It is amazing that the member who used to be the Minister of Revenue is up there making comments of that nature when the Liberal government was most famous for its offloading to our municipalities which has created the tax burden on our small business community. He made reference to job loss and what this government is going to do. I remember in 1987 when David Peterson and his colleagues were talking about having a plan. They never did pull the plan out, and we still do not know what it is today.

It is very important because he alluded to the 1-800 number. I think it is important for the member for Essex South to call that number to find out how we are combating it. The Minister of Skills Development has released a discussion paper. We have to have the skilled value added jobs in order to combat this free trade agreement that has devastated our community. We will not thank the Tory government for any of its assistance in helping to keep jobs here. I know that through our government we have put initiatives in place. Our previous governments should have taken the initiative in doing something about it.

A reference is made to cross-border shopping because of the gasoline. Cross-border shopping has been because of the Liberal Party offloading on families' property taxes, which has made it very difficult for a lot of families to support themselves because the offload of school taxes, the offload of municipal taxes and everything else that has been offloaded to them. This government has taken a responsibility in the last budget to assist the municipalities to relieve the burden on the property tax and to make sure there is assistance there.

It is amazing that the member reflects on some of what we are doing for jobs. I would like to know what labour initiatives were there to make sure that the workers were protected through the plant closures. There was nothing whatsoever. It took this government and the Minister of Labour to introduce a wage protection fund, which was a small portion, but we wait for the federal government to do its responsibility to kill the free trade agreement.

1620

Mr Miclash: Last evening, the member who carried on today spoke about northern Ontario and spoke about this tax. I must remind the members opposite that they are now government. They have brought the tax in and they have to explain to us why they have made this additional taxation for the people of Ontario. They seem to want to keep going back to other days. I must remind them they are the ones who made all the promises during the campaign. I remember the Minister of Northern Development standing in her place telling the people of northern Ontario, "We will equalize gas prices across this province." That is a very specific promise she made to the people of northern Ontario.

Last evening the member did go on and talk a little about what this taxation is going to do in terms of the various industries that rely on our resources throughout the north. He spoke about what this taxation is going to do in terms of tourism, the tour operator, the people who are travelling across the north or at least who used to travel across the north.

I can say to the members across the way that when they come across that border from the states to the south of us, they are going to take one look at this taxation, this gas price that we have, and turn around and go back home. We are going to be affected by this not in terms of, "Are those people travelling?" but in terms of the tour operators who are trying to sustain their operation in the north. When they are faced with this 30% increase in taxation on their gasoline, what kind of effect is that going to have?

During my comments yesterday, I pleaded with the six cabinet ministers we have from northern Ontario, who got all that great press when they were elected and put into cabinet. I pleaded with them to now get some of our issues on the table, but obviously it is not happening. I do not think there was concern about any of this when the member spoke about northern Ontario last evening.

Mr Johnson: It is interesting that the member for Essex South talks about the reasons people would cross-border shop. It is interesting in particular because I do not believe he is correct. I would say he is wrong and that the reason people cross-border shop is not because of gasoline, alcohol or cigarettes, or should I say because there is a perception that gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes are cheaper? In fact, they may be, but the real reason why people cross the border and shop varies directly with one factor: the value of the Canadian dollar versus the American dollar.

Mr Hope: Who has control over that?

Mr Johnson: The member for Chatham-Kent asks, "Who has control over that?" I suggest that is a rhetorical question because in fact he knows as well as I do that Mr Crow and his colleagues and other strange birds in Ottawa, I might add, are the ones who are responsible for the value of the Canadian dollar. They are the ones who are responsible for the imbalance or the unbalanced trade we have with the United States right now.

I would like to add too that they also control the interest rates in Ottawa and they control the trade policies we have as a country, as well as a province, with the United States. Until these things change, until the federal government takes a more responsible look at cross-border shopping and deals with it very directly, we are not going to see any improvements in the cross-border shopping issue in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Essex South is not present to respond. Further debate.

Mr Cousens: Before I begin to discuss Bill 86, I just want to say that normally in circumstances like this the person who was scheduled to speak, the member for Leeds-Grenville, would have been here to carry on the debate for our caucus. It is sad for me and for him that he is not able to participate. The member for Leeds-Grenville today, on a matter of honour and personal integrity, was unfortunately removed from the House and is therefore unable to bring forward his comments.

Mr Drainville: Perhaps there should be a minute of silence, Don.

Mr Cousens: I would say a minute of silence. I would say there is going to be a long time of silence from the New Democrats in this province because of what has happened in this House. A very black cloud is hanging over this House right now and it has to do with the whole situation of honesty and integrity of government which the member for Leeds-Grenville, other members of this House and certainly our leader, the member for Nipissing, have raised. He would have been speaking on Bill 86 and I just wish he was.

Notwithstanding that --

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe the debate is not upon the member for Leeds-Grenville and his conduct or the quality thereof, but upon a bill which is before this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): It is a valid point of order. I would remind the honourable member for Markham that Bill 86 is under debate and I would appreciate if he could address his remarks to the chair and stay with the bill in question.

Mr Cousens: I will do as the honourable Speaker suggests and as the honourable member opposite would have me do. I do not think he is going to like what I am going to say any better.

Notwithstanding that, we are talking about Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. As we talk about taxes, one of the great concerns is how the moneys are spent. I have a few fast facts I would like to put on the table. My presentation will certainly discuss these in greater detail, because it is how the government spends the money it is going to collect through this gas tax.

In 1985 the average weekly earnings of government employees and those in the manufacturing sector were roughly $480 a week. Since then, the average weekly government wage has risen to $735 compared to the average wage in the manufacturing sector of $608.

What I am saying is that the government wages have increased in the last five years at a far greater rate than in the private sector, so the government employees, as hardworking and diligent as they might be in their jobs, are now paid an increased amount over and above what the private sector pays. The statistics show we are talking $735 on an average rate per employee in the Ontario civil service versus $608 in the private sector.

Is that fiscal responsibility? Is the government spending its money wisely and well? There were times, I remember, when it was difficult to find people to work in the civil service and it was essential then to attract certain high-tech people away from the private sector to get them into the government to run certain departments or businesses. The fact that we have this disparity between government salaries and the private sector salaries shows that government spending is wrong.

Another point I want to make is that this year the Rae government negotiated a 5.8% pay hike for most of its civil servants. Provincial government expenditures on salaries, wages and benefits increased by 16.1% this year over last year. Can anyone explain to me why that is a good thing during the tough economic times we are suffering in 1991? It is just beyond me.

There is absolutely no excuse in the world why the government of the province of Ontario would have had such excessive increases to the salary line for benefits and salaries of civil servants, in the order of 16.1% over last year. That is probably -- it is not probably, it is one of the fundamental reasons why this government has to increase its taxes, because this government has not controlled its spending. One of the areas it could have controlled its spending is certainly in the salary lines.

In the last fiscal year, Ontario's civil service employed an additional 1,585 people. Well over 1,500 people have been added to the civil service of the province. That is nearly a 2% increase in staffing levels of the province. In fact, the staffing levels of the province since 1985-86 have grown by over 8%. When we start having increases of that order we are talking an increase of 8,000 to 10,000 employees in the employ of the government of Ontario. I do not know of any business or industry that has increased in size at the speed at which the government employees have increased. By adding additional employees, the cost just continues for ever and ever. I do not know how the private sector could do the same kind of thing, and yet here the government has gone and added to the civil service in these large numbers.

1630

What we are also looking at is a day when the private sector has never suffered more. We are seeing that the unemployment level, by our Treasurer's own figures, will be at least 184,000 people by the end of 1991. We are seeing that the total number of jobs that have been lost in the last year and a half is in excess of 250,000 jobs. Talk about tough times.

I do not attribute the recession in Ontario solely and exclusively to the Premier. It would be wrong for anyone to think that he is the sole cause of the tough economy we have. That is a very naïve rule and some people who would say that really do not understand the economics that go on within the whole world economy today. What we are going through in Ontario, as painful as it is, as dreadful as it is in my community where I see one of the largest computer companies in the world, IBM, is having early retirement programs for employees and up to 2,000 employees are going to be affected by that -- early retirement does not mean to say these people are on a rich pension, by any means. This is going to be a very difficult adjustment for them when they move from a full-time salary to a percentage of their pension; tough times for them. A number of friends I have worked with over the years in the computer industry are now looking for employment. They have had to take early retirement and there is really not enough to live on.

We are talking about very difficult economic times. Sault Ste Marie has not seen an improvement. We are looking at Kirkland Lake. Northern communities all across this province are feeling the pinch.

We are talking now as well about a government that to solve its economic problem is saying, "We're going to increase taxes." It is not the time to increase taxes. It is not the time to come along and have the tax bill that is before this House today. Christmas is not the time to be talking about tax bills.

When the government brought out this bill on April 29, it did not schedule debate then when it was fresh in the minds of people. In fact, the way it works, the media will respond to the budget that is presented by the Treasurer, and for one or two days there is a fair amount of hype and everybody says: "Oh, it is just dreadful what this budget is all about. There is a huge deficit being created by the province, almost $10 billion, and these are the new taxes that are being brought in." There are one or two days in which the major newspapers will comment on it. Yet right after that, when it comes time for this House to deal with the budget and its implications, we are not allowed the opportunity to debate these important bills, because for one thing, we cannot debate them until the government House leader schedules them for debate here in this House.

Here now, only at this late stage before the House will rise for its Christmas break and before we come back in the new year, very quickly -- I suspect we will be back here by January 5 or 6 to continue debate on these bills. Certainly the spirit in this House is such that I have no desire to leave this place until there is at least the resignation of the Minister for Northern Development. But notwithstanding that, we are into a very short time frame in which we can deal with these bills.

The increase we are talking about has to do with the unleaded gasoline tax, and just to put it on the record, we are talking about an increase of 1.7 cents a litre taking it from 11.3 cents tax in Ontario to 13 cents effective April 30, 1991. Then there would be an additional 1.7 cents a litre, bringing it up to 14.7 cents, effective January 1, 1992. If people who are watching this right now on TV want to load up their gas tanks on December 31, they should do so, because the next day a new level will go on their pumps and that extra increase will go into the coffers of the province of Ontario.

As we look at this tax increase, let's just understand that there seems to be a lot of fluctuating that goes on in the price of gasoline. I cannot believe how gas prices seem to go up every weekend in Markham and in northeast Metropolitan Toronto. It would seem that is when most of us fill up our tanks. The gas prices go up by five or seven cents a litre and then they come down during the week when people are not filling up as much. I think that is something some of us could look at. Maybe the standing committee on public accounts, of which I am a member, could do something about it, or one of the other committees of the Legislature could begin to do something. I am going to start to mark the prices of gas in our area, so that we can --

Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am extremely concerned that when members of this House have forgone many things to be here in the House, there is no quorum. Members of the north who have stayed here and have constituency work tomorrow have forgone that, and there is no quorum here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Could the Clerk check to see if we do have a quorum present?

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Would the honourable member for Markham please continue his participation in the debate.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order. The honourable member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Cousens: The gas tax, then, will go on leaded gasoline and will push the rate to 16 cents and then to 17 cents in January 1992. We are seeing increases in the gas tax that will have quite an effect on what people are paying for their gasoline. What does it really do to Ontario versus its neighbouring jurisdictions? I am grateful to my friend the member for Carleton who has done a tax rate comparison between Ontario, New York, Michigan and Minnesota, to indicate what the differences are between the price of Ontario gasoline and that in other jurisdictions.

When you take Ontario gasoline with the federal excise tax of 8.5 cents a litre, then the GST and then the provincial sales tax on top of it, as of now we are paying 21.5 cents a litre in sales tax, and effective January 1, 1992, this will go up by 1.7 cents, bringing the total tax per litre to 23.2 cents for gasoline in Ontario.

How does that compare to other jurisdictions? In New York, you are talking about a tax per litre of 7 cents. I will give members the numbers so that they are there on the record: 7 cents a litre for New York state; in Michigan they pay a total of 9 cents a litre for gasoline, and in Minnesota they pay 10.5 cents a litre. We will be paying 23.2 cents a litre effective January 1, well over twice Minnesota and three times more than New York state.

This is just a huge difference in the cost of gasoline for automobiles. Is it any wonder people are in a hurry to head down to the United States? One of the first things they do when they go to the United States is fill up their tanks to take advantage of the cheaper price of petroleum south of the border.

There is no way we are going to claim back any of the taxes on what is in the tank of an automobile. In fact, I would not be surprised if some people have had the tanks in their vehicles enlarged so they can take greater advantage of the size of the tanks and bring back more petroleum in their cars because of the cheapness of the price. It is the kind of thing I think many people might well think of, and those who are closer to the border are certain to take advantage of it.

1640

One of the reasons Ontario is becoming uncompetitive is the large increase in cost just to live here, just to travel here, just to be here. I think it touches on everything that goes on in making this province attractive to people, attractive to stay in and attractive for tourists to come to. We have seen a tremendous decrease in the number of tourists coming to Ontario over the last several years and all of it has to do in part with just the high cost of travelling in Ontario and the high cost of staying in Ontario.

There are other taxes this province has that make it very unattractive for other people to come here, but fundamentally, as we look at the tax itself, we have well over three times the price in taxes for our gasoline versus New York state. That in itself is one of the reasons why our caucus is greatly concerned about what is happening with it.

I would like to put on the record as well that as of April 1991 we were paying 13 cents a litre in tax on unleaded gasoline. That means we were third in line; only higher than us were Newfoundland and Quebec. But effective January 1, 1992, Ontario's new rate of 14.7 cents per litre, just for provincial sales tax on it, will be the highest rate in Canada. I repeat: With the increase effective January 1, 1992, the rate of taxation on gasoline here in Ontario for unleaded gas will be the highest in Canada.

Let's just look at our leaded gasoline price. Our leaded gasoline price, when it was increased in April 1991, took our tax to 16 cents per litre and that was the highest of any jurisdiction in Canada, versus Newfoundland at 15.2 cents, New Brunswick at 14.9 cents, Quebec at 14 cents and right down to the cheapest being the Yukon at 4.2 cents. What a disparity even in our own country in the amount of taxes that are being levied by different jurisdictions.

Ontario's new rate of tax for leaded gasoline is the highest in Canada. Effective January 1, 1992, Ontario's new rate will become, for leaded gasoline, 17.7 cents per litre. It will continue to be the highest rate in Canada, assuming no change in other provinces.

I want to talk about this tax and the implications it has on the total budget of Ontario, but that is only part of this bill. The other part of the bill has to do with the effect it is having on the trucking industry. I have a small update -- it is called Update -- from the Ontario truck transportation industry, in which they are trying to mobilize support for their interest in supporting Ontario truckers to fight against high fuel taxes. They are having a terrible concern on what it is they are having to pay for fuel tax. Anyone who is doing any transborder shipping will be filling up his tanks south of the border and taking advantage of the lower rates in the United States.

One of the things I like in the statements made by the Ontario truckers is that they feel the Ontario government has tried to justify the tax increases in the name of fuel conservation. They go on to say, "This is a laudable goal, but the fact is that these tax measures will do nothing to enhance fuel conservation. Even the government appears to admit that the 1991 budget document itself, with significant increase in gasoline and diesel fuel tax revenue as forecast, does nothing to it."

If we want to do something about the problem with emissions and with those cars that are causing environmental problems, there are other things we could do. By having high tax, the government is reducing the number of people who are going to have their cars tuned up and thereby reduce the amount of emissions that are coming from them. There is nothing environmental about this bill, nothing at all, and the member for Don Mills spoke very eloquently on that last evening.

I do not think I am going to have much impact on the New Democrats in this Legislature. Probably the most discouraging thing we have to go through as members of the opposition is that we can stand in our places and make our point as best we can, but when it comes time to vote on issues, the government whip has such control over all its members that in spite of the fact that all those members, when they were in opposition or in third-party status, opposed every tax bill and every increase to fuel taxes by previous governments, now they are in government there is not one person who has indicated that he will step aside from the government whip and stand up and vote against the gas tax.

It is not that they are not able to think for themselves; it is just that if they did, they would suffer the discipline of the government, which would mean they would lose the extra money they receive as their parliamentary assistantship or their Chairmanship or their Vice-Chairmanship. There is hardly a member on the government side who is not making extra money as a member of the Ontario Legislature because of a special appointment that the Premier or one of his delegates has given to each one of them. Every member of the government side is either a parliamentary assistant or a Chairman of a committee or has some appointment that allows him or her to make extra revenue. Anyone who comes along and disagrees with this --

Mrs Mathyssen: They work 20 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Mr Cousens: The honourable member for Middlesex says they work an extra 20 hours a week. Maybe so --

Mrs Mathyssen: Twenty hours a day.

Mr Cousens: She is working twenty hours a day? I am not taking that away from her, but I would say it is pretty nice that every one of the New Democrats is making more than most members in the opposition because the government has the opportunity to give the members extra bonuses in order to behave themselves and in order to obey the government whip. When the government gives them these bonuses, they would then be in a position to lose the extra money the moment they came along and did not support the government viewpoint.

I can understand how economics have pulled the New Democrats, these socialists, into a new mould in which they are now part of the government, and then they lose the freedom to make their own minds up. It is also the sense inside their own brain that says, "I don't want to lose the extra money I am making as parliamentary assistant." We saw that just in the last few weeks when one of the chairmen of committee decided to take a position different from the government and was removed from that position. As long as he did not agree with the government he was pulled out of that slot and given a lesser one. If you are prepared to play the game, the government will pay you your little bonus; you get a little extra. The moment you break the rules, the government says, "Tut, tut, we take that away from you now, and you will do this."

We saw that when the member for Welland-Thorold did not toe the line totally and perfectly with the government and he was taken out of cabinet and set aside. He is sitting over on the far fringes of the New Democratic caucus so he is not allowed to have the same say he once had. He has a special little bonus now but nothing like when he was in cabinet. If he continues to misbehave, who knows what the whip or the government is going to do? They have their ways and they are bought off and the backbenchers in the government today are in a position where they are not thinking for themselves. They are not making up their own minds. They are doing it according to their caucus position.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that the subject of our discourse this afternoon is Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. It is not an act revolving around the member for Welland-Thorold.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Precisely. Bill 86 is the debating bill today. The honourable member for Markham could address his comments through the Chair, and of course interjections are out of order.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, you are doing a fine job in the chair. In fact, if I have in any way offended the members of the New Democrats by bringing to light the fact that they are all being bought off, I really did not mean to. The fact that one of them is even listening is quite exceptional, and I commend the honourable member for paying attention to my words.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member for Markham on Bill 86, please.

Mr Cousens: But my point is that he is not going to vote according to his conscience. He is going to vote according to the whip.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: In reviewing some of the rules for this assembly, I would ask you to look closely at the language that the Conservative member is using. I have never been bought off, and there are a number of opposition members who hold positions which require further remuneration because of the commitment and time they put into their work, such as yourself, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order. The member for Downsview does not have a point of personal privilege. The honourable member for Markham, I know, is being provocative. However, please address your comments to the Chair as I have mentioned before, and interjections are out of order.

1650

Mr Cousens: I am just talking about why members of this opposition -- not the opposition, members of the government; some day they will be in opposition if I have anything to do about it. Members of the government are in a position where there is a certain comfort. Pierre Berton talked about the comfortable pew; I would say there is a real comfortable seat over there for any New Democrats when they are voting on Bill 86.

The Speaker is waving the bill at me. I am just saying the process around here, as it affects the voting on Bill 86, really prevents the New Democrats from thinking for themselves and doing their own thing. It has to do with the failure in the way this House is organized. Until the member for Nipissing became our leader there was a certain sense of party discipline. It was very rare that a member could stand up and vote according to his own conscience.

Although that agreement had been made and was available in our caucus for the 10 years I have been around here, I would have to say that one of the great failures in this Legislature right now is that there is not more consensus building on issues. I think there is a tremendous benefit in minority government. If we had a minority government right now this bill would not get passed. If the 38% of the vote ended up so that the New Democrats did not have such a huge majority, I guarantee the voters in Ontario that at least this party -- when I listen to the Liberals talking the way they do now, they have been converted since they lost the last election.

The Liberals have now come to their senses and say, "We don't want this tax either." They do not have much credibility because it was not that long ago they had 33 tax increases in five years. Now when they come along and say, "We wouldn't do it today," I cannot believe them and no one else is going to believe them. They can say, "We are holier than thou." Who is going to believe the Liberals when it comes to tax increases? They can talk all they want right now, but they did not say anything in the last five years when they were in office to cause David Peterson and the rest of the money spenders to hold back and stop spending. Now the Liberals stand up and pontificate, holier than thou, and I cannot believe it. They should keep quiet for a while. I think they will enjoy perjury.

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The honourable member for Markham should realize that obviously he is on to something --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order.

Mr Ruprecht: I have not finished yet, Mr Speaker. I should remind you and the honourable member that the real government sits on that side and not sit over here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order. The honourable member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Cousens: I woke him up too. I do not mean to be disrespectful of the Liberals. They could not help it then, because they were all bought off by David Peterson the same way these guys opposite are. Every one of them, even the cabinet ministers, were all in it. Their wallets did not have moths coming out of them the way mine does. They were just loaded in those days. They had an arrogance about government spending and government increases and taxes that really was sickening. With the taxes they raised during those halcyon great wealthy days in the 1980s, it was just phenomenal how things were. There was a sense of optimism for the future. What did it hurt? We had enough money left over. We could afford to pay it. We cannot afford to pay it today because we are broke. The people of Ontario do not have the money. We cannot continue to pay the high taxes.

I am hearing that and I am seeing it. The gas tax does not touch just the rich; it touches everybody. You almost cannot live in this province without a car or a vehicle of some kind. You are lucky if you are in the greater Toronto area and have the advantage of the excellent transportation services. So many people are trying to knock the Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit, saying it is not good enough. It is an awful lot better than if you did not have it, and there are few communities that have.

I congratulated the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology when he was the Minister of Transportation, because I think he had a commitment to public transit that was right from the heart. I do not like to compliment the minister, but when he was Minister of Transportation there was no doubt he was in the right direction in supporting public transit. He was trying to do it in my area and all across the greater Toronto area.

The other thing, just to give him -- gosh, this is terrible; I am having to say --

Mr Cooper: Open your heart up.

Mr Cousens: Okay, I will say it. When the Liberals came in several years ago and announced they were going to have a $5-billion expenditure for transportation improvements in the greater Toronto area -- we have gone through more cabinet ministers in Transportation than any other field around here -- at that time Bill Wrye was the minister. I was critic for the greater Toronto area and I stood up and applauded because I believed it was the right thing.

What was so good about it was that when the New Democrats came in they took their time to think it through. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who is a Metro member, came out and said they were going to continue the commitment for Highway 407, the TTC expansion, the building of the loop and the Sheppard subway. I have to say congratulations on that.

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: I am congratulating a New Democrat because of the positive steps they are making in transportation in the greater Toronto area. The problem you have in opposition is you cannot always keep knocking the government on everything, because not everything it does is wrong. If they do something right I am prepared to stop and say congratulations, because I think this adversarial approach we have around here is not right.

Mrs Mathyssen: How about during question period?

Mr Cousens: Question period is different. We do not get any answers in question period. They call it question period. If we ever got an answer to some of our questions in question period, then it would be a different place. When we ask the Minister of Northern Development to resign or ask why she said certain things, slandered or lied, we do not get answers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Bill 86, please, the honourable member for Markham.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I listened very closely to what the member had to say and he used words and language that is really inappropriate for this place. I would ask you to ask him to take it back. He really should take it back.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is a point of view. I did not hear anything that in my opinion was unparliamentary. The member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, review Hansard. I am sure Hansard got it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We will review Hansard. In the meantime, I did not hear and I am allowing the honourable member to continue.

Mr Perruzza: You will review Hansard and report back, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I did not hear anything unparliamentary, with all due respect.

Mr Cousens: My problem is that when we are into this debate about a tax bill, I think we really have to talk about what we would offer as an opposition. I would like to touch on some of the things that would deal with the restraint that would be possible under a Conservative administration and some of the points that have been raised over the last number of years by our leader. I have a number of proposals we have suggested and they all have to do with the kind of restraint and control of government spending, of the coffers and of the purse-strings, that any government should have but that is totally lacking with this socialist crew now running the province.

Mrs Mathyssen: You were doing so well.

Mr Cousens: I am sorry. I was interrupted. I was going to keep on a positive note until I was rudely interrupted.

My point here is that our caucus has made a number of proposals that there should be a government-wide review of all expenditures to determine where spending should be cut. There is no one who is running his or her business who does not say: "We're into difficult times. What can we do to make sure we've reduced our spending and kept our costs under control?" People are doing that this Christmas.

An Angus Reid poll indicates that some 40% of the people in Ontario will not be spending as much this year on Christmas because of their fear of the future and because they just do not have enough money to plan into the future. People, in their own private investments and their own funding of their own lives and families, are being far more constrained not to spend money than ever before. Yet at the same time we see this government not going through and examining programs to see that they are there. Are skills development, skills training and some of these other programs really reaching the need that is out there?

People come to my office looking for some help to be retrained for a new position because they no longer have a job. They are 26 years of age, and because the money that is coming into this government through Bill 86 is being redirected into programs that will not apply to them, they are caught short. They are in a position where they have to claim social assistance. For a government that has a social conscience one would expect it to be doing something for all the people, especially those in need.

1700

But over the last little while we have seen an addition to ministry staff here in Ontario at the assistant deputy minister level. There is a whole new increase, a new stratum of people who are now in positions never before needed. In the Ministry of Transportation, where there was once two or three assistant deputy ministers, there are now five to seven. Look at each ministry. There is a large increase in the number of assistant deputy ministers, people who receive large salaries, large benefits. Quite candidly, the province cannot afford that kind of cost.

We are talking about ministry spending. In previous presentations to this House I have commented on the 200% to 300% increase in allowances that are being spent for ministry offices where ministry staff has been increased to such a level that every minister around here has legions of people to help him in his responsibilities.

I want to just touch on some of the points that were raised earlier by the Conservatives here in Ontario that would have --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): On Bill 86, I hope?

Mr Cousens: It certainly affects Bill 86, because if we had instituted these policies and if we followed them right now, we would not need to have a gas tax increase. This gas tax increase is just another excuse to raise the revenues of the province. If the province had reduced its spending and done some of the things I am suggesting in the restraint program, we would be in a position not to have this additional increase in taxes.

We are talking about a policy whereby the government would hold the increase in spending below the rate of growth in revenue. In other words we are not going to increase debt. Control our costs so that each year we are living within our means. Anyone in a family or a home or a student or whoever it is has to look at his budget and realize you live within your means. Do not go and build up a debt on a Visa card, Mastercard or American Express -- you cannot on American Express because they will come after you very quickly unless you sign the little thing to make a debt out of it.

We are just so debt-ridden, and people seem to see that as a natural way of living. Canadians used to be known as great savers. We were known across the world as people who had a little bit of money in a savings account. As I look around now it is the rare person who has got very much money in his savings account to help him over a lean day. In fact, most people are really only one or two paycheques away from bankruptcy. Have members ever thought of that? Most people are only one or two paycheques away from bankruptcy. That means we are cutting it so close that there just is not enough left over to do what you really need to do with your money. It is getting harder and harder to survive each month because of the additional taxes the province continues to take away from us.

Paying for gasoline is just another tax. You have to drive a car; you need the transportation services. Some people may have old, beat-up machines that just barely get around. The tires are worn down and the engine stinks and the car is old and dilapidated but it is transportation because it is essential.

Mr B. Murdoch: Can't afford new tires because of the tax.

Mr Cousens: They cannot afford new tires. They cannot afford a tuneup. They cannot do the other things because of their monetary situation. So I am saying to you, Mr Speaker, that many people are trying to live within their means and by doing so are able to spread the money out as far as they can, look after the essentials, pay for their house, the roof, their insurance, their food, their clothes, their children's education, their necessary drugs and things that are not covered by our medical system. But then many people are not able to handle that. They are having to go and rely on food banks. They are going into debt, or there are many who are having to eat insufficient or improper food in order just to stay even.

I know of parents who are going without so that their children can have. I respect them immensely, because the sense of integrity they bring to their own fiscal responsibility and the pride they have and want to pass on to their kids mean they are going to try their best to live within their means. What I really am beseeching the government to look at is, find better ways. I am going to come to the government's own restraint program, as a government, where it does not begin to touch on true restraint.

They should set as a policy that they are going to live within the revenue they take in. If it is going to take us two or three years to get there, let's do it and let's realize there is a belt-tightening exercise we are going to have to go through. That is part of what it is going to be to be fiscally responsible.

Let there also be a freeze -- this was one of the recommendations by our caucus in 1988 -- on direct operating expenditures pending the completion of an expenditure review so that no area in this government receives any more money for anything, that all departments and all spending be frozen at this year's level. That means they will not need to have a Bill 86 next year for a gasoline tax increase because they are not going to need extra money. They will have frozen the level of spending right across the government.

Let there be an allocation of in-year revenue windfalls towards deficit reduction. On that order, I would really hope that the $110 million that is coming in from the SkyDome -- I think it is $110 million; it is tricky when you have different notes here -- and is going to be a cash dividend to the province, goes right in to reduce the deficit. If there are any other windfalls coming in between now and the end of fiscal year 1992, which is at the end of March, then they should not just go and put it into operating expenditures to the province; they should put it towards the reduction of the deficit.

Let there be as well -- one of the recommendations we made -- an audit of all tax expenditures, the elimination of all non-productive tax expenditures, and the sunsetting of all future tax expenditure measures. We need to have a fresh look at every expenditure we are taking. We have said several times, "Tax freeze; freeze the taxes; no more tax increases."

There would be a tremendous sense of consolation to the people of Ontario if Pink Floyd, our honourable Treasurer and Minister of Economics, did not come along and predict that in 1992 there are going to be tax increase. How tragic that he has said this and that he is planning for it. That he said it has really caused another sense of despair among business people and others in our economy, who now realize that the Bob Rae government is going to have tax increases in the next budget in the spring of 1992.

They are already talking about tax increases. One of the ones I have heard is that they are going to increase the Ontario provincial sales tax by another percentage point and that they are also going to increase the personal income tax, which goes to the provincial coffers, by two percentage points. The fact that this province is continuing to plan to increase taxes in the future, when we have not even got these ones approved by the Legislature, shows tremendous bad faith in the future of the province.

We would not need Bill 86 and a gas tax increase if in fact we really looked at the affordability of the programs we now have. Somehow or other our social assistance program has reached a point where it is still not working. I as well as my caucus supported the presentations by John Sweeney when he was Minister of Community and Social Services, and the Social Assistance Review Committee under George Thomson which came in with an excellent report, which show ways in which we could wean people from social assistance and get them back into making a worthwhile contribution to society. The fact of the matter is that this government has not really gone ahead and implemented all those programs that have to do with re-education, retraining and relocation of people. Those are some of the things that are really implicit in helping these people get going.

Mr Cooper: There are no jobs to re-educate and retrain them for.

Mr Cousens: The honourable member says there is nothing to retrain them for. That is maybe where we need to have a much better vision of what we can do with our economy. Ontario has a great deal to offer within the computer industry. We could be the communications giant in the world when we have Northern Telecom and the tremendous educational basis we have in Ontario for the future of Ontario. Why is it that we are not the communications giant worldwide, where we can take the technology we have developed in this country, through message-switching, use of modems and use of telecommunications? We are a communicating country. We use the telephone more than anybody else. Also, in computer communications, if the programs that the government developed had somehow taken these areas and if it had invested in it for the future, then there would be far more hope for those people who do not have an opportunity right now.

1710

Our caucus has called for a balanced budget. We have called for no increase in the net tax burden on Ontario residents. We have called for the financing of priority programs and any new initiatives through the reallocation of revenues from the current revenue base. So if the members opposite have something new to start, they should not think they can do it unless they can find the money from someplace else within existing budgets of Ontario.

Let's understand that we cannot continue as a province to download and offload provincial programs and expenditures to the municipal tax base. The municipal tax base is now at the point where we have overloaded local taxpayers on the costs of running our school system and our municipal programs and our roadbuilding and our regional programs.

Municipal taxes are already too high. They have increased at double-digit levels for the last number of years. The government should stop it. It should not download any more to the municipal tax level. We have seen in Blenheim the beginning of a tax revolt. I thought we would see far more of that tax revolt in the municipal elections of November 12. I know that there are some areas where every reeve was removed from office because the people in those areas were genuinely concerned about the way taxes were going up.

I would have to tell members of the Legislature that unless we begin to understand the impact taxes are having at the local level, this downloading of provincial responsibility -- it is just a tremendous burden to our seniors. I am hearing the seniors. These are the people who helped to build our province. They have made a commitment through two great wars. There are not many left from the First World War. We have the recognition of those in the Second World War, in the Korean conflict. They have made a significant investment to make this a great province to live in and now they are on their pensions and they just do not have the means. Their pensions are not indexed. Their pensions are not increasing with the cost of living. Their incomes are fixed, and yet as the cost of their taxes continues to grow at a far greater rate than they are able to afford, many of them are afraid they will not be able to stay in their homes or their condominiums any longer. It is a dreadful fear to them, a terrible fear. The province downloading programs to the municipal level means that the municipal councils and regional councils at local government level are having to raise the money through provincial tax levels.

It was terrible when Bob Nixon, who was Treasurer, said, "I want to see what the debt-load capability is at the municipal level." Then, having understood that the municipal level was able to increase its debt load to a much greater amount, that is when it became a matter for the province as a matter of policy to download programs.

I saw it with York region's boards of education, where both boards had huge extra responsibilities laid upon them. Pay equity cost the York public board $6 million in the first year of implementation, but that is just a small area where it was passed on; in the courts it was passed on. It was passed on in Bill 20 and the lot levy fees, where the local government has to pick up far more of the cost of buying school property. All these things begin to accumulate. The local taxpayer does not understand that the problem did not start with his local government. We cannot blame Mayor Roman and Mayor Jackson and Mayor Bell, the mayors of our municipalities. The fault started here. It started here as we downloaded to the municipalities.

I will go on record. I think the federal government has been absolutely wrong in the way it has arbitrarily, unilaterally and without any notice come along and changed the level of funding for provincial programs and then the province had to go and pick up the difference. When I blame the Peterson government and the Rae government for downloading and offloading, I also attribute blame to the federal Conservative government for the way in which it is doing it to the provinces, because then we are in the position where we have to go and collect it somewhere else.

I have to point the finger there and there at the same time. There is a sense of responsibility for it, and I say it is one of the real areas of crisis of confidence in this country, because we do not know whom to trust any more. When you have a commitment by a federal government for programs and it reneges on it, when you have a provincial commitment for programs and it reneges on it, just because you have two groups of politicians lying, it does not make either of them right. Two wrongs do not make a right. What we have to understand is that we must stop the downloading so municipal tax rates do not continue to increase the way they have. We cannot continue to afford it.

I have a mother who is a pensioner in downtown Toronto. She owns her house and she worries now in a way she has never worried before. In fact, if she is watching, hi, Mom. She just turned 90 this last week and she still watches this program. I will put in a word for her so we all salute mom, Mabel Cousens, here in Toronto. My mom worries about the taxes.

Mr B. Murdoch: Did you send her a scroll?

Mr Cousens: I sent her a scroll signed by the Premier; I could not believe it. I gave it to her with pride because I was doing it for the Premier. I put my hand over his name and said, "It's from me, Mom."

None the less, we as a province have to stop downloading to the local level because there are many people just not able to meet the costs of that. It becomes a philosophy of government and a matter of fact that this government does not stop spreading out the punishment. What we have to do is stop that.

What we have also suggested -- I am touching on the restraint proposals from the PC caucus -- is to cut $2.25 billion from the $44-million budget over four years. This would eliminate 4,500 civil service positions, reduce office space and cut consulting, administrative and ministerial costs.

If we were to reduce the Ontario government budget by the kinds of dollars we suggested in 1990, we would not need Bill 86. The Speaker was just waving the bill so I could tie this in. We would not need to have this tax increase if the government had made a commitment to cut some of its spending.

I have to compliment our leader, the member for Nipissing, for the position he has taken in suggesting that there be a 2% cap on wage and salary increases in the broader public sector in Ontario. He made that suggestion this year.

What have I said earlier? The increase to the Ontario civil service salaries, with benefits, comes to more than a 16% increase in the fiscal year 1991-92. Can members believe it, a 16% increase in one year on salary levels in Ontario? We cannot afford that because for one thing we are building a deficit, and for another thing the government is having to add taxes to pay for it. That is just the kind of thing that causes our blood to boil.

Listening to CFRB last evening I heard someone say, "Those MPPs down at Queen's Park are making $100,000 a year." I have to say that the only people making $100,000 a year around here are the cabinet ministers --

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: -- and they are not even making it either. Okay. So there we are having our salaries frozen for two years and yet the civil service gets an increase of 16%. How does a person stand up here and start asking for more money? What we should have is an outside agency that looks at MPPs' salaries, and we should get rid of the tax-free part. How stupid for us to have a tax-free part.

That is where the Premier, when he was in opposition, had so much to say about the salaries of MPPs. Now that he is in there he is not looking at it. That is irresponsible. I am not going to use stronger language because you should not call another member a hypocrite, especially when he is Premier. He had one story to tell when he was in opposition and now he has quite another story as Premier.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The bill to which the member is referring is the Legislative Assembly Act, which is not before the House for debate. What is before the House is Bill 86.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Thank you. It is not a point of order. I have reminded the honourable member on numerous occasions about Bill 86 and I think he does refer to it from time to time, in cutting expenditures.

1720

Mr Cousens: It all ties in to Bill 86. Here we have another tax increase and the government is adding to the tax level of the people of Ontario. We cannot afford it any more. For New Democrats, I would have thought there was a high probability of a few free thinkers who would say to the Premier and the Treasurer: "Look, guys, we want to do the responsible thing here. We're going to cut back on our spending. We're going to set an example and we shouldn't be increasing these taxes the way we are." But that is not what is happening and I do not see any sign that the government is going to back off on these increases.

What I was commenting on was the MPPs' salaries. People think that we are very well paid. I happen to have the opportunity of having a job outside the Legislature as well as being an MPP, and in the process I am able to have my level of income such that I am able to continue to live in the way in which my family and my lifestyle necessitate. There are a number of members in this House who continue to do other jobs outside this place.

I have never hidden the fact. It is in my conflict-of-interest declaration and I made it clear long before now. But I resent the fact that I have a tax-free portion and that we all allow it to carry on. Let's look at the salaries of MPPs and be responsible about it. If it turns out that an outside commission comes in with some recommendations so that we are not the ones who come along and start fudging our own salaries and so on, let that be the case.

Before the member for Durham Centre made a point of order I was about to call the Premier a hypocrite, but I will not do that because it is not parliamentary. He had a lot more to say about this when he was in opposition. He has nothing to say about it now that he is in government and he is allowing that to sit around.

You have to have a balanced review on everything. Everybody says, "Don't talk about MPPs' salaries." It is all part of the whole picture. People think we are making more than we are -- and what we are making we work awfully hard for -- and I can say that members of the House, New Democrats, Liberals, Tories and independent New Democrat, are hardworking people for the most part and earn what they are receiving. So let there be a proper evaluation of that.

Notwithstanding that, it is wrong. If I am talking about restraint, let's do something about the tax-free portion. It is just an issue. It was debated yesterday. I touch on it today and I know I am going to get some phone calls saying: "What do you want? You're making too much for what you're doing anyway."

Mr Mills: You're right. Making too much now.

Mr Cousens: I know. The member says I am right.

A freeze on the government's and Legislature's direct operating expenditures. I cannot believe we have over $100,000 of audio-visual equipment sitting around the Premier's office that has not even been opened yet. What the Sam Hill -- they go and order the equipment and they are not even using it. That is setting a terrible example.

When I talk about restraint, our caucus is on record as having a number of proposals that will begin to protect this province from the kind of spending that is going on. We come along and we say, "Immediately have a look at the Ontario Waste Management Corp." It has been going at it since 1981. We would not need Bill 86 if they had some control on the spending of this government.

The Provincial Auditor just brought out again some of the money that is being spent by Dr Donald Chant, who is the chairman of the Ontario Waste Management Corp. They have been going at it for 10 years. We still do not have a hole in the ground to get rid of toxic and hazardous waste, and yet we heard in the auditor's report that two executives spent $15,000 taking co-workers to lunch. Come on. There is $15,000 less that they have to tax for.

Officials spent $14,000 on 10 meetings in hotels when corporation offices were available. This government, the New Democratic government with all the self-righteousness when it was in opposition, criticizing David Peterson and everyone else for overspending, is continuing to allow the same kind of overspending by organizations and crown corporations outside the government. Absolutely wrong.

When you look at the money the Ontario Waste Management Corp has spent, it is another example of overspending by this government. Legal fees which were budgeted at $760,000 ended up costing $1.6 million. We are talking more than double the cost of legal fees, and they were never even budgeted. They have to budget in advance and they have to budget so they are not budgeting a deficit. But the Ontario New Democrats do not know how to budget in any way except to spend money we do not have and allow corporations within their jurisdiction to do the same thing.

I was surprised as well that a consultant who was hired by the Ontario Waste Management Corp was going to cost $40,000. It ended up that he was paid how much? He was supposed to be paid $40,000. How much was he paid? Was he paid $80,000? More. How much more? $100,000? More. Was he paid $150,000? More. He was supposed to be paid $40,000. How much was he paid, $200,000? More. He was paid $290,000.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: Wrong. Come on. Would the members not like to be on the payroll of the New Democrats or one of their crown corporations? He was supposed to be paid $40,000 and ended up getting $290,000.

Mr Carr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was wondering if there is a quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1726

Mr Cousens: I was commenting on some of the extra costs the Ontario Waste Management Corp has been spending money on. It is really excessive. We would not need to have huge tax increases if money that was being spent by different corporations within the province's jurisdiction was much less than it is. I was just pointing out that a consultant who was hired on for $40,000 ended up receiving $290,000. That is an example where a government that is in control of the purse-strings would not allow that kind of overexpenditure. That is the kind of leadership one would have expected from the member for York South in opposition. When we see him now in government that is certainly quite a different story.

The point was also raised in the Provincial Auditor's report that many consultants were hired without competition. You cannot have it that way. There has to be some method by which anyone who is qualified or capable can be given a fair opportunity to quote on a job, and if he has the capability he has a chance of doing it. What we are instead seeing is that there are favouritism methods. I will be coming back to that because there are excellent stories in the media on that one.

What we are seeing is a facility that if it does open in 1995 will cost $419 million in 1991 dollars. When it starts up in 1998, the cost will rise to $498 million -- close to $500 million. Maybe it is time for the Ontario government to look at the Ontario Waste Management Corp and see whether or not the original objective is still valid for the Ontario Waste Management Corp that was structured when the corporation was first formed.

If we have other ways to dispose of liquid and hazardous waste through private concerns or other methodologies or, as it has turned out, Dow Chemical and other chemical companies have found ways by which they are able to dispose of their own hazardous wastes within themselves, it might mean we are not going to see generated the volume of hazardous waste that was predicted when this commission was first started.

The government should go back and relook at it. They might have to cut bait and not continue with the study for the Ontario Waste Management Corp if it turns out there are other ways in which we solve the problem. The government has lost the money that has gone into it now, well over $100 million, but why keep pouring money into a hole if that hole is no longer valid?

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand the great concern the member for Markham has on waste management, but I think we are talking about Bill 86, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act. I would appreciate it if we could keep to that.

Mr Cousens: I am. I guess the problem is the honourable member does not see that we are concerned with the spending of money. If the government did not keep overspending money and throwing it away as it has in the last year, then it would not need to have the tax increase we are seeing in Bill 86. That is the point I am trying to get to, I say to the member for Durham East, and that is implicit in the illustrations I am making on the Ontario Waste Management Corp. The Ontario Waste Management Corp is an illustration of where this government has totally and irresponsibly lost sight of its objectives. This government has overspent its money. They have come along and spent money -- Mr Speaker, I know I should speak through you, but I just cannot believe the member for Durham East does not tie in the whole problem we have with a government that is so irresponsible --

Mr Mills: Try to get to the point.

Mr Cousens: The point is that they would not need to have a tax increase if these guys and gals and people who are running this government today did not spend so much money, and if they came along and controlled their budget and tried to be fiscally responsible. That is what has really got us upset. We are not just going to come along and say yes to it.

We do not want to hear from the Liberals. We have heard from them. We know exactly where they are coming from and the credibility they bring to the issue is non-existent. So what we are really --

Mr Ruprecht: We were trying to help you out.

Mr Cousens: Oh, I am sorry; you were trying to help me out. In that case, I would like to hear what you have to say.

I would like to refer briefly to New Directions: A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario, and what our leader is talking about is "a billion-dollar economic strategy to spark the development, use and worldwide marketing of leading edge environmental technology. All of the funding required to implement this strategy already exists within Ontario government coffers, existing industrial support programs, and regional grants and loans. No new revenues are required.

"The plan, dubbed BEST (best environmental support and technology), would be anchored by a $330-million investment -- from the unallocated balance in the Ontario technology fund -- over seven years, to assist Ontario companies to research, build and sell new environmental technology."

We have to invest in our province and in the future. If this government continues to skim the money off companies and individuals through such things as this gas tax, people will not have money on their own to invest in other projects and other things. What we have to see is a government that is instead looking to methods by which it can go into the future and say, "Here are programs we can develop."

There are a number of programs that could be developed. The whole environmental issue is an example where the government is just wasting so much money. Why it is that the Minister of the Environment has such control over this cabinet when it comes to Bill 143 -- which we will be debating in public meetings starting January 20 in the standing committee on social development, and we will be going into the effects of this bill -- that the minister has set up policies she is not prepared to expose to a full environmental assessment or to any kind of independent view? They have been policies enunciated by the minister based on her own political beliefs. Those policies are going to cost the taxpayers a great deal of money, and at the same time, she has not opened it up so that there is a balanced view coming in.

She says we cannot ship waste outside the greater Toronto area. This has to do with Bill 86, because what happens now is that the government needs more and more money to handle its programs. It has spent millions and millions of dollars trying to come up with a waste management program -- we call it an Interim Waste Authority; there is nothing interim about the waste authority for the greater Toronto area because it is a long-term problem we are creating -- but the government, in taking the extra tax money through Bill 86, is building up a greater bureaucracy to deal with waste.

The minister now is no longer known in centres around this province as the Minister of the Environment; she is known as the minister of garbage. But her policies are costing us money and that is why they need more money. They are removing options to ship garbage to Kirkland Lake or to outside centres. They are removing the option of incineration from even consideration by environmental assessment. They are removing the option of even looking outside the greater Toronto area for potential sites for garbage.

We are talking about restrictive thinking, thinking that does not open up the possibility of other options. All those restrictions cost money, and when they have a shortage of money they come along and start raising it at the grass-roots level, as we see here with Bill 86. It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong.

When we are talking about the New Democrats and their methods of dealing with these things, I have to say we categorically reject them on this side of the House.

What I have seen instead is that the government has come along with a few points of its own restraint program and it does not begin to measure up. On November 1991, the Treasurer outlined the measures his government was implementing to offset a shortfall of $670 million in personal income tax revenues. This was the second time in six weeks the New Democratic government was forced to take steps to keep its budget plan deficit projection on track.

To deal with this $670-million shortfall in the current fiscal year, the government has imposed a freeze effective until April 1992 on the purchase of vehicles, furnishings and consulting services for an estimated savings of $50 million. That is so small. I am glad he is doing it, but when we see what he is doing, it only adds up to the $670-million shortfall.

He says he has reduced the capital spending program by $200 million. Funding for projects affected will be absorbed in the capital program next year. He is not talking about significant measures. He has allocated the $150-million proceeds from the sale of SkyDome for just the deficit reduction. What he has also done is to project that we would receive proceeds of $70 million from the sale of assets from crown corporations. All it is going into is current operating funds from the sale of current corporations, not to the elimination and reduction of the deficit. In total, the government has now deferred nearly $600 million in spending to the next fiscal year.

I have to say that when I listened to the member for Nipissing, he has charged that the measures taken by the government show that the Treasurer is living in Fantasyland. He has said that the government's approach would simply worsen the financial position of the province in the next fiscal year, would cost jobs and force the province into a fire sale of assets in the middle of a recession.

We are seeing a government react to the ownership of its assets. It is trying to get rid of its assets. It makes sense in certain cases to relinquish control of certain assets, but just to throw it into the ongoing operating funds of running a government makes no sense at all.

We are talking about a government that continues to spend. When it talks about restraint, it has not begun to address just what restraint is all about. What we are seeing now is that in this year the government is going to collect $18.6 billion more in taxes than the government did in 1984-85, an increase of 123.6%. Since 1985 the taxes here in Ontario have increased by over 123%. The government will collect $9.7 billion, or 155.5% more in personal income taxes, nearly 80% since 1984-85 --

Hon Mr Allen: That is a good figure to use.

Mr Cousens: The member was part of the joint agreement to get the Liberals in there, so he has to accept responsibility for the programs they brought in.

Nearly 80% in the $3.5 billion more in retail sales taxes, 66% more in gasoline taxes and 223.7% more in land transfer taxes since 1984-85: huge, phenomenal increases in taxes in the last five years. In the current fiscal year, tax revenues account for 78.1% of the total revenues and represent the equivalent of 11.9% of the province's gross domestic product. In 1984-85, the comparable ratios were 62.9% and 8.8% respectively. We are up by 50% now in our ratios as they would affect Ontario.

I cannot believe what is happening. Fiscal recovery is a lot further off, as the New Democrats will rely on deficit financing for the remainder of their mandate. Here they are increasing taxes but increasing the spending, so we increase the debt. I will get into what it really means to have an increase in debt.

1740

The New Democrats' midterm fiscal plan shows that in addition to this year's $9.7-billion deficit Ontario's smiling socialists will add another $25.1 billion to the province's accumulated deficit from 1992-93 to 1994-95. Can members believe it? Some $25.1 billion more in deficit over this period of time.

The New Democrats will then effectively push the province's accumulated deficit, which stands at an estimated amount of $44.5 billion in the current fiscal year, to about $70 billion in 1994-95. When measured in relation to the accumulated 1990-91 deficit of $34.8 billion in the midterm fiscal plan, it indicates that the New Democrats will effectively run up as much new debt in four years as has been accumulated by all previous governments in Ontario. Can members believe that? I want to repeat that line because I do not think I had the attention of everyone. When measured in relation to the accumulated deficit in 1990-91 of $34.8 billion, the midterm fiscal plan indicates that the New Democrats will effectively run up as much new debt in four years as has been accumulated by all previous governments in Ontario.

Ontario's debt service charges will also rise as a percentage of provincial revenues as New Democratic Party policies begin to erode the bottom line. By 1994-95 debt service costs will account for 12.3% of the total revenues. At the federal level over the same period, public debt charges, measured in relation to federal revenues, will drop from 33% of revenues this year to a projected 26.5% in 1994-95.

Every other government has come to understand the implications of having a debt to carry, because it means that more and more tax dollars are just going out to pay service charges on the debt. We know that part of the federal government's major financial problem now is the shortage of money and the large amount it is having to pay. A third of all our federal taxes are just going into servicing our debt. Instead of saying, "We want to keep our debt charges down so that more of the tax money that comes in from future generations and future taxpayers goes toward programs and servicing people," the Bob Rae government's sense is, "Let's allow the debt to increase," and therefore the debt load increases, and then it means they are not going to be able to have the same number of programs and services for Ontario because they are busy paying those service charges on debt.

The Treasurer has blamed his deficit woes on federal policies and in particular on changes to transfer payments, which he says will cost the province a total of $3.6 billion in 1991-92. However, our sweet Treasurer does not mention two key points. First, other provinces have had to live with the same changes in federal policies and have not tripled their deficits. Second, the Treasurer, unlike every other finance minister in the country, has done nothing to restrain his own spending.

I have commented on this before. I am disappointed that we have had cutbacks from the federal government, but I am as disappointed or even more disappointed that we have not seen leadership from the Treasurer of Ontario to reduce his own spending. To increase his deficits at an unprecedented rate is just giving an excuse for financial irresponsibility and for creating a problem for us when we take power in 1994-95. It is going to make it a very difficult day to try to get the scales balanced at that time after what we have dealt with.

I would like to just touch on a few of the issues that have to do with the New Democrats. What they have really done is be irresponsible in their spending. The examples of irresponsibility continue to multiply.

Because it does not tie in with this bill, I am not able today to talk about the Minister of Northern Development and Mines with regard to her irresponsibility in the statements she has made about a doctor, and about the anger that exists in this House today over the member for Sudbury East not having resigned. Unfortunately, that does not pertain to this bill. I would like to be able to talk about it right now but I am not able to.

I would like to touch on some of the other problems with the New Democrats. I would like to put on the record other examples of the sickening family affair that exists with the New Democrats as it pertains to the way they spend money on themselves.

I stand to be challenged by any New Democrat who wants to prove otherwise, but I understand that the Minister of Citizenship has a special assistant who is a daughter of the former Minister of Community and Social Services. What we are talking about is one minister hiring another minister's daughter to work in her office. We understand these are political jobs, but there is still a great deal of secrecy going on about the number of New Democrats hiring other members of their families to work in very high-paying jobs.

We understand that the --

Mr O'Connor: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am having difficulty trying to see where this relates to the bill before this House today. Perhaps you can have the honourable member return to the debate on the bill.

Mr Cousens: It affects the bill because of all the extra people the government is hiring. It is part of the 1,500 more people hired by the New Democrats. It is more money going out. If the money were all going to improve programs, that would be one thing, but the money is going to improve the pockets of the family members of New Democratic cabinet ministers.

We understand that the Minister of Citizenship hired Ms Aderonke Akande, the 21-year-old daughter of the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, the former Minister of Community and Social Services who stepped down recently.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is on Bill 86 and I think the member knows that. I would recommend he debate Bill 86.

Mr Cousens: I guess it is painful to the ears, is it not, Mr Speaker? No one really wants to hear it. No one wants to know what is going on with government moneys. Therefore if we just put it under a bushel basket no one will understand what is going on with the province's moneys in Ontario. Go hide it; keep it a big secret; let there be no public exposure of the way the New Democrats are spending the money of the province of Ontario.

If they did not spend as much money they would not need to raise the taxes in Bill 86 and charge every person. Therefore, when you are putting the extra money in your gas tank, that goes to the province of Ontario. Remember that money is also paying for the salaries of the daughters of cabinet ministers of Ontario, and that is absolutely wrong. Although I know it is a little distant from Bill 86, it has a lot to do with the fact we are dealing with an irresponsible government spending our money in the wrong way, and there is no way we can get back at them.

They have the power for four years. What can we do? We can come along and we can table it. Where do we table it? When do you come along and say: "Hey, you're hiring all your relatives, you're giving them jobs. It's wrong to spend our money that way"? What do I do? I say the government is raising a tax here, that Bill 86 is causing us to spend more money on our gas, and none the less the government is hiring family members of other members of cabinet. There is no doubt about that.

The public will not put up with it. It is called nepotism, where one person helps another person. When the government spends money like that it is irresponsible in the extreme. The world does not know about it until we start making it a news item here in the Legislature.

They do not talk about it. If we do not talk about, no one is going to talk about it. Bill 86 is an example of government spending. They are raising another couple of hundred million dollars on the gas tax and I have to say -- it's stretching it -- they are putting the money into the pockets of cabinet ministers' sons and daughters. That is what has got us mad.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I will ask you to debate Bill 86.

Mr Cousens: I am talking about Bill 86 because the government would not need to increase the taxes, and that is what Bill 86 is. Bill 86 is a tax increase for everyone across the province who is in a car, and it is going to cost them just a little bit more as of January 1 because of this bill. The tax goes up again. Ontario will be the leader once more on its taxation levels. Gasoline taxes go up. It is how the government spends those moneys. If those moneys were spent in a responsible way, then members opposite would be such a happy opposition.

I think we would see a much different House if it were a minority government here, because we would not see a bill like this coming before us. I will tell members something else: With all due respect, we would not see the government in power hiring the sons and daughters of other members if it were a minority government. They do not want me to stay on that issue, so I will move to another one of many.

1750

What we are talking about is a number of issues where businesses are being frightened away by this government. In a very recent speech, the president of Ford Motor Co said something that has to do with the competitive nature of Ontario. He said, "Frankly, entrepreneurs are afraid to invest or expand in Ontario." Do members know one of the reasons they are afraid to expand and invest in Ontario? It is that we have a government that is so busy spending money on itself, increasing the costs of government and increasing the cost of living, making us uncompetitive with other jurisdictions. We cannot continue to do this. We are pricing ourselves out of the market. For a government that has a responsibility for everyone here in the province, we want to make it an attractive place for investors and people to come to and put their money in.

We have Mr Harrigan, the president of Ford, one of the very responsible leaders saying, "One of the reasons" -- he did not say this exactly -- "we continue as the Ford Motor Co to invest in Ontario is that we've got so much invested here already that we have little choice but to continue to make those investments." That is true of the large people who are already here.

The likelihood of new money coming in, as members saw with Piper Aircraft, where it came for whatever reasons and the reception given to it by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- certainly not a warm welcome -- caused it to say, "We're going to think twice before we come and put our money here in Ontario and bring the 5,000 jobs to some community here." That is what you call a province that is making us uncompetitive. They do not care about business, it would appear they do not care about big companies and it would appear, when you have a tax increase like this in Bill 86, that the government does not understand the ramifications and the ripple effect that tax has right across the whole spectrum of our society.

What do we do about it? I think all I want to do is make sure the government understands we are not about to sit around and take it lightly. We are not. We are not about to support this kind of bill. We are not about to come along and let this government think it can just be so hard-handed as to make the increase it is suggesting.

The government does not know how to use our money at the Workers' Compensation Board, if what I hear is true that in late 1988. The Liberals would have caused this to happen. The Workers' Compensation Board transferred $400 million to the Euromarket to be placed in foreign stocks and bonds, and as of October 31 of this year the investment was worth approximately $7 million less than what they had invested at the time. What we are talking about is another corporation of the government showing irresponsibility in the way in which it is spending Ontario government funds.

We are dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board that already has an unfunded liability of close to $9 billion, yet the government continues to allow that unfunded liability to increase and increase, again causing Ontario businesses to become uncompetitive with other places. When people are looking for a place to establish their business or their company, they are going to think twice before they will come to Ontario.

This province is becoming uncompetitive because of our hydro rates. There is not anyone who accepts our hydro rates as being a positive thing. I have a letter here written to the chairman of Ontario Hydro, again a friend of the New Democrats. It is a letter from one of the large companies here in Canada.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: For this company to be globally competitive --

Mrs Mathyssen: If you had explained it they would have understood it, I'm sure.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Middlesex, please.

Mr Cousens: This company says in its letter to the chairman of Ontario Hydro:

"We need lower hydro rates, not higher rates. Had your 1991 increase been closer to the inflation rate, our company would have experienced a real gain in productivity. Like other Ontario industries, Ontario Hydro must be globally competitive. Surely there must be something that can be done to improve the operations at Ontario Hydro which can improve its efficiency and reduce costs."

Then it goes on to say in this letter: "Ontario has already changed from being a net exporter to a net importer of power." Even on power, this government has shown it is not able to understand the balance that is needed.

One of the inducements that brought companies and businesses to Ontario for the longest time was that we gave them a competitive advantage on energy costs. They had a competitive advantage on gas costs. They had competitive advantages. The government should tell me today where there is any competitive advantage to being in Ontario, point it out to me. It is not there on energy costs; it is not there on labour costs; it is not there on workers' compensation costs, and it is not there on employment health costs. It should show me where there is any advantage for someone to come into Ontario.

I asked a friend of mine from the Chinese community: "Why is the Chinese money not coming into Ontario right now? Is it still there?" He said, "Yes," and in his very inimitable, wonderful style he said: "The money's there but it is floating. It is waiting for a place to come down."

The money is there to come and the confidence there, but there is no confidence in the Premier or Pink Floyd or the New Democrats' socialist methods, because it is making it difficult for people to think there is going to be any chance to make a dollar here in Ontario. The socialists have made it unattractive for people to come into Ontario, and the gas tax becomes just another reason for them to say, "Why come here?"

The socialists have done it with day care. How can they do what they have done to day care? They are taking $30 million from the gas tax in Bill 86 and giving it to make non-profit day care. There is something you can fight with me, Mr Speaker, and you are not a fighter, but I make the point to you that this is another illustration of the gas tax being misspent.

The $30 million is going into day care for the non-profit sector in Ontario, $75 million over five years, by this government. How many new day care places are being created by this New Democratic government? Not one. There is $75 million for day care and it is all going to put out of business the private day care centres because they make a profit. The government is taking my gas money under Bill 86 and putting it into the hands of non-profit day care.

I support day care and I support non-profit day care, but I also support profit day care. Why can we not have both profit and non-profit day care? This is the way to settle it: The government should not go and spend $75 million or $30 million this year. They should set a level playing field and say: "Here are the standards we require of both profit and non-profit day care. You have to have the same high standards of health and monitoring."

Mr Mancini: Don, that makes too much sense.

Mr Cousens: Oh, it does. The member is absolutely right. Are we ever starting to agree. I cannot stand this. He and I have not agreed on anything before.

It makes too much sense. Instead of having $30 million spent on day care, the government should set out a --

Mr Wiseman: You don't know what they are doing in Ottawa.

Mr Tilson: They are starting to get annoyed with you.

Mr Cousens: Oh, those guys do not know what they are doing. They do not understand the damage they are doing. I have a day care operator in my area who is having to sell her property because she can no longer --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: Yes, I will tell you if you can explain to me why this government had to take $30 million out of its budget and out of the $30 million it is going to collect through the gas tax -- let's just assume that is where it is taking the money -- and apply it to day care.

If I saw more day care places being created it would be an interesting story, but do members know something? There is not one new day care place being created with the $30 million. What they are doing as a socialist government is saying, "We don't want people to make a profit on day care." That is a philosophical argument, but they are taking that philosophical argument right to the nth degree and saying, "We'll eliminate from the whole sector of day care anyone who is making a profit." They are going to try to buy out any profit-making day care centres, buy their assets, or put their people on to a public payroll of some kind.

That is $30 million we did not need to spend this year, $30 million that did not have to go into a project which will amount to $75 million over the next five years. Is that a good reason to raise our gas taxes in Bill 86? It is not at all. They cannot give me any reason whatsoever that justifies that kind of expenditure of government money when it gives no net increase in value.

1800

We need more day care places in my riding. We need them across the province. I have a young mother right now who has a child that was born last April and is just a very frail, tragically sick child. The mother, who wants to go back to work at the Markham Stouffville Hospital in January, cannot do so. She is prepared to pay her share for day care but the child would require a nurse and there just is not any money around to help support her for that. There is a need all over the place.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: No, there is not. I have a letter to the Minister of Community and Social Services on that. She has not answered it. I wrote her over a month ago and as usual this government --

Mr Hope: Check your community office. What do you think we have community offices for?

Mr Cousens: I have to tell the member for Chatham-Kent that this government does not answer its mail. They do not answer the phone and they are not answering the issues. In talking about day care I am saying it is wrong for this government to take $30 million, as they are now, out of the coffers that are coming in from this tax on gasoline and applying to a function which has no positions at all for extra children.

I see no sense in it. I see no sense whatsoever that a government could come along and take our money and spend it as badly as this government is on day care. That is one thing the people of Ontario, who voted for them on September 6, 1990, are going to see, and the next thing they are going to see is when they do it to seniors.

Is it their agenda as well to eliminate profitable operations for senior services that are already providing a need for seniors? Will it be their agenda, before they are finished their term of office, to eliminate Extendicare, Diversicare and other very high quality private companies that are providing a service for seniors in our province and cause them to go out of business so they can have their philosophy that says no one should make a profit when providing services to people?

I happen to believe you can make a profit when serving people if you have a series of regulations and standards that require whoever is delivering that service to make sure they are doing it within appropriate guidelines. If those guidelines are the same for the profit-making and the non-profit, whether it be for day care or for senior services, as long as you have the same rules for both then you are in a position to say you have a level playing field.

Not so with the New Democrats. Their socialist policy says they will get rid of the private day care, although it was there first and has been providing a service for a long time. They are being forced out of business. The lady I am talking about in Markham is being forced to put up her property for sale right now in a depressed market, so she will not get the money out of her investment that she should or would have otherwise. It is a fire sale situation that is being forced. It is happening in Richmond Hill, it is happening in Markham, it is happening in every community around Ontario where there is a profit-making day care centre.

For this government to come along and increase our taxes so it can spend the money on eliminating private day care is wrong, categorically, unequivocally wrong. If they think I am going to vote for a policy that is going to allow that, they are again wrong.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: I know. I have got more to say and everybody is giving me the wave.

Mr Tilson: No, go on. You're doing great, Don. Tell them what it's all about.

Mr Cousens: I was concerned. You cannot always read the signals.

[Report continues in volume B]