The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY QUALITÉ DE L'EAU

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I stand in this House today to bring to your attention, Mr Speaker, the sixth biennial report of the International Joint Commission on Great Lakes Water Quality.

The Minister of the Environment will know that the report recommends that chlorine and other sources of persistent toxic substances that create toxic pollution should be phased out. The report cites experts' conclusions that contaminant levels of some of these chemicals, measured in humans, are in the same range and in some cases even greater than those found in adversely affected wildlife populations such as fish and birds.

On a découvert que ces substances chimiques endommagent les systèmes immunitaires et peuvent même produire des tumeurs chez les animaux. On ne connaît pas encore leurs effets à l'égard de la santé humaine.

I would like to remind you, Madam Minister, that in a letter of August 14, 1990, your Premier promised a "zero discharge program which would require total phase-out of the use in industry of persistent toxic chemicals," with a time line, as well as a phase-out of organochlorine dumping by the pulp and paper industry by the year 1993.

Well, 1993 is fast approaching and we have seen no action yet. Is this another broken promise or will we see some movement from your government? Perhaps if you cannot honour your original promise, you can at least today set a zero discharge date for the phase-out of chlorine-based bleaching in the pulp and paper industry. We eagerly await some action from your government on this issue.

ORILLIA PERCH FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns a unique festival in the Sunshine City that features one of the best-tasting pan fish in existence. The 11th annual Orillia Perch Festival, sponsored by the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce, is expected to attract thousands of anglers, young and old, male and female, to compete for more than $135,000 worth of cash and prizes. This year's edition of the Orillia Perch Festival, which runs from April 17 to May 9, features 75 specially tagged perch in the waters of Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe, each valued at $500. Those reeling in one of those tagged fish will qualify for the $10,000 grand prize.

I congratulate the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce for the ongoing effort and hard work that have gone into sponsoring this event for the past 11 years. The Orillia Perch Festival is a fine example of how the people of the Sunshine City are ready, willing and able to promote our community in an atmosphere of goodwill, fun and festivity.

I invite my colleagues here in the Legislature and all the people watching these proceedings at home to visit the Sunshine City to do battle with the mighty fighting perch, one of the finest pan fish in all of Ontario.

Special congratulations go to Gary Cobourn, festival chairman, and his committee. If you want more information from the chamber of commerce, the hotline is 705-326-4424. Come and perch in Orillia.

ALGONQUINS OF GOLDEN LAKE

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I would like to read into the record an extract from the Algonquin petition of June 6, 1835, to His Excellency, Major General Sir John Colborne:

"The humble memorial of the chiefs and warriors of the Algonquin and Nipissingue Indians, in the name of themselves and their respective nations, tribes and kindred,

"Most respectfully represent,

"That we, the Indian chiefs and warriors who now most respectfully approach Your Excellency, do for ourselves and our respective nations, tribes, and kindred, humbly and obediently implore Your Excellency, as our temporal father and protector, to vouchsafe your gracious intention to a consideration of this humble memorial of the grievances and deprivations which we your...children have long endured patiently and submissively without complaint, under the conviction, however, that those grievances, now becoming more and more burdensome, when made known to Your Excellency our father would obtain retribution, justice and equality....

"We most humbly beg to expose to Your Excellency our father that we and our ancestors have immemorially, or from the remotest antiquity, held, used, occupied, possessed, and enjoyed as hunting grounds" -- then they go on and talk about the land they have had.

For 220 years, the Algonquins of Golden Lake have sought justice and recognition of their history, culture and land claims. The interim agreement signed by the Minister of Natural Resources, representing the government of Ontario, and Chief Meness, representing the Algonquins of Golden Lake, on October 15, 1991, was a significant step forward in the negotiations between the aboriginal peoples and this government.

It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today, sitting in the east gallery, Chief Clifford Meness; Councillor Shirley Kohoko; Councillor Kirby Whiteduck; Councillor Doug Benoit; Greg Sarazin, chief negotiator; Dan Kohoko, negotiator; David Lewis, and Paul Williams. We are very pleased to have them here.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): For many months, health care providers have become convinced that the Treasurer is in fact setting health care policy in Ontario. Arbitrary cutbacks of services, a freeze on new drugs, surprise cuts in prescription medication and massive closings of hospital beds across Ontario are the mark of this government's policy.

We know that the member for Yorkview is also usurping some of the authority of the Minister of Health and making his own demands and providing his own directions.

Concerns about who is responsible for health policy and how decisions are made abound through the province.

The government has embarked upon a so-called consultative process on the future delivery of long-term care, yet we see that many of the decisions have been made and that the process is clearly a sham.

The question arises as to who made these decisions. Was it the Treasurer? Did the member for Yorkview have his say? And further, on what basis were the decisions made?

Who decided what will be included in a long-term care system, and why? Those decisions have been made. Who decided that nursing homes and homes for the aged will become long-term care facilities in 1993, and why? That decision has been made. Who decided that the Alberta patient classification system will define a long-term care patient's requirements, and why? That decision has been made. Many other decisions have been made as well.

In the end, who has decided that the consultation process on long-term care should be so circumscribed and that stakeholders don't really count in shaping a new direction in long-term care? Was it the member for Yorkview?

1340

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): If the Ontario government gave a hot air award to the politician who can say the least in the most words, the hands-down winner would be the Minister of Education, who has mumbled on for two weeks about the chaos in our schools without offering any solutions.

Last week the Peel Board of Education decided to eliminate junior kindergarten and make cuts to other programs like English as a second language because it faces a cash crisis. The minister responded by calling the Peel board irresponsible and asking it to find creative solutions to its financial problems.

However, it is the minister who is irresponsible and must find creative solutions to a problem that was caused by his government. Early last year the NDP government signed a trend-setting contract with OPSEU for a 5.8% wage hike. Last fall many school boards, including Peel, negotiated contracts with their teachers for similar salary increases. Then in January the Treasurer announced that provincial funding to school boards would increase by just 1%, 2% and 2% for the next three years. How then can the boards meet their contractual obligations without cutting programs and staff?

The Minister of Education still refuses to accept responsibility for the financial crisis. He has met with the chair of the Peel Board of Education but still did not offer financial assistance. After the meeting the minister was still talking about finding creative solutions.

The students, parents and teachers in Peel are fed up with programs and jobs being cut because the Bob Rae NDP government cannot manage its fiscal responsibilities.

GODERICH-EXETER RAILWAY

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I am glad today to stand in the House and announce that the Goderich-Exeter railway line is back in action. With the cooperation of the provincial government and the private sector we turned a bad decision into a good decision.

On April 3 the CN line from Stratford to Goderich and from Clinton to Centralia became officially known as the Goderich-Exeter railway line. This government again has demonstrated that it can work with private business. It was one of my first official duties as an MLA. I introduced, as you will recall last fall, Bill Pr22, An Act respecting Goderich-Exeter Railway Company Limited, which allowed the province to take over responsibilities the federal government has decided it doesn't want to do any more.

The continuation of this line is very important for a number of reasons. In Huron county it connects the southern end of my riding to the centre. The line will start by handling such commodities as salt from the Goderich Sifto mine to handling fertilizer, grains etc from our numerous elevators in the south. It also is a very positive attitude and atmosphere for our commerce and our community. Down the road it will only help to revitalize our rural community.

I am glad this company has decided to work with us. I only hope it can do more and better things down the road. I have seen a number of communities already helping to work this out. I can only wish it the best.

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The present NDP Attorney General, as the province's chief law officer, falls far short of the standards expected of this office. Here is the latest example: In December 1988, the then Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, established the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Judicial Appointments with one of the stated goals being to "do a great deal to remove any unwarranted criticism of political bias or patronage in appointments to the judiciary."

Committee member and Windsor law professor Emily Carasco was first appointed by the NDP in December 1990. Some three months ago Carasco became an active high-profile candidate for a federal NDP nomination in Windsor, yet on April 8, 1992, we learn that the Attorney General, only four days before the NDP nomination, has signed with his own hand the appointment papers promoting Carasco to chair of the judicial appointments advisory committee. Even more disgusting is that news of this appointment was apparently plastered all over the walls at the nominating convention.

The Attorney General and law professor Carasco know full well they used the sensitive and non-partisan position of chair of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Appointments for crass partisan political purposes. They have both debased the administration of justice in Ontario and they both know Carasco should resign, which as of this morning she had not done.

ORANGEVILLE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): There are some very special people within the town of Orangeville I would like to honour today. Within my riding of Dufferin-Peel and the town of Orangeville, the Orangeville fire department has many volunteers giving their time and energy for the benefit of all.

We have eight residents in Orangeville who have been doing just that job for a minimum of 25 years each. They have given their time to protect our homes and lives. These gentlemen have served in the fire department for a combined total of some 247 years, 247 years of putting their lives on the line to protect and save their neighbours' property, children and persons, 247 years of running into burning buildings not knowing what they are going to find.

I would like to personally thank them for their service to the town of Orangeville and its surrounding communities and wish them continued health in serving their community. Please join me in thanking Captain Terry Arthurs, with 25 years; Captain Bob Richardson, with 25 years; Captain John Mountford, with 25 years; Captain Bob Priester, with 27 years; firefighter John Cronin, with 30 years; firefighter Bob Montgomery, with 35 years; training officer George McGowan, with 40 years, and Fire Chief Bill Noble, serving the town of Orangeville fire department for 40 years.

NIAGARA FALLS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): On this early spring afternoon just before the Easter weekend, the people of Ontario are probably looking forward to enjoying some of the natural beauty of spring in Ontario. What more beautiful spot to visit than Niagara any time over the next few weeks? Each Friday I drive the Niagara Parkway from the historic village of Chippawa, where I live, down past the falls to my office on Queen Street in downtown Niagara Falls. I am very lucky because I enjoy the falls every day.

I can report to you that the crocuses are blooming on the hillside and the daffodils are about to burst forth everywhere on the lawns of Queen Victoria Park. There are lots of choice of things to do. You can enjoy a romantic picnic by the falls or at Dufferin Islands nature area. How about a hike down the gorge through the rough terrain of the Niagara Glen to the roar of the rushing water below? How about a game of golf by the whirlpool or a visit to historic Queenston Heights for a view across all of Lake Ontario? There are lots of winery tours available.

Please don't forget the Blossom Festival parade May 8, when the fruitland all across Niagara will be in blossom. Enjoy spring in Niagara.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, a former member of the assembly, indeed a minister of the crown, the former member for Oakwood, Ms Chaviva Hosek. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area): Today I am announcing a series of reforms that will improve service to the public. These reforms will help get good projects under way while preserving the highest standards of environmental protection.

The province of Ontario has a strong record of environmental protection. However, the administration of our environmental laws and programs has become complex and time-consuming. We have to ensure that these laws work efficiently, effectively and fairly. This is particularly important in difficult economic times.

The reforms I am proposing have been developed in consultation with the people affected by the programs. They fall into four areas: environmental assessment, land use planning reviews, certificates of approval and waste management approvals.

Ontario's environmental assessment program is a powerful tool for ensuring environmentally sound development in the province. The EA program has delivered approvals and built public acceptance for many controversial projects. However, it has been the target of considerable criticism. Many people view the process as obstructive because of problems with its administration.

Let me take this opportunity to clarify some of the misunderstanding. Since 1976 thousands of projects have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Assessment Act. The workload has more than doubled in the past five years, with 492 projects handled in 1991 alone. However, very few of these go through a full environmental assessment process. Most projects, such as municipal road development, go through a simple class environmental assessment. They do not need their own environmental assessment approval. In fact, only about 6% of projects that come under the act require a complete individual EA, and of all projects only 1% go to a hearing.

A review of the EA program began in 1988. It has involved extensive public consultation. This review has confirmed public support for the act, but it has also recommended a number of administrative improvements. We are proceeding immediately with these reforms, and these reforms will strengthen the efficiency and the effectiveness of the EA process.

1350

We have already begun to accelerate the process itself. In the last fiscal year we completed more government reviews of EA projects than in the previous four years combined. In addition to speeding up the government review process, I now intend to implement the following reforms:

First, we want to provide clearer direction to proponents and the public about what is expected of them in the EA process, particularly in the early stages. The primary tool for achieving this will be clear, written guidelines for proponents.

Second, we want the government to review individual EA documents in one third of the time it takes today. Our goal is to reduce the time of the entire EA process by one half when there is no hearing. We plan to accomplish this through a series of measures. These include deadlines for document reviews, a standard review format and concurrent government agency and public review of selected EA documents.

Third, the ministry will be working with the Environmental Assessment Board to reduce the average length of hearings and use negotiation to reduce the need for hearings. This negotiating strategy was already successful in approving the Spadina subway extension. We are committed to applying the same principles of efficiency and effectiveness to land use planning and to the review process.

In order to reduce the time it takes to review development proposals, the ministry is developing guidelines to give clear directions to developers, consultants and municipalities. We are also providing input to the Sewell Commission on Planning and Development Reform. We believe environmental planning should be incorporated into the official plans of municipalities. This would reduce or eliminate the need to review individual development proposals.

The third area we are focusing on is the time it takes to issue certificates of approval. Our legislation requires that companies obtain approvals or permits from the Ministry of the Environment for any undertaking that has an impact on the environment. Each year the ministry issues over 10,000 certificates of approval. Here again the high volume of applications in combination with their increasing complexity and the number of incomplete applications have made it difficult to process these approvals quickly.

As a first step to improve this process, we will provide clearer direction to applicants to save them time and ensure applications are complete. This will include pre-application consultation, guidance manuals and simplified application forms. The ministry is also developing regulations which will allow activities with little environmental impact to proceed without individual approvals, for example, the replacement of sewer and water lines. We will be consulting the public on these regulations, and our aim is to cut the present turnaround time for approvals in half.

As part of our reform of the approvals process, a working group involving Pollution Probe and the Ontario Waste Management Association has looked specifically at waste management approvals. They have made recommendations that will improve communications among the proponent, the ministry and interested citizens. We are already starting to act on their advice, and I'd like to thank the chair of that committee, Mr Doug Macdonald, for his input and help.

My ministry is listening to people, and we are taking action to improve the level of service. The results already illustrate what can be achieved, and we are confident we will see even more progress in the year ahead.

BUDGET

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I wish to advise the House that I intend to present the 1992 Ontario budget to this Legislature on Thursday, April 30, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon.

BEER INDUSTRY

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would like to bring the House up to date on Canada's negotiations with the United States on the GATT panel report on provincial beer policies.

On March 31 I announced the measures Ontario would be taking to comply fully with the findings of the GATT report. I indicated that Ontario was prepared to implement policies to provide equal, competitive opportunities to both foreign and domestic brewers in the Ontario beer marketplace.

The Ontario beer industry is a significant contributor to the provincial economy. The government of Ontario is working in partnership with the industry and brewery workers to allow us to meet the competitive challenges that lie ahead in a more open international beer market.

We have put forward a realistic time frame to meet the requirements of the GATT panel. This allows a period of transition for our industry and our brewery workers to adjust to the new policies, and also provides time for legislative change. The transition period is consistent with transition times agreed to in the free trade agreement and in other GATT disputes.

The United States has threatened retaliation if we are not able to resolve this issue through negotiation. Canada's Minister for International Trade, Michael Wilson, has stated that the US threat to impose a retroactive duty is unwarranted and inconsistent with both the rules of GATT and the FTA. I agree. Ontario also supports the federal government's intention to respond in kind if US retaliation is taken.

Members may be aware that Canada has brought a complaint to GATT against US federal and state measures on the sale of Canadian beer, wine and cider. I am sure all members of this House will support the strong stand taken by Ontario and the federal government. It is unfortunate that tensions have escalated in this area when Canada has responded so positively to the GATT panel report.

Ontario believes that a negotiated resolution of this dispute with the United States can be worked out in the best interests of all parties.

RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Pertaining to the Minister of the Environment's announcement, I must admit that in principle it seems to be quite an inviolable goal. Who will want to go against cutting down on the process and the red tape and whatever? But after studying the impact and how Bill 143 was brought about, with this truncated environmental assessment process on landfill sites, I am kind of interested in how this is going to translate in reality as to how the Environmental Assessment Act is going to be handled or how the principles are going to be flushed down the drain or how they are going to be diluted.

I just wonder, with very few specifics, how they will come to do this. We've seen what has happened to their good principles in the past. It's like Scrooge at Christmastime. I just wonder how she will go about doing this. Will she hire more public servants, and at what cost? There are a lot more questions raised than answers right now. Rest assured that we will follow that very closely.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Just to continue, if I might, the response to the statement made by the Minister of the Environment, there is an old adage that we in this House should be judged not by our words but by our actions. The actions of the Minister of the Environment have destabilized the effective regulation of matters relating to the environment.

Her conduct in that regard is unprecedented in the history of this province. She is gutting whatever good processes we have had, and if you look at what she has done on Bill 143, which represents the most arbitrary rejection of ordinary principles of a fair hearing and good standards in determining what we should do with our garbage, that's what the minister ought to be judged on.

If you look at what she did on the Ataratiri project, her lack of action, her inability to move forward with that project and her interference with that project is now costing the province $60,000 every single day. The lands of Ataratiri sit idle and contaminated. That problem rests right at the feet of the Minister of the Environment.

Finally, I might just raise the question of biomedical waste. We have now in this province 100 hospitals that are burning biomedical waste; 99 of those hospitals have no pollution control devices at all. Some 60% of our biomedical wastes are being shipped out of the province and burned in Gatineau, Quebec, or shipped to the United States.

The Minister of the Environment simply cannot come to grips with the problems. She is characterized over the first 18 months of her reign as a minister who is dictatorial on the one hand and unable to take action on the other hand. The announcement today changes that in no respect whatever.

1400

BUDGET

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I would like to respond to the Treasurer's comment and say that my concern is that it looks like the Premier's office is having its way with the Treasurer. I know the Treasurer would want to introduce the budget at a time when we could have a debate about it. Having it on a Thursday afternoon, when the whole weekend will go by and not allow the House to debate, was, I'm sure, the Premier's suggestion.

I'm just afraid the Premier may have his way in that I know the Premier would like to report only the operating deficit. I would hope the Treasurer wouldn't let him get away with that, because I know the Treasurer will want to show the full deficit. I know the Treasurer's Fair Tax Commission reported to him and that he would want to take its advice and not have the Premier tell him to put a capital tax in.

Finally, I would hope he can convince the Premier to stay around when the heat's on, because unless I miss my bet, once again we'll see the Premier fly off somewhere after a few days and leave the Treasurer to take all the heat. It's about time the Treasurer had his way with the Premier's office.

BEER INDUSTRY

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I want to thank the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for keeping us up to date on the discussions about beer. I agree that we should have an adequate transition period. I'll be interested to see how she can withstand the pressure to reduce it from the three years.

I also find it passing strange that a government that vowed it would not implement any of the free trade agreement and would resist it is using that as its argument for why it wants to do this.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm just wondering something as I respond. I'm wondering if the statement by the Minister of the Environment will be mailed to London, England, to the former Treasurer of the province of Ontario, who is very interested in this subject and has finally won the day.

BUDGET

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I want to briefly respond to the Treasurer's statement today. I believe this is a first in Ontario. It's the first time the Treasurer will be introducing a budget on a Thursday afternoon at 4 pm, when there's no question period the succeeding day. I'm sure that is just a coincidence. I might say -- without, I think, divulging any confidentialities -- that we were actually asked for our opinion as to what we on this side of the House thought would be an appropriate budget day, and out of 999 dates, this ranked 1,000th.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In responding to the statement by the Minister of the Environment, I have to wonder, if that statement had been made by the former government when she was the critic for the Environment, what the reaction would have been. There would probably have been blood-letting in the streets, I might suggest.

We're obviously very concerned about a revision and any improvements that can be made to the environmental assessment process. We've been asking for it for a number of years now. But this has got to be the worst example of a non-statement we've had from this government in some several months, because there's no time frame. When you ask the question, "When will this become effective?" they're working on it. It's like coming out and saying, "I'm going to wave this flag because this is what we're going to do," but there's no parade behind you because they don't know where their parade is going. They are so far out to lunch, they don't have a clue what's going on in this province today. This statement is just an example of that.

When we read that the reforms will "get good projects under way," I have to wonder if those good projects are going to be on their jelly bean list of pet projects they support, not necessarily supported by the rest of the people of this province. We will be very interested to see when this becomes effective and how they will select those "good projects."

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Just a few moments ago the Minister of the Environment was kind enough to let me share with some of her officials the problems in my home town of Manotick, where we have a serious problem with water quality. We have over 100 wells which are poisoned at the present time and the people are drinking bottled water. It's amazing that in order to solve this problem we're going to have to make it an emergency situation, which is going to cost $4.6 million, and that solution is not going to be a permanent solution. In order to take the permanent solution, we have to bring water and sewers from Ottawa out to Manotick, which is some 10 miles south of Ottawa.

The reason we have to take the interim measure is because the environmental assessment hearing will take somewhere between four and five years to complete. Our province has come to a situation now where hearings, the stalling of the process, tie our hands so that we cannot face emergency situations which obviously have to be fixed. We're going to spend somewhere around $4.5 million, which is going to have to be discarded in about five or six years when the sewers and water do come to the town of Manotick.

We need even more than what the minister is talking today. We need real action so we can take real action in the community and resolve our environmental problems.

BEER INDUSTRY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Just a few comments on the remarks made by the minister on Canadian beer. It's the first time I've ever heard a statement that's been made some weeks after a press release was made on provincial beer policies. I've never heard of a statement given after a press release was given several weeks before. It seems to be the minister's policy on a number of things, whether it be gambling casinos, taxes on headstones; it seems to be a reaction to something.

What took you so long and when are you going to do something with the Honda crisis, the softwood lumber issue? It's good to see that you're working with the federal government finally and not pointing fingers at it.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): To the Minister of the Environment, finally, after some five years in opposition and some 18 months in power, a record as long as your arm on the need to speed up the environmental process, and this is the best you could deliver: no time lines, nothing, just bafflegab. Minister, at this rate you'll be back on this side of the House when you've finally made a decision.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I regret having to stand on a point of order, but what is out of order is that we've been told that the Premier would have arrived in the chamber at 2 o'clock in preparation for questions. We've planned our daily schedule around his imminent appearance. The difficulty for us is that he appears so seldom that when these special occasions present themselves, we like to attend upon his arrival.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: As unaccustomed as I am to introducing the Premier of the province to all assembled, I would like to say that he has just arrived. The gentleman, with his red tie, who is now seated and smiling is, for all the people of the province to observe, the real Premier of the province of Ontario. We haven't seen him in a while.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, obviously his alleged point of order had some immediate effect.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMPENSATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRPERSON

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My two questions today are to the leader of the government, and they concern promise versus performance. In the first case I want to draw the attention of the House and the attention of the first minister to what I thought was an interesting and helpful set of remarks the Premier is reported to have made to the NDP provincial council in Toronto, I believe, on Sunday, March 29, during which speech the Premier is reported to have said, "Look, the days of 4%, 5%, 6%, 7% wage increases are gone." He went on to say, "As for people who keep pressing on blithely saying, 'That's what they got last year; that's what somebody else got,' I'm sorry, we're living in a 1% to 2% inflation world."

Certainly my constituents in Renfrew county would support the Premier in that direction. Having regard to that speech, then, having regard to the restraint message contained in those remarks to the NDP provincial council, my constituents would want me to ask the leader of the government, what kind of deal, Mr Premier, did you make on June 6, 1991, with Mr Marc Eliesen, chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro? I want you to answer this as leader of the government, because it's your appointment, it's your order in council, he's your friend.

In this world of 1% to 2% inflation, Mr Eliesen has reportedly received an increase in pay from $120,000 as a deputy minister to $260,000 as chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro. The press today reports he has so much money he now gets $1,000 worth of benefits in terms of financial services to tell him how to invest his money.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Conway: Will you table in this House, at the earliest opportunity, all the information relating to Mr Eliesen's salary, pension and other benefits, including a potential bonus? Will you do that in the quickest way you can?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer this question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions and acting Minister of Energy): The member for Renfrew North has chosen to raise a question here today over which there has been something of a controversy in the media during recent weeks. It is a useful opportunity for us to clear up some of the very incorrect information that has been out about the chairman of Hydro.

First, let me say the executive salaries at Ontario are salaries that have been determined by the board of Hydro and have evolved over a 75-year history. The member for Renfrew North, for example, knows full well the chairman of Hydro in fact took a salary reduction, not an increase, when he took that post.

There was an accusation made in the media that the chairman of Ontario Hydro was receiving a two-for-one pension. That also is not correct. The chairman of Ontario Hydro is a member of the Hydro pension and is receiving credits in that pension at one for one, based on his salary at Ontario Hydro. He has an option to take the two-for-one in the deputy's salary, if he wishes to do so, based on a deputy minister's salary.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Charlton: This government, for the first time in Hydro's 75-year history, has referred this matter to the Ontario Energy Board. All the documents that made up that story in the media this morning have been tabled with the Ontario Energy Board. That's where this story came from, the documents tabled with the energy board. There will be a public hearing in June. The public may participate in that hearing. This government is committed to dealing with this issue openly with the public of this province.

Mr Conway: My question is to the leader of the government, who has littered this legislative landscape for years with what he would do if he ever had the opportunity. I want the Premier to tell me and to promise the people of Ontario that he will do at least this: table in this Legislature all the details of the arrangement the Bob Rae government made with respect to the hiring of Marc Eliesen as chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro.

I can well understand how there might be some confusion, because we have had, for example, one incident after another: the chairman of Hydro saying, and the former Minister of Energy bragging, that he had voluntarily taken a pay cut from $400,000 to $260,000. What the Rae government didn't tell Hydro ratepayers and the Legislature was that on the same day the cabinet extended his term by two years, to cite but one example.

Will the Premier, consistent with his promises, say to this Legislature that he will unequivocally and at the first opportunity table all the details concerning the salary, the pension, the bonus, if any, and all of this other gold-plated splendour so that the poor, recession-ridden taxpayers can see what Marc Eliesen is earning in this recession world of 1% and 2%?

Hon Mr Charlton: First of all, there was no special arrangement between this government and Marc Eliesen, the new chairman of Ontario Hydro.

Mr Scott: How do you know? The Premier made it, not you.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, come to order.

Hon Mr Charlton: As a matter of fact, Mr Eliesen is in receipt of benefits that are identical to those of all the other executives at Ontario Hydro, a benefits package which evolved under the former administration. All of those documents have been tabled with the Ontario Energy Board. They are now on the public record, for the information of the member for Renfrew North. They will be subject to a public hearing in June and fully disclosed.

I suggest to the member for Renfrew North and other members in opposition that they take a long, hard look in the mirror at why, if they are so outraged now, they kept quiet about these arrangements for five full years.

Mr Conway: It'll be a frosty Friday in July before I appoint my research director to a $400,000 patronage job, that's why.

I want to say to the Premier, who lacerated Bill Davis and Frank Miller seven years ago for the two-for-one pension arrangement for deputy ministers, that I do not want to remind him of what he said Frank Miller should do about the two-for-one deal. I read the Hydro policy of the Rae government to mean that its hallmarks were openness and accountability. I say to the Premier that the only public hearing I care about is the one to which my electors sent me to participate in, namely the Legislature.

Will you or will you not, at the earliest opportunity, as leader of this government which purports to have a Hydro policy of openness and accountability, table in this House all of the details in respect of Mr Eliesen's pay, his benefits, his bonus and other perquisites, particularly in light of your advice and injunction to the NDP provincial council that we all have to get real and live with less because it's a 1% and 2% world?

Mr Scott: Not a snowball's chance in hell.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.

Hon Mr Charlton: Again I repeat what I said earlier. The member for Renfrew North, in his usual fashion, keeps referring to two-for-one pensions. Mr Eliesen is not in receipt of any two-for-one pension. He's contributing to the Ontario Hydro pension on a one-for-one basis and will continue to do so.

All the documents the member refers to have been referred to the Ontario Energy Board, the board this Legislature created as the independent body to review Hydro matters. It's all in the public domain. It will be part of a public hearing. It's the first time in this province's history we've had the opportunity to have this kind of public review, and we look forward to it.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, their embarrassment must be endless. Their silence is all-telling. I'll tell you, George Bush had John Sununu and the Premier has Marc Eliesen and we're happy with this marriage and long may it prosper.

1420

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a new question to the leader of the government. It also concerns promise versus performance, in this respect the standards of conduct for members of his cabinet and the next tier, the parliamentary assistants.

Mr Premier, since you and I last had the opportunity in this chamber to discuss the so-called Martel affair, a legislative committee has been told the following: that the Minister of Northern Development, by her own admission, told the committee about a month ago that she believed her conduct was far below that which she understood was called for by your conflict guidelines. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, the member for Sudbury, admitted in that committee that she fabricated income concerning a Sudbury physician, made no effort to verify that fabrication and then allowed that information to be distributed broadly through the Sudbury community.

My question to the leader of the government, the sole arbiter of his conflict-of-interest guidelines, is: Given what your guidelines state and what the two honourable members have openly admitted to, how is it that they continue to hold their offices of Minister of Northern Development and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Ironically, this is almost exactly the same question the member was asking in December before the committee was established. I want to say to the honourable member that despite all the allegations made on the other side, all the innuendo, all the projection as to what would happen, all the allegations made by members opposite with respect to what would happen and all the allegations of coverup and so on, what the committee found after all was said and done is exactly what we knew on the first day: that the minister had a conversation with Evelyn Dodds which she profoundly regrets and she has stated categorically she apologizes for. That is, I think, the nub of the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The nub of the question is, after all the work of the select committee: What do we know now that we didn't know then? The answer is: We know the minister had no access to confidential information. We know that no members had access to confidential information --

Mr Scott: Martel is a liar.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please. The member for St George-St David, this is, as we know, a very difficult and sensitive issue. I think the choice of vocabulary is very important for members and I would ask the member to keep that in mind.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know this is a matter of some delicacy, but we have a situation where I have raised this point of order exactly for this purpose, where the member for Sudbury East has admitted that she lied. She has taken a lie detector test to prove that she has lied. A member on our side referred to the fact that she had lied and you have raised the point that he can't do that. Do you not think there is an inconsistency here?

The Speaker: The standing orders are quite clear. Regardless of what a member says, no other member may accuse a member of lying in the House.

Mr Scott: I accused her of nothing. She said what she did, and you know what that was.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, the rules are very clear. Has the Premier concluded his response?

Hon Mr Rae: I've concluded my response.

Mr Conway: The Rae government began its career in this place 15 or 17 months ago with His Honour reading a speech from the throne that contained these words:

"My government's" -- the Rae government's -- "first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario...Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist."

Those are enormously uplifting words. I take the Oxford-educated Premier back to the central question and I want the Oxford-educated Premier to turn his mind to what it is we know are the uncontested facts of the evidence. He now harbours within his cabinet two people, one of whom has admitted to losing it, flying off the handle and lying and smearing a public citizen in a contested debate about public policy. He's got a parliamentary assistant who has caused fabricated information to be distributed in her community.

Mr Premier, in light of what they have admitted to having done and having regard to your first challenge, which is to maintain the trust, to impose a high and good standard to earn that trust, how is it possible that these two people are still in your cabinet?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I think the member would want to make it clear that he's referring to one member of the cabinet. The member for Sudbury, I think, is the nature of the other allegation he is making -- that is, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. Let me just say, in response very directly to the member, that this is almost exactly, I think to the note, the same level of synthetic indignation he managed to produce in the period before Christmas.

I would say to the honourable member that in response to a demand by the opposition for an inquiry, because of all the other allegations that were being made with respect to the conduct of allegedly countless members of the cabinet, public servants at every level, ministry officials and so on, we had members of the opposition coming out on the second day of the hearing saying that they didn't need to hear from anybody; they knew what the answers were. They didn't need to hear what happened.

The member asks about institutional arrogance. I want to point out that we set up a committee. The committee heard from everyone. The minister had a chance to tell her story, as others had to tell their side of what took place.

I am satisfied that the account the minister has given in this House and the account this government gave in this House in December is the account that is in fact the case -- that is, the minister did something which she profoundly regrets and for which she has apologized -- and that there is no substance to all the other myriad allegations which were made by members of the opposition.

Mr Conway: There is a delicious irony in this entire affair and it is this: Since the Premier and I last chatted in this place, the justice minister, the Attorney General, has fired a constituency assistant for his involvement in the Martel affair. The Minister of Revenue, to her credit, as it was to the credit of the minister of justice, has suspended a constituency assistant for remarks she is alleged to have made about the operation of a clinic in her city of Thunder Bay. I say the two honourable members showed leadership in that connection.

But what have we now, I ask the Premier? Do we have a higher and tougher standard being imposed by his Attorney General and Minister of Revenue upon constituency staffers for lower-order offences while the Premier stands idly by and does nothing to discipline two members, one in cabinet who has admitted to lying and to conduct well below the Premier's guidelines, and a parliamentary assistant who has admitted to disseminating false information about a doctor's income? Do we have two standards: a higher standard for constituency staffers which the Attorney General and the Minister of Revenue have been prepared to enforce, to the detriment of those two staffers, and two parliamentarians who have not been disciplined by the leader of the government?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer to the member's question, if I was able to follow it correctly, is no.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): To the Premier about the same issue: Mr Premier, a moment ago you referred to a question about institutional arrogance. What would you say about a cabinet minister who, on the very morning before a committee of the Legislature begins its deliberations surrounding its report -- I'm speaking now of your Minister of Northern Development -- on the morning of March 30 tells the media: "I don't care what this committee of the Legislature decides. I'm not resigning. If I was going to resign, I would've done that last December. I don't care what they find, I don't care what the recommendations are, I'm not quitting."

1430

Hon Mr Rae: All kinds of things have been said. I want to say to the member for Parry Sound that he knows full well that all kinds of comments were made by members of the opposition the first day or the second day of the hearings that I saw reported in the media.

Mr Eves: I'm asking you what you think of that comment.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm responding very directly to the member's question.

Mr Eves: No, you are not. You are responding to some other question that you would rather respond to.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The allegations were made by the member as well as by others with respect to all the possibilities with respect to access to confidential information by the minister or by others with respect to this question.

My answer going directly to the member is this: The minister has indicated in every statement she's made to the committee and everywhere else exactly what happened and exactly what took place. That is a clear indication of her willingness to participate fully in the committee hearings, to answer fully the questions that were put to her, the participation by other ministers to do exactly the same.

I can understand the concern of the honourable member because, having made all the allegations, there must surely be a degree of embarrassment on the other side that the vast majority of the allegations that were made didn't in fact prove to be the case.

Mr Eves: I just want to put on the record that the only allegation I ever made was that the minister lied and breached the Premier's guidelines. That has been vindicated 110%.

I would also like to remind the Premier that the terms of reference of this committee were not just looking into confidential information, something that the government over there wants to conveniently forget. They were to look into the conduct of the minister of the crown. The same minister of the crown has admitted she has breached the Premier's guidelines on two separate occasions in the past six months. She then went on to say in committee on March 11, "I can't say that if I was put in a similar situation tomorrow I wouldn't do the same thing all over again." How many strikes before she is out? Three?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member that it is clear to me on the basis of what I have heard, and the report is being tabled this afternoon, that the questions he is asking are precisely the same as the questions he asked last December. It was in response to the concerns he raised and others raised with respect to a whole other range of allegations with respect to confidential information, with respect to a whole other range of issues that were being raised on a daily basis in the two weeks prior to Christmas.

Mr Eves: Three bullet points. Those are the terms of reference. Read them out.

Hon Mr Rae: Yes, we have nothing to hide. Let the information come forward. Let the officials come forward. We appointed a member of the opposition as the Chairman. The whole thing was worked out in what turned out in the end to be a consensual way in terms of the process. As a result of what took place, despite all the statements that were made about access to confidential information by ministers, I will say directly to the member, if he will simply listen: Those allegations prove to be unfounded.

We now know what we knew then. I will say to the member that the minister clearly cooperated with the committee in every regard, told her experience and has clearly expressed that experience to members of the committee. I think that in the circumstances the members of the opposition have to realize that they got the committee they were looking for. Perhaps they didn't get the confirmation of the various allegations that they were looking for, but that is the way it takes place as a result of a committee investigation.

Mr Eves: People across this province, certainly in my constituency and in other constituencies, want to know this very fundamental fact about your government, Mr Premier: If lying is not ground for dismissal from cabinet, what is?

Hon Mr Rae: I am satisfied that the minister has apologized very clearly for what took place in that conversation with Evelyn Dodds in Thunder Bay. The minister has apologized for that as clearly and categorically as she can.

COMPENSATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRPERSON

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier regarding Marc Eliesen. On October 21, you told this House:

"There were no terms and conditions, either considered by cabinet or discussed by cabinet, other than the fact that Mr Eliesen's appointment took place with the understanding that his salary would be what it is today....That is the beginning and that is the end of it and that is the full story."

We now know, thanks to the Toronto Sun, that this indeed was not the full story. So either Marc Eliesen is not your friend, wasn't your choice for Ontario Hydro and you know absolutely nothing about what is going on, or you were Martelling in this House. Which is it?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the Minister of Energy is best equipped to answer with regard to the question of Mr Eliesen's status.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions and acting Minister of Energy): Obviously the leader of the third party didn't listen to the answers earlier this afternoon in this House. The story to which the leader of the third party is referring is a story that results from documents that were tabled with the Ontario Energy Board by Hydro regarding the matters referred by this minister for review at the Ontario Energy Board. There was no discussion of those issues and benefits at cabinet. The Premier's earlier comments are correct. The benefits package which is in place for Mr Eliesen is the identical benefits package that is available to all Hydro executives, the standard produced by the board of Ontario Hydro.

Mr Harris: On December 4, the Premier stood in this House and told us there was no secret deal. When he was asked directly to reveal the details of the conversation, not once did he tell us that Marc Eliesen had been given the use of two cars, a home security system or $1,000 in financial planning. In fact, it seems the only thing Marc Eliesen didn't get was the free fridge.

In a court of law, if a witness does not tell the whole truth, that witness is in contempt of court. Can the Premier explain to me why his not telling the whole truth should not stand him in contempt of this Legislature?

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, the leader of the third party is choosing not to listen here this afternoon, and it might be useful if perhaps he did listen this time. The Premier had no discussion and the cabinet had no discussion about the benefits package, a benefits package that is decided by the board of Ontario Hydro and provided to all the executives at Ontario Hydro, depending on their salary, rank and so on.

There were no discussions in cabinet about those benefits. The Premier, in his response to the leader of the third party last fall, set out a response about what was discussed in cabinet. None of those matters were discussed. They are part of documents that have been tabled with the Ontario Energy Board at the request of this government so we can have a full, open, public review of the whole matter.

Mr Harris: Every time we turn around, we find another golden government Easter egg underneath the bush, every day that goes by. The only reason that we've heard it's okay is: "Oh, this is Marc Eliesen. He's the Premier's pal." That is the only thing that seems to be different.

Mr Speaker, through you -- and through whoever else I have to direct the question to -- to the Premier: You hired your crony, your pal Marc Eliesen. Over the objections of the Hydro board, you hired him. This is your responsibility. I want to know how the Premier can stand behind the revelation that is coming forward of this kind of decadence at a time when Hydro rates are going up 9%. How can you stand behind that?

1440

Hon Mr Charlton: The question which the Leader of the Opposition raises is in my view somewhat unconnected to the others, but let me respond by saying again that the decisions the Ontario Hydro board has made are decisions that it has been making over 75 years in this province. The level of salaries, the level of benefits provided to the executives at Ontario Hydro have evolved through Liberal and Conservative administrations over the course of 75 years. The Leader of the Opposition might also take note of the fact that the rate increases that are now occurring have evolved as a result of decisions made in Liberal and Conservative administrations over the last 15 years.

Mr Harris: Thank old Leslie Frost. He foisted it on us. That's terrible.

Hon Mr Charlton: No, it was Bill Davis in 1976.

We believe it's time to have an open airing of these issues at the Ontario Energy Board so that we can deal in an open and straightforward way with questions that have been raised here, and that's what we intend to do.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I would like to return to the Premier and to the Martel affair. The minister first got into some difficulty with the Premier when she wrote an impermissible letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. She offered her resignation for that at the time, and the Premier refused to accept it. She then got into difficulty again when she went to Thunder Bay, and when charged with an account of the matter, she explained to the House and outside the House that she had lied on a political matter by making up these facts to make a doctor in Sudbury look bad. She again, I gather, offered her resignation, but the Premier wouldn't accept that either because she said as well that she was sorry.

In this House she was asked if she would ever do a thing like that again and she said, "I do not think I can say that." She said the same thing in the committee, that she had made up this lie to smear a doctor, and she was unable to assure the committee she would not do it again. That's the record we face.

I want to ask the Premier about this particular matter. In an interview in Sudbury the minister, who is a prominent member from the Sudbury area, was confronted with the fact that many of her constituents were unhappy about her conduct. Here's what she said to the press: "I'm the local MP. If they don't want to deal with me, they can see how far they get." I want to ask the Premier if he regards that as an appropriate comment for a minister of the crown of the government of Ontario.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Perhaps the member would like to show me when and where and how and the context in which this was said. All kinds of allegations are made with respect to statements that are made by various people. The member has made the odd allegation, either sitting in his seat or standing up, many of which have proven to be completely and utterly unfounded. I would only say to the member in response to his question that the minister has clearly apologized for her conduct. It's something which she profoundly regrets, and it's an experience from which I am confident she will have learned.

Mr Scott: I take the Premier's observation to amount to this: that if the minister said this, he agrees with me it would be absolutely improper for a minister of the crown to say it. I'll send it over to him, and I've no doubt he'll take it up with her immediately. There's no time to be lost, because what she is reported to have said is: "I'm the local MP. If they don't want to deal with me, they can see how far they get." I understand the Premier will undertake to investigate that.

The problem we have here is not merely a minister who is accident-prone; that's clearly demonstrated. We have a minister who hasn't got the faintest regard for her public responsibilities as a minister of the crown to serve all the people of the province even if she doesn't agree with them, doctors and others. I ask the Premier to undertake to look into this immediately. This situation is not at a plateau; this situation with the minister is getting worse.

Hon Mr Rae: In this regard and in a number of other statements the honourable member has made -- either from his seat, in which he has become the master heckler of this place, or else standing up -- a number of statements about things which are alleged or not alleged to have been said or done in different sets of circumstances, I think the minister has clearly indicated to me, and certainly indicated to everyone I've heard, that she profoundly regrets what's taken place and has apologized to all the parties in question as well as apologized to the House for what has taken place. I think it's an experience from which the minister has clearly learned.

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Energy regarding Ontario Hydro. I wonder if the minister can explain why the power system operations division at Ontario Hydro is spending $750,000 on a contract with Business Design Associates of California, why this contract was not tendered and why, with hydro rates of 9% this year, Hydro is justified in spending $750,000 in consulting fees with an American company without going to tender.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions and acting Minister of Energy): I don't have the specific details of the contract the leader of the third party is referring to. I'm certainly prepared to look into that and get back to him. Hydro is proceeding with a range of demand management research and development that will, hopefully, help this province move in the direction of a much more efficient, competitive and productive society in the future.

Mr Harris: At a time when every independent and objective study of Hydro has suggested that many of these managers should no longer be employed -- ie, it's too fat, it's overstaffed, they're overpaid -- can you explain why you are spending $750,000 to send these people away on training courses? Can you explain why -- you should know, because we got the information from a freedom of information request -- when we asked about the record of tendering, we were told that access could not be granted as this record didn't exist? My office has been advised that the invitation to submit a proposal to Ontario Hydro was done verbally, via a phone call. Is this how you believe Ontario Hydro should be dispensing $750,000 contracts to a California company for consulting services: via a phone call?

Hon Mr Charlton: As with so many things that get raised in this House, I'll look into the matter the leader of the third party has raised and get back to him with the real details. This, like so many other things, is a question that gets couched in a fashion that doesn't warrant a response without a full review of the facts.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): This question is to the Minister of the Environment. The people of my riding of York East take pride in participating in the blue box program, but now residents are concerned about the future of this program in light of claims by Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc that it will be unable to provide its share of the costs. Could the honourable minister explain what she is doing to ensure the survival of this waste diversion program?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area): I'm glad to respond to a question from the member for York East whose ongoing interest in and commitment to environmental issues does him a great deal of credit. I want to say to him and the members of this House that they need have no fear: The blue box is here to stay. The blue box has become a symbol of the commitment of the people of this province to playing their part in reducing waste. There are now nearly three million households that have the facility to recycle their waste, either through the blue box or through a depot. What has been at issue is the question of how it can be financed.

The member makes reference to a non-profit group of businesses that have contributed to the funding. They've contributed the capital costs. The municipalities have had to bear more than their fair share of the operating costs. We think what has to happen is that the people whose waste ends up in the blue box pay more of the cost of the program, so to create what the companies have called for as a level playing field so those who contribute are not at a competitive disadvantage with those who don't contribute is something with which the waste reduction office in my ministry is very much concerned and about which I hope to have some answers very shortly.

1450

Mr Malkowski: Given your first response and your reassurances, can the minister tell me when we might expect to see blue box recycling in apartment buildings?

Hon Mrs Grier: There was some recent publicity in the city of Toronto to the effect that because of the shortfall in funding collected by OMMRI it would not be able to expand its program into apartment buildings, but I want to say to the member that in many municipalities that expansion has in fact taken place, and is taking place most successfully.

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Grier: Guelph, the former minister reminds me, is one where it is there.

In the waste reduction initiatives paper I have been circulating for comment, we have indicated our commitment to make sure that municipalities with a population of more than 5,000 all have recycling facilities available to them, so I am confident that people living in apartment buildings who say, "We want to do our bit," will soon be in a position to do that.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question for the Premier. At one point, Kay Boyle was quoted as saying, "There is only one history of importance, and it is the history of what you once believed in and the history of what you come to believe in." My question to the Premier is, has he come to believe in the fact that it is okay for a member of his cabinet to admit publicly to being a liar and retain the seat in the cabinet?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me respond to the member as clearly as I can by saying that I'm convinced the minister profoundly regrets what took place, she has cooperated fully with the committee with respect to what happened and I think it's an experience from which she has learned and I think it's an experience from which we've all learned.

Mr Elston: Having confirmed that, in his belief, it's okay for a cabinet minister to lie and say untrue things about the general citizenry in this province, will the Premier tell us what we are to think of not only his standards but the conduct of his other cabinet ministers if this minister is to stay attached to that group?

Hon Mr Rae: This government will be judged, as will all others, on its overall record and performance and on the ability of our people. I would say to the member for Bruce --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: As the member heckles me from his seat, perhaps I can simply point out that this is the member who was asked by reporters on February 17 if there were any doubt in his mind -- this is prior to the hearings really commencing -- that Miss Martel saw confidential information. He quickly replied: "None." That's the kind of fair, even, balanced approach the members of his caucus took to that inquiry.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. Mr Premier, considering that you wrote your guidelines on conflict of interest and so on for the conduct of your cabinet just after being elected in September 1990, clearly in the past number of months actions have been taken by your ministers that have in fact contravened the written rules. My question, Mr Premier, is this: Can we as an opposition and can the people of Ontario now expect from you a new set of guidelines, a new set of rules your cabinet will operate under? If so, does it mean that if you tell a lie, if you slander a citizen, as long as you regret it, it's all right?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, the short answer to that is no.

Mr Stockwell: The short answer may well be no, but the long answer should be what we on this side of the House can expect from your cabinet. What do the people of Ontario expect from your cabinet? When are they going to get a new set of guidelines and a new set of rules that allow them to measure you and your government?

The question was, can we expect a new set of written rules from you on the conduct of your ministers? You've now said it's okay to lie and slander as long as you regret it. The question is, what are the new terms of reference? Please outline them.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I think I heard at least seven questions in the member's question. I will say directly to the member that this experience has been one from which the minister has learned, as I think the whole House has, with respect to what took place in December, what the committee found and what has happened. I would say to the member that when you asked -- and I don't think you're being rhetorical -- "What can the public expect from this cabinet?" they can expect a cabinet which does the best it can in difficult circumstances. They can expect a cabinet which will do its very best to serve the people and which, when we make mistakes, Mr Speaker, will admit them and make every effort to correct them.

SEATBELTS

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Mr Minister, Transport Canada's study released national driver safety statistics earlier this week. I was surprised to learn that Ontario drivers rank fifth overall among the provinces with regard to seatbelt compliance. Would you please share with us today some of the results of this study as they pertain to this province?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and minister responsible for francophone affairs): Yes, indeed. The province of Ontario is making a significant comeback; we were second-last two years ago. While the province's record isn't one of perfection or excellence, it is one of constant improvement. More motorists are wearing seatbelts than ever before, 11% more, 83% compliance, thanks to the OPP and its education system, thanks to the insurance bureau, thanks to agencies of all sorts, to clubs and organizations. Since 1976, when seatbelt usage was first introduced in the province, fatalities have gone down a full 30% in spite of 2 million more cars on the roads of Ontario. Mr Speaker, I invite you and all members of the House to buckle up, for in Ontario, it is the law.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): My question as well is to the Premier. I say to the Premier, with all due respect, that the issue in this unseemly matter is not the member for Sudbury East, who ought not to be sitting here as a minister; the issue is you, sir.

The problem the people of Ontario have is that the rules seem to be rewritten every time a matter arises, and there have been several. Months and months ago, at the beginning of your term, the member for Oakwood was involved in a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and was thrown out of your caucus. The member for Welland-Thorold appeared, fully clothed, in a newspaper and was thrown out of cabinet. The member for Ottawa Centre inadvertently blurted out the name of an OHIP patient. She profoundly regretted it and she did the right thing and stepped down. The member for Scarborough West inappropriately wrote to a judge. She offered her resignation, and that was for a moment accepted and then rejected.

If I might, Mr Speaker, this is an important history.

The office staff of the member for Cambridge inappropriately wrote to a judge. His resignation wasn't proffered, but ultimately he was thrown out of cabinet. The member for Fort York and the member for Peterborough lost their cabinet jobs as well. The member for St Andrew-St Patrick had a question arise dealing with a rent review. She did the appropriate thing and offered her resignation, and that was accepted.

I tell the Premier that it is impossible for the people of Ontario to accept the fact that with each new incident, you rewrite the rules.

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

Mr Sorbara: I ask the Premier: Will he now tell us that he will abandon the proposal he put before the legislative committee on the administration of justice and put before this House and the people of Ontario clear rules dealing with ministerial conduct, rules which have clear and appropriate and well-articulated sanctions so that he cannot any further hide behind the fact that "The minister profoundly regretted her actions"?

1500

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I would only say to the --

Mr Sorbara: Will you bring forward rules, yes or no?

Hon Mr Rae: The member for York Centre is asking me to answer his question. I will answer the question as directly as I can and say that the examples he has raised I think clearly establish the fact that the standard of conduct is there and that the ministers and others are responding to it. The fundamental fact remains that it's the responsibility of the Premier to decide overall on the membership of cabinet.

I accept the fact that my judgement will be criticized -- that also goes with being Premier -- and I accept that the member may have different views with respect to issues of the day, but I think the examples the member has given are a clear indication of the willingness of this government and this Premier to take difficult decisions when they have to be taken.

Mr Sorbara: The examples I raised show that there is a different set of rules in each of the 10 incidents that have arisen. The Premier, by the way, said he would answer the question as to whether he would put before us a new set of rules with clear sanctions and then he proceeded not to answer the question. We want to know who is enforcing these rules. We want to know whether the Premier is enforcing the rules as they may be in each individual instance or whether the ministers themselves, when they get into trouble, are enforcing the rules.

Will the Premier tell me and this House whether or not at the time of this incident the member for Sudbury East, the now Minister of Northern Development, proffered to you her resignation? Was that resignation considered, or did she refuse to offer her resignation, given her scandalous conduct? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Rae: The Premier of this province has a responsibility to deal with the question of the membership of cabinet and I exercise that responsibility, and the short answer is no.

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Premier. The parliamentary assistant and member for Sudbury admits that she and her constituency office made up certain information and conveyed it to the public in order to defend your policy regarding capping doctors' salaries. The information that was conveyed to the public was clearly wrong, false and besmirched the name of the doctor in the community. Are you prepared to do anything about the conduct of the parliamentary assistant?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The allegations, again, which the member is making and which have been put forward are, I am told, discussed in the report being tabled this afternoon. I would say to the honourable member that his characterization of what took place I don't think is one I would fully share.

Mr Harnick: I would advise the Premier to read that report, because our counsel independently analysed those facts and discussed the conduct of the parliamentary assistant in conveying this information, which was admitted by the parliamentary assistant and her constituency worker. On that basis, is the Premier going to sit and do nothing about this abuse of the way a constituency office is run?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I hope the member will at least give me the opportunity to read the report, which I gather is being tabled this afternoon, and then perhaps I can respond more effectively.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): As I looked at Hansard last week, on April 9 I saw some of the remarks made by the honourable leader of the third party regarding basement apartments and I wanted to ask the Minister of Housing -- first of all, some of the comments that were made I must object to; for instance, that these are artificial quick fixes. We know there is a need for affordable housing. We also know the honourable leader of the third party is concerned about condominiums and single-family dwellings, but what are we going to do for people who need housing now? I ask the minister to reply to this kind of response.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Like the member for Victoria-Haliburton, I was somewhat puzzled by the florid language used by the leader of the Conservative Party when he spoke about the statement in the throne speech that suggested we were going to make provisions so that people could, anywhere in municipalities, provide extra units within their homes. He made such statements as, "People wouldn't want to give over their homes to strangers, allow strangers, as it were, to invade their homes."

What we are talking about here is the addition of self-contained units. What those units would represent is access, for the first time, by home owners and by people who would like to rent such units, to easily available and legally provided -- meeting all the standards required -- apartments within homes.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would be ashamed to support that concept for the future of this province.

Interjections.

Mr Drainville: I would just like to say that some members opposite have said they would be ashamed to talk about basement apartments. I came from a poor family, and I will tell you, Mr Speaker, family life in Ontario is as fine in good basement apartments as it is in the luxury condominiums that they like to represent.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton is referring to something the member for Mississauga South said, I think he should honestly say exactly what she said and not misinterpret what she said, not just pick the little snippets that he wants. Be honest, stand up and be a man.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the member for Victoria-Haliburton would simply place his question.

Mr Drainville: I would be glad to, Mr Speaker. Let me say that the vision we have is of affordable housing and that means --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr Drainville: I would like to ask whether the honourable minister could indicate, in terms of the initiative of the government, what the time line will be to be able to bring in this program so that the people of Ontario will have appropriate and affordable housing in the future.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I wish I could respond to the member for Victoria-Haliburton and say that this was the answer to our affordable housing needs. It is only a small part of the work we are trying to do within the Ministry of Housing to try to meet the needs which exist around this province among so many families and on the part of so many individuals.

The term "basement apartments," which was used within the throne speech and which was referred to and is scoffed at by members of the Conservative Party opposite, is one that we chose as opposed to the very effete, if I could say so, planning definition of what we are talking about. It is known normally as an "accessory apartment." That means it provides an accessory use to the main use in the building, which of course is the planners' way of looking at it. We hoped to speak to the general public when we said, "basement apartments."

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I would like to come back one final time this afternoon to the Premier about what I consider to be the fundamental issue in the Martel affair. I say this respectfully to the Premier, who is a very distinguished parliamentarian and who understands in a way that perhaps a lot of other people don't that the foundation of our system of responsible government is the trust, particularly that ministers hold, in the sovereign's name, to tell the truth, among other things.

John Profumo, for example, was by all accounts a very distinguished --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, let me finish.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Conway: John Profumo was by all accounts an extremely distinguished member of the British House of Commons, a member of the Macmillan government. People tend to forget that John Profumo had to leave government because he lied. That's why John Profumo had to withdraw from Mr Macmillan's cabinet, and my point, because this is a fundamental aspect --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

1510

Mr Conway: This is the core of this question. It's a matter of parliamentary privilege. We now have a minister who has admitted to lying. That is an uncontested fact supported by her testimony. The question remains. Surely in light of the traditions of British responsible parliamentary government and in light of the Premier's own guidelines, the minister ought to have offered her resignation. But not having had that offer, apparently, does the Premier not understand his responsibility as the sole arbiter, as the heir to Macmillan and Walpole and Liverpool --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- that he has a responsibility and that he must act on that responsibility if the trust and respect of this institution and of his government are going to be maintained?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): My recollection of history is, I suspect, a little less sharp and acute than that of the member opposite, whose knowledge of history is well known. But I would say to the member that from my recollection, the parallel he's trying to create with respect to the Profumo issue is one where, as I recall it, Mr Profumo not only misled the House in direct response to a question that was put to him by another member but also misled his Prime Minister. So I would say to the honourable member that I just don't see the parallel he's trying to draw.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to refer you, sir, back to a question today by my deputy leader to the Premier, wherein he referred to the admission by the Minister of Northern Development in the committee hearings that she had lied, and that when he recounted the details of that, sir, the House leader for the government shouted out the following words, "Something like you do every day."

Now, when you look in the rules, under section 23(h) or (i), where it says that a member shall not make "allegations against another member" or shall not impute "false or unavowed motives to another member," I would suggest, under that, what the House leader in fact did was to accuse the deputy leader of my party of lying. The deputy leader was questioning the remarks, not making an allegation but repeating the facts that have been outlined in the committee, wherein the minister admitted that she lied and that she took a lie detector test to prove she lied and therefore is an admitted liar. In so saying, the House leader then came back and accused the deputy leader of my party of doing the same thing. In my view he called him a liar and I would like him to apologize.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please. As the member will know, if at any point during the proceedings the Speaker hears a remark which is unparliamentary, the member will be asked to withdraw that remark. If the Speaker does not hear the word that was said, then when it is brought to the attention of the House our practice is to allow the member involved to have the opportunity, if the member has said what was alleged to have been said, to withdraw the remark. At this moment I offer that opportunity to the government House leader.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): Mr Speaker, I'll be glad to take a look at Hansard. I don't recollect the situation in the same way that the member does.

The Speaker: I don't know that we can pursue this usefully any further, but I would draw to members' attention --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: While I recognize it's a very, very difficult situation and it's difficult to ask members to always restrain themselves, it would be very helpful to the atmosphere of this House if members would try to restrain intemperate language, because what it does is lead to disorder.

Mr Mahoney: Further to that, Mr Speaker, I'm not asking on a point of order. I'm not asking the House leader for the government to review Hansard or make a decision on a point of order. I'm asking as the rules call -- and I'm sure you'll appreciate that I'm attempting to use the rules as opposed to just flying off with something that is clearly not a point of order, which is done with some regularity here, I'm sure to your frustration -- I'm asking you to rule. You claim you did not hear the comments.

If the House leader does not have the decency and the dignity to withdraw the remarks that I'm sure he knows fully well he made, because everyone here heard them, during my deputy leader's question, then I would ask you, sir, to review Hansard to see if indeed Hansard picked it up. If Hansard didn't pick it up, I think we'd better turn up the hearing part of Hansard, because it was extremely clear to everyone on this side of the House. My point of order to you, sir, is that this member has impugned the integrity of my deputy leader by suggesting that he is a liar and that I think he should either withdraw that and apologize or, sir, you should review the incident and not him.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga West, I am always pleased to review Hansard, my favourite reading. I indeed will on this occasion take a look at Hansard as he has requested.

PETITIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here signed by 36 people:

"We, the undersigned, members of Lyr Ha-Melech Reform Jewish congregation of Kingston, Ontario, respectfully address the following request to the Ontario Legislature:

"While understanding the necessity for government financial cutbacks in order to control the province's financial problems, we ask that the Ontario government review its proposed policy of a 1% increase in transfer payments across the board. We would like to see an exemption for those community-based organizations which help the weakest members of our society, such as poor children, the elderly and battered women. This action would demonstrate an ongoing commitment to social justice which we have come to expect in Ontario."

WOMEN'S CENTRES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

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

"To provide, through the Ministry of Citizenship, core funding for the staffing and operation of women's centres throughout the province of Ontario."

That's signed by some 70 constituents of mine, and I too attach my signature.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm pleased to table a petition, signed by approximately 300 concerned residents who live in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, which reads as follows. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, as regular users of the intersection of Highway 10 and Old Base Line in the town of Caledon, we believe that this portion of Highway 10 has become unacceptably dangerous in terms of safety and human life; and

"Whereas, as regular users of this intersection, we believe that a traffic light is urgently required;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to request the Ministry of Transportation to install a traffic light at this intersection at its earliest convenience in order to rectify a dangerous situation."

I affix my signature in support of this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Offer from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee's report and requested that it be placed on the Orders and Notices paper for consideration pursuant to standing order 36(b).

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): This report is as a result of our terms of reference of December 19, 1991, which mandated an inquiry into but not limited to an investigation into the disclosure of confidential information emanating from the Ministry of Health, including documentary and viva voce evidence; second, an investigation into the conduct of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines in Thunder Bay, Ontario, on December 5, 1991, and the events leading up to her attendance in Thunder Bay; third, an investigation into the dissemination of information obtained from the Ministry of Health.

This report contains a dissenting opinion with recommendations. I think, Mr Speaker, you will recognize that this type of committee is a difficult task for any member of the Legislature. I believe our committee and the work of the subcommittee established, as best we could in the time allocated, a fairness to ensure that the recollection of events by many persons would be brought forward.

I would like to take a moment to thank our committee counsel, Patricia Jackson, and all those associated with her, as well as the clerk of our committee, Doug Arnott, and all those who helped out in the support staff. I hope this report will be debated in the near future.

1520

Mr Offer from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented a report on Keith Harfield and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Offer: This is a further report of the legislative committee, and it is one that was unanimously agreed to. If I might indicate the reason for that, I am reading briefly from our conclusions and recommendations:

"Ontario legislative committees are granted, both by standing order and by authority of the Legislative Assembly Act, the power to send for such persons, papers and things as they determine are required within the ambit of their terms of reference. Such authority cannot be carelessly fettered or diminished if committees are to inquire freely into matters referred by the Legislative Assembly. The integrity of parliamentary processes must be safeguarded if we are to preserve respect for the dignity of the Legislature. The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly therefore feels itself obliged to report on the conduct of Keith Harfield as recounted" in our report.

"In reviewing the evidence" -- which I will not do of course at this time -- "of Keith Harfield's responses to legitimate requests by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for his attendance and for production of documents, your committee concludes that the pattern of conduct established is one of deliberate and repeated evasion and delay which demonstrates a lack of respect for the committee and the Legislative Assembly.

"It is your committee's view that the conduct of Keith Harfield constitutes a contempt of the committee, of the warrants of the Speaker and of the Legislative Assembly. In particular, the committee is of the opinion that Keith Harfield has breached sections 46(1)6 and 46(1)7 of the Legislative Assembly Act, RSO 1990, c L.10."

In conclusion, our committee has, after great deliberation, recommended:

"(1) That the House find Keith Harfield in contempt; and

"(2) That the House direct the Speaker to issue a public admonishment to Keith Harfield of Harfield and Associates, management consultants, 143 Applegrove Street, Sudbury, Ontario, reprimanding him for contemptible conduct in response to legitimate requests of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly."

On motion by Mr Offer, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SCHOOL SISTERS OF NOTRE DAME OF ONTARIO ACT, 1992

Mr Jackson moved first reading of Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the School Sisters of Notre Dame of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 11, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): Amendments to the Corporations Tax Act will put into place the proposals of the April 29, 1991, Ontario budget. These include a surtax on the income of certain Canadian-controlled private corporations claiming the small business deduction, an increase in the rate of capital tax for banks and loan and trust companies and the elimination of the premium tax exemption for certain automobile insurance contracts. This bill includes some technical amendments as well as changes to bring the Corporations Tax Act in line with the federal Income Tax Act.

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR L'EXPLOITATION MINIÈRE

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur l'exploitation minière.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): These amendments implement the proposal made in the Treasurer's budget of April 29, 1991, to limit the amount of tax exemption for profits earned by mining operators from new mines and the expansion of existing mines. The exemption is limited to $10 million of profit per mine and applies to profit earned after April 1991. The amendment act will take effect once royal assent is given.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): To accommodate my friend the member for Carleton, I'll call orders 34 and 35.

WITHDRAWAL OF BILLS 3 AND 4

Mr Sterling moved that the order for second reading of Bill 3, An Act respecting the Carleton Board of Education and Teachers Dispute / Loi concernant le conflit de travail entre le Conseil de l'éducation de Carleton et ses enseignants, and Bill 4, An Act respecting the Ottawa Board of Education and Teachers Dispute / Loi concernant le conflit de travail entre le Conseil de l'éducation d'Ottawa et ses enseignants, be discharged and that the bills be withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Last week, as I listened to the speech from the throne, my thoughts went back to four and a half years ago when there was another throne speech and another government. I was the neophyte member for Eglinton and, I must say, quite enthusiastic, quite idealistic, perhaps a tad naïve, although I'm not sure I should admit to that. I had the honour of delivering the government response and making the motion to adopt the speech from the throne.

Yesterday I went back to that maiden speech to see whether the fact that that was then and this is now would have changed my thoughts. I'd like to quote one paragraph from my speech made four and a half years ago:

"There will be many speeches made in this House. We will hear much rhetoric over the next four years. But before we get too caught up in our day-to-day routine, let us remind ourselves of why we are here. We are here to speak for others, not just for ourselves. We are here to work for our neighbours and to represent our communities. Most of all, we are here to fulfil the trust of the people, for truly, Mr Speaker, the business of this House is the people's business, for politics is not merely policies; politics is people."

This is an instance where that was then and this is now, but the two merge, because I believe those words are just as true today as we debate this speech from the throne, because trust is what it is all about.

1530

We have to ask ourselves the question, how does a government earn the trust of the people? There are five things I believe a government must do to earn that trust. First, they must be a government of integrity. Second, they must demonstrate competence. Third, they must reflect the attitudes and values of the people they serve. Fourth, they must demonstrate an ability to listen. Finally, they must instil confidence.

I ask myself, does this government measure up? Let's take it one step at a time, beginning with integrity, the most important of the qualifications. The first speech from the throne of the NDP government was full of references to integrity and standards. Alas, the speech from the throne we heard from the NDP government last week was sadly devoid of those precious words. It's no small wonder: The Premier's standards have gone the way of the wind. They have disappeared.

Remember the Premier's big announcement when they were first elected, the one with the trumpets blazing and all the fanfare about this government's integrity and standards? How the people thrilled to hear those words. But do you also remember, some scant months later, the Premier's secret memo to his cabinet ministers, which was later revealed, telling his ministers: "Don't worry about the guidelines. Bob Rae will modify them"? He would modify them so that one size fit all. Let them not worry their pretty little heads about guidelines, standards and integrity.

Got an apartment building you forgot to disclose? No problem. Do you have to divest your holdings if it creates a conflict of interest? No way, not in Bob Rae's Ontario, even if the government did promise it before it was elected. The Premier's standards became a joke.

When the constituency office of the former Solicitor General, the member for Cambridge, sent out letters trying to fix some parking tickets, the Premier's standards were that it was okay because the minister hadn't actually written the letters himself. Remember the minister's famous line? "I didn't write the letter; I didn't sign the letter; I didn't see the letter." Therefore, the letter didn't exist. What happened to ministerial responsibility? It too fell victim to the Premier's standards. Incident after incident occurred. Interference by cabinet ministers with a quasi-judicial body? No problem. Remember, we've got the Premier's standards.

We don't have time to go into each and every incident where the integrity of this government has been in question, but the latest example cannot be ignored, and that's the situation of the Minister of Northern Development, the member for Sudbury East. It became known as the Martel affair. A minister who is an admitted liar and slanderer remains in the Premier's cabinet today because of the Premier's standards. The Globe and Mail headline: "Martel Tells the Truth About Lying." Something just doesn't quite ring right with that statement. The Hamilton Spectator: "Should We Believe Shelley's Telling the Truth About Lying?" The Toronto Star: "Can We Trust Martel's Claim That It's True She Was Lying?"

Is this the new standard in Bob Rae's Ontario and in the cabinet: lie, slander? Hey, that's okay as long as you tell the truth afterwards. What credibility do this minister and government have when they can allow this to happen?

Eight resignations and firings in one year. I would say very emphatically that there is one exception to this: the former minister responsible for women's issues, the member for Scarborough West, who resigned for health reasons. That is separate from the rest of this issue. But the rest of them? Incompetence, wrongdoing, you name it.

Except, of course, I forgot that there was the member for Welland-Thorold, the former Minister of Financial Institutions, who was fired ostensibly because he appeared fully clothed as the Sunshine Boy in the Toronto Sun. But in reality it was because he insisted that the Premier keep a promise he made before being elected. Imagine that. Keep a promise? What a novelty.

We haven't even touched on the backbenchers such as the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who was lauded by the NDP because he defied the law in contempt of a court order. Of course he was only following the guide of his Premier, who did the same thing but miraculously was not charged. The punishment of the member for Victoria-Haliburton: He was appointed Chair of the prestigious select committee on Confederation.

Compare that to the treatment of the member for Lincoln, who dared in this government to stand up and vote against a government bill because his constituents wanted him to. His reward: He was fired as Chair of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. That, too, is Bob Rae's Ontario.

The member for Oakwood, the member for Downsview: the list goes on and on, members of the NDP tainted by scandal. Welcome to Bob Rae's standards and welcome to Bob Rae's Ontario.

The second ingredient I believe any government has to have if it is to earn the trust of the people is competence. I have never seen such a level of incompetence by any government in this country. Granted, many members of this government ran never expecting to win. A level of competence was never expected nor indeed required. Granted, it was a new government. However, there's only so much patience for these lines; there's only so much people are willing to hear.

In 1985 the Peterson government was new as well. The member for St George-St David, the member for Wilson Heights, the member for York Centre and the member for Oriole are just a few of the members who, the first day they were elected, were in cabinet. A new government, a very similar situation; but at no time did anyone question the competence of these people. So when the government makes excuses such as "New members, new government," they just don't wash.

This NDP government is the one that can't shoot straight. The most recent example was an announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs last week. It related to the streamlining of the planning process, something the Liberal government had approved of and was instituting. It was something everybody felt was a good idea. But what does this government do? It takes a good idea and then appoints Dale Martin as the facilitator to make it happen -- Dale Martin, the only person in the history of the Ontario Municipal Board actually fined for a vexatious and frivolous action that the OMB said was purely politically motivated. They put this person as a facilitator to work with the OMB to streamline the process? Get real.

Nepotism and patronage are the order of the day. I think the member for Etobicoke West had the best line when he said, "The NDP government is so deep in the trough they need a snorkel to breathe." Today he amended that. He said, "They're so deep in the trough they need scuba-diving equipment." Decisions and appointments must be based on ability and competence, not one's party allegiance.

The other issue the NDP loves to bring up is that this government appointed 11 women to cabinet. As a woman and a feminist, this makes me gag. It is tokenism of the worst kind. The qualifications for cabinet should be ability and competence; gender is not the primary prerequisite. But this is not true in the Premier's cabinet. I wish I could say that those 11 women should all be there. Sadly, I cannot. As a woman and a feminist, I very much resent that they would use this as a political football and put in unqualified and incompetent people just because they are women.

1540

The third criterion I think any government must meet if it is to win the respect and trust of the people is that it must reflect the attitudes and values of the people it serves. The NDP has an interesting attitude. It says that everybody is the same and everybody is equal. I'd like to take issue with that, because it is not true. Every individual has different abilities. Every individual has different talents. To say we are all the same and all equal is not fair.

What we have to do is create equal opportunity, which is a different thing. It is to create that level playing field so that everybody has the same opportunity. Then people's abilities and their competence can shine. But we cannot create this Utopia by bringing down people instead of raising up people. I do not like to see the great levelling that is happening in our society.

That's not my Ontario and that's not the Ontario I want for my children. My Ontario provides an incentive to excel. In my Ontario, mediocre is not good enough. In my Ontario, people are to try their very best. My Ontario is competitive. In my Ontario, individual rights are paramount, not what is politically correct. In my Ontario, there is no division between "us" and "them." In my Ontario we will work together.

In my Ontario the best person gets the job, and I say this as a very strong supporter of both pay equity and employment equity. I'm very proud of the record of the previous Liberal government when it comes to these issues. The number of women and visible minorities appointed by the Peterson government is truly impressive, but you mustn't forget that what we did was take as the first and foremost criteria ability and competence. If two people were of an equal ability and competence, then we looked at things such as gender discrimination and that they might be a visible minority or might have to bear a handicap, but the primary focus must always be the best person for the job and to create that level playing field so that, regardless of handicap, gender or colour, you have an opportunity to get that job. That's what the message should be.

The fourth criterion for earning the trust of the people is that a government must demonstrate an ability to listen. I know members of the government will say very quickly: "Ah, but we do. We consult." There is a major difference in my mind between this government's version of consultation and listening. To listen you need to hear and you need to heed, but if a government is so encased in rigid ideology that it cannot listen and hear and heed, then it does not speak well for our government or our system. When a government feels that the main purpose of consultation is to get information to feed its own agenda, that is not listening to the people.

When I sat as a member on the standing committee on general government, both on Bill 4, which was the rent freeze, and on the debate on child care and private sector child care, I suddenly got a feeling that this was déjà vu. I was hearing the same message from the witnesses even though there were two very different issues. The government's response was the same on the two issues. I don't know how to describe this. It's almost as if the members of the government were on a different wavelength. They really thought they were listening, but they didn't hear what was being said.

One of the witnesses in the child care debate, Carolyn Koff, gave me a quote from Jerry Lewis which I think was very apropos: "For those who do not understand, no explanation will suffice; for those who do understand, no explanation is necessary." The NDP doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand because its ideology just gets in the way.

The final ingredient, and a very important one, in earning the trust of the people to govern is that any government must instil confidence. But how can you feel confident in a government that you do not trust? How do you feel confident in a government that lacks standards and integrity? How do you feel confident in a government that lacks vision, a government that is incompetent, a government that doesn't share your attitudes, your values, your priorities, your hopes and your dreams, a government that doesn't listen?

This government has not earned the trust of the people, has not earned the respect of the people and has not earned the confidence of the people, but the government is very quick to blame somebody else. It is the fault of the federal government, the fault of the recession, the fault of business.

Members of this government, you must look in your own hearts, because you have failed the test put before you, the test of integrity, competence and sensitivity to the values of this great province.

The words in this throne speech sound good, but they simply don't match the music. As Shakespeare once said, it is much sound and fury, signifying nothing. This is not my vision for Ontario and this is not the Ontario I dream of for my children.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would just like to remind the House that there are certain traditions in the House, and we should always be careful when we address another member. We don't address him by his first name. He is the member for York South. It is not "Bob Rae's government." He is the Premier of Ontario. This is a tradition, and the reason for this is very simple -- it helps to neutralize the debate. It does not become personalized. We address the office; we don't address the individual. So if you see me standing up and reminding you all the time, I do it for one purpose, to keep order in the House.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the speech. The member did not have sufficient time, I know, to mention a specific subject that is extremely important in Ontario, that is, the issue of bingo for Junior B, Junior C and Junior D hockey teams. This is something the member has mentioned to me on a number of occasions, her concern about many communities in the province that will be denied the opportunity to have these teams, whether it is in hockey, baseball, fastball, soccer or any other particular grouping which is of the junior age.

Across the province at this time, the main source of funds for these people remains a properly licensed, properly run bingo. No one is asking for any special consideration in terms of the way the bingo is operated. Everyone must operate within the law. What this government does not seem to understand is that in community upon community in Ontario, there is a danger that amateur teams will be disappearing because they do not have the opportunity to secure funds from a main source, which requires work on the part of that organization; that is, to operate a legitimate bingo in Ontario.

I know the member would want to implore the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to abandon this apparent vendetta against junior sports teams across Ontario, the removal of their bingo licence, the removal of their opportunity to carry on, to provide an opportunity for young people to participate in a healthy sport and to provide a chance for sports and athletics spectators in Ontario to enjoy something that is near and dear to their hearts.

The member who has spoken, the member for Eglinton, has this strong concern and I know if she'd had more time in her speech, she would have addressed it in some detail.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I am responding to the member for Eglinton. Let me describe a phone call I had from a constituent of mine, Mrs Josephine Crieghton, a woman in her late 80s. Mrs Crieghton called my constituency office a few days ago just to say that it's time the politicians had a vision. This is what she said:

"The lack of ideas that politicians and governments have had in the past have left our country dying. It's nice to see a change, to have a thinking government, a government that wants to take care of the people with new ideas."

She thinks past governments have left a calamity. She wants politicians to start working together, and if they can't, then the Premier should start to fight fire with fire. Again, she said, "I don't think the Premier has brought to light what a mess was made in the last 10 years."

1550

The message I'm hearing is that it's time to stand up and fight back for our policies, to build a fair and well-rounded province, not to bend to what big business or the big people want us to do.

I've also had calls from small businesses that are excited there are finally going to be initiatives for small businesses. I've heard from working people applauding our initiatives in skills development and industrial strategy and also to get this province working again, because there are people, and some of them are in this House, who simply cannot accept the fact that we are on this side of the House. They simply cannot accept the fact of who we are. And who are we? We're factory workers, teachers, social workers and activists, and we represent the people whose voices have never been heard before by this government. We are more responsive and more representative of the people of Ontario than any other previous government.

We've all heard the opposition and the third party in this House say the New Democrats are goodhearted but they can't mind the store. That's a fallacy that will never be repeated again. This party finally is the government that is listening to the people and speaking for the people.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I listened quite attentively to the member for Eglinton, and that is the reason I tried to move as close to her seat as possible so I could catch all the nuances possible. That's why of course I had to go back to my own seat at this point.

The main message the member for Eglinton is making to this House today is one of standards. When this government came to power, the leader, the present Premier, the member for York South, said: "Yes, we're going to start to have a different standard for the Legislature, for our members, especially for cabinet ministers. These standards are going to be tough and they're going to be righteous and no one is going to shake them loose." The reason he said that is quite simple. He wanted to make sure that he would separate himself from all the other previous premiers this illustrious province obviously has had.

The point is simply this: While these standards have been wildly gyrating all over the place, and some members had to take the wrath of the Premier -- based on what standards? On his personal whim, or on what was written down, what was specifically identified as the standards for cabinet ministers?

What we have been left with today and what the member for Eglinton has said to us is simply this: No one is able in Ontario at this time to identify what these standards are. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I do want to take two minutes to respond to the comments made by the member for Eglinton and also the member for St Catharines, because he mentioned that perhaps the member for Eglinton wanted to mention in her remarks the question about gambling in Ontario and casino gambling in particular. I want to echo those comments that were made, because in my area of the province there is a great deal of concern by charities that in the government's desperate attempt to find more cash, we find the government is thinking of legalizing casino gambling.

I want to mention on behalf of farmers in my area, many of whom are suffering greatly, not only in this recession but they have been suffering for a great many years, that many of them just aren't making ends meet whatsoever and some of my farmers are exclusively providing services to the horse racing industry. We know that industry creates some 50,000 jobs in this province and we know it generates over $2 billion worth of revenue and economic activity in this province. I'm very much worried those 50,000 jobs in the horse racing industry will be in jeopardy, all because this government is void of ideas and can't think of anything more creative to do than bring in legalized casino gambling.

I have had discussions with constituents in the town of Wasaga Beach. Wasaga Beach is the tourism mecca of Ontario. We have some 1.6 million visitors each summer to the beach. Some of them might be in favour of casino gambling if we could be assured we would get a licence for Wasaga Beach, but the government's proposal today indicates six areas of the province where these casinos might go, not mentioning at all my area of the province. I tell the constituents there that unless we had an assurance from the government that we would receive a licence for casinos, we will continue to be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis Toronto where the casinos are likely going to go.

Ms Poole: The member for St Catharines was quite right when he said we've had extensive and lengthy conversations about bingo and the impact on people in this province and minor league hockey. He said, in effect, that this government is not listening to the people. That was one of the points I was making in my speech. It is very important. This may not seem like a big issue to many of the members of the NDP opposite, but it is a very important issue in many small communities across the province. I would certainly ask the government to revisit that issue.

Second, we heard from the member for Guelph and I thank him for bringing that letter to our attention. It is nice to know his that mother is doing well and that she's writing to him on a regular basis and really approves of what this government is doing.

The letter was somewhat elusive on one thing: It referred to factory workers, union workers and teachers who had never been represented by government before. I think it's tremendously arrogant to believe that this NDP government speaks for every factory worker, union worker and teacher in this province. Those people are independent and individually minded people and they will choose their own party. It will not be foisted on them.

They tend to forget things such as the recent Environics survey which asked about the Ontario labour relations amendments the government was proposing. Thirty per cent of the union workers polled were opposed to them, and these are the people they say they speak for. It comes down to integrity, standards and a government that listens.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I wish I could say at the outset that it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to respond to the throne speech. It is, however, not a pleasure. In fact it's an obligation and an opportunity, but I would rather that this throne speech from the outset was more productive to the future of this province.

This NDP government's second speech from the throne was two-faced like a Greek drama mask, half comic and half tragic. There were happy words like, "Doing our part to build a stronger economy is the first priority of this government." And another quote, "Our investment strategy starts with the conviction that a strong economy depends on a flourishing business sector."

It sounded like the NDP government has finally recognized that economic renewal is the primary concern of the people of Ontario and cannot be accomplished without a healthy private sector.

But then came the tragedy, the government's statement that its legislation to reform the Labour Relations Act will be brought forward this session. In the throne speech the government tried to play down its contentious plans for labour law reform, mentioning them briefly towards the end of the speech. However, a government document that was leaked in February identified labour reform, not economic renewal, as the government's number one priority.

1600

What would we do without these leaked cabinet documents that give us the true agenda of this government? In this document, their priorities, following their number one priority of labour law reform, were pay equity amendments and the government's labour-sponsored venture capital legislation.

Which side of the government's mask are we to believe: the one that tells us the economy is the government's number one priority or the one that says a labour-driven agenda is their number one priority, despite the fact that many of the measures in their labour-driven agenda would impede the economic recovery which is vital to the future of Ontario?

Since an internal document has identified labour law reform as the NDP's top priority, I want to discuss my concerns with the measures proposed in the government's white paper. These proposals in the white paper will cost our province 295,000 jobs and $8.8 billion in forgone investment.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): Who says so? Where's the research for that?

Mrs Marland: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has just interjected with the question, "Who says so?" This minister knows there is a study that was sponsored and paid for by the More Jobs Coalition and that was done by Ernst and Young. If this minister and his staff have not yet read that study, I would recommend it to them as important reading. I would suggest that Ernst and Young have no axe to grind. They have a very high professional reputation. When they study something, they're not studying it from the government's point of view, business's point of view or an opposition political party's point of view. They study the facts. Based on those facts, Ernst and Young have said that $8.8 billion will be the cost, plus 295,000 jobs. I think those figures speak for themselves.

The minister who of all ministers should be concerned about it happens to be the only minister in the House at this moment. But he is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and I'm sure he must be very concerned about the future direction of this province's industry, trade and technology with the onset of the proposed labour law reforms to which I am addressing my comments.

If you wonder why the proposals would result --

Hon Mr Philip: Brian Mulroney said I brought $2.5 million worth of work to Ontario yesterday.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I think we do have procedures in this House that actually do not permit interjections. I think that if the minister has a statement to make, he could get up during ministerial statements and make it rather than yap away interjecting in my presentation at this point. I would appreciate your ruling the House in order. Thank you.

If you wonder why the proposals would result in such a huge loss of jobs and investment, consider what is being proposed: a law to prevent companies from hiring or transferring people to perform the functions of striking employees. The law would forbid union members from crossing their own picket line. It would also allow the unionization of supervisors and professionals. Therefore companies could be and would be paralysed during a strike. Many companies that are small or in fragile economic health would be unable to survive and provide employment if they could not bring in replacement workers during a strike.

The NDP government likes to argue that Quebec already has an anti-scab law in place and hasn't suffered the catastrophic results predicted by Ontario's business community. However, the government chooses to ignore the fact that many Quebec companies reacted to Quebec's law by setting up branch plants either across state lines in Vermont or across provincial lines in Ontario. During a strike, these branch plants do the essential work of the Quebec plants. Therefore companies that would otherwise have kept their operations in Quebec are sending jobs outside the province. Quebec has lost jobs because of its anti-scab law.

Nor have Quebeckers gained other advantages from the province's anti-scab law. From 1978, when the law was enacted, until 1990, Quebec had more strikes than Ontario in all years except 1985 and 1990. If one looks at person-days lost to strikes and lockouts, one might expect Quebec, with its anti-scab law, to have lost fewer days to strikes than Ontario. However, in total Quebec has lost 802,000 more person-days to strikes than Ontario since 1978. This figure takes on added significance when we consider that Quebec has a smaller workforce than Ontario.

Looking at other measures of economic and employee wellbeing, Ontario has consistently outperformed Quebec. For example, Ontario workers have enjoyed higher wage increases and levels of employment than Quebec workers. Clearly Quebec workers are no better off for having an anti-scab law. Why then would we introduce a similar law in Ontario?

Another of the NDP's favourite arguments is that each of the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act already exist in some other jurisdiction in Canada. Again, the NDP fails to mention that not one of these other jurisdictions has all the measures this socialist government wants to introduce. If the proposals in the white paper do become law, the balance that Ontario now enjoys between the rights of business and the rights of labour will be heavily tilted towards labour.

There are a few other proposals in the white paper that I want to comment on. One is the plan to reduce the level of support required for unionization, based on membership cards, from 55% to an absolute majority of 50% plus one worker. At this level of support based on signed union cards, the certification project would not even be subject to a vote, the fundamental process of democracy.

I think a lot of people are not aware of that fact. There would not be a vote. If you have a signed union card, that is your vote. You do not have access to a vote beyond being a member of that union. Nor would there be a cooling-off period in which someone who signed a card under the pressure of an extremely aggressive canvasser would have a chance to reconsider whether he or she really wanted to join the union.

The NDP plans to remove the right that workers now have to petition the Ontario Labour Relations Board for decertification. That is a blatant one-way street. These people say they are protecting workers and they're always for the workers, and this must be right and this must be wrong but everything is for the workers --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Only unionized.

Mrs Marland: -- only unionized workers, and then they are removing a right that exists today in Ontario for unionized workers. What an irony.

1610

My colleague the member for Waterloo North has introduced a private member's bill that would require confidential votes in all cases of certification, ratification of agreements and decisions to strike. My party believes that only through this confidential vote process will the rights of workers be respected.

We are also concerned that the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act will give the unions greater rights but not greater responsibilities. For instance, there will be no requirement for unions to give prospective members information regarding dues, disciplinary measures, seniority and the union's constitution. "Here we are. Come along, join the union. We won't tell you anything about your rights. We won't tell you anything about the union. We won't tell you what you might be risking." This is so regressive for workers in this province.

Another possible change discussed in the white paper is to require a company to provide a list of its employees' names and addresses to a union that is attempting to certify the employees of that company.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): What book are you reading out of?

Mrs Marland: I say to the member of the government opposite who asked which book I am reading from, that is a shameful question, because if these members opposite, who will be sitting in this House voting 100% in favour of these labour law reforms, do not even yet know what is being proposed and do not even yet know what is being discussed, they would not be asking the question in the House this afternoon, what book am I reading from?

You're the people who will carry this legislation; you are the members in this House who have a majority. You control the future of workers in this province, and I say to each one of you, if you don't know what it is that your socialist government is proposing, it is shameful.

The Deputy Speaker: Address the Chair, please.

Mrs Marland: I am addressing the Chair, and I say to you, Mr Speaker, that my concern is that there is this possible change that's been discussed in the white paper where a union member can require, not ask, a company to give the names and addresses of its employees so they can be harassed to join a union. This would clearly be an infringement of the workers' right to privacy and could even put some employees at risk. I am sure that most women who live alone would not want their names and addresses given out for the purpose of a union membership drive.

I could say a great deal more about the proposals for labour law reform, but already it is clear that Ontario cannot afford and does not need the proposed reforms, which will only lead to a dangerous polarization of business and labour. The NDP government would do us all a great favour by immediately announcing that it will not proceed with the proposed changes.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): They are laughing. Can you imagine?

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I know you hear in this House the same interjections and comments that I do, and for the record I will say there is laughter from the members of the government at my last comment where I suggested they not proceed with these proposed changes. All of this will be on the record when we come to the next election. All of this will be the reason that most of those members will not be in their seats following the next election.

I would like to quote from two of the letters I have received from my community regarding the labour law reform proposals, two of over 600 letters and telephone calls I have received on this subject. I have never received such a response on any subject. One of the letters is from David Gordon, who is the executive director of the Mississauga Board of Trade, and he writes:

"Should these proposals become law, we would see serious erosion in the present balance between employer, employee and union rights. Legislation of this kind, which is so blatantly union-biased, sends all the wrong messages to those persons who look to Ontario as the place to do business in Canada."

I have also received a resolution from the city of Mississauga which advised the Minister of Labour of the Mississauga council's grave concerns "that the recommended changes would negatively affect both management rights in labour relations and the strength and viability of business and industry in the province." That is a resolution from the eighth largest municipality in Canada, almost 500,000 people.

In the seven years I have been a member of provincial Parliament there have been few issues that have aroused as much concern in my constituency as the proposals for labour law reform. In recent weeks I have received close to 600 letters and phone calls, as I mentioned a few moments ago, from residents and businesses in my community. It is obvious people do realize that labour law reform is not just a labour versus business issue. The proposed changes will affect all of us. I think that is the very important point this government is forgetting. With their blinkers on and their myopic view of the future of this province, all they are concerned about are their union friends; they are not concerned about the taxpayers and the consumers as a whole in this province today.

Turning to other concerns, I am gravely concerned about this government's knee-jerk reaction every time it has to deal with an economic problem, to blame it all on the federal government. In fact, before we had heard one word of the throne speech about how the NDP government would address Ontario's economic woes, the government had renewed its litany of complaints against Ottawa. We also had another round of this immature whining towards the end of the throne speech.

The NDP's fed-bashing habit has become an addiction which, on two other recent occasions, has dismayed not only Ontarians but Canadians from coast to coast. One was an attack against the federal government which the Premier launched last month at the first ministers' conference and which ended up dominating that conference. The other was the eyebrow-raising speech that the Premier delivered at Queen's University, in which he questioned the federal tradition of equalization which has helped to reduce regional disparities between Canada's richer and poorer provinces.

1620

I would like to share my concerns regarding this government's attack on federal transfer payment policies. First, at this critical time of constitutional negotiation, the open sniping by the Premier and the Treasurer at the federal government is not only petty but dangerous.

Second, why should Ontario feel entitled to receive transfers from Ottawa that will drive the whole country deeper and deeper into debt? After all, much of the federal government's serious debt problem comes as a result of transfers to pay for irresponsible spending increases by the previous Liberal government of Ontario, which from 1985 to 1990 spent taxpayers' money like there was no tomorrow.

Before the Premier and the Treasurer complain to Ottawa they should remember that between 1984-85 and 1992-93 federal transfers to Ontario for health, education, welfare and social assistance have increased at an annual rate of 6.2%, compared to the average annual growth rate of 4.9% for the rest of Canada. This is the NDP government implying that Ottawa is spending too many of the tax dollars it receives from Ontario on the poorer provinces. What an irony: 4.9% for the rest of Canada and 6.2% for Ontario.

We are hurting badly in Ontario, but even with our high unemployment rate of 10.5% last month we are much better off than provinces like Newfoundland, whose unemployment rate for March was 20.3%. Bob Rae is questioning the fiscal framework that binds this nation together.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I mentioned just a minute ago to refer to the members either by their ridings or to Bob Rae as the Premier of Ontario, please.

Mrs Marland: I apologize, Mr Speaker. You're absolutely correct.

The Premier is questioning the fiscal framework that binds this nation together. Ironically, he is questioning the principles of equity and the sharing of wealth which are the bases for federal equalization payments.

Canada cannot afford the Premier's fed-bashing addiction. When the clock is ticking down on the future of our country, the Premier must not waste precious time on this habit, which has poisoned constitutional talks. Canada deserves better from Ontario and Ontario deserves better from our Premier.

As I said a few minutes ago, it was only after the NDP government's latest round of outrage against the federal government that we heard a few words about the NDP government's industrial strategy in the throne speech. This strategy leaves much to be desired. The strategy includes two measures that will require a large amount of government spending: an infrastructure renewal program and new funds to assist in the development of made-in-Ontario products as well as promote Ontario's success stories around the world.

When provincial revenues are strained to the limit and Ontario will have a record-setting deficit in the upcoming budget, there is no room for an industrial strategy based on government spending and subsidies. Such a strategy requires either a larger deficit or higher taxes. Higher taxes will stifle economic recovery, while a larger deficit will unfairly shift the responsibility for our economic problems on to the shoulders of future generations.

A provincial industrial strategy should have consisted of concrete measures to restore business confidence, attract investment and improve the climate for increased competitiveness, recognizing that the private sector, not the public sector, is the engine of growth for our economy. Instead, as I said earlier, the government will proceed with labour law reforms and other labour-driven measures that will drive away investment. Instead, the government plans to do the investing itself through two measures: a public sector pension-based investment fund, to be called the Ontario investment fund, which would consist of voluntary investments by Ontario pension plans in the Ontario economy, and worker ownership legislation, which would give tax credits to unions and employees when they buy a stake in their companies.

We do not yet know the details of how the Ontario investment fund would work. I was relieved to hear the word "voluntary" in the throne speech. Even so, I am receiving letters from public servants who are concerned that their pension funds will be endangered by participation in the Ontario investment fund and they will have no say whether their pensions will be invested in the fund. There is a widespread lack of trust in this socialist government's ability to manage anybody's money.

What puzzles me, though, is that the NDP government thinks it can offer something which is not already available through the private sector. As many experts have pointed out, the fund is not needed to generate capital. There is no shortage of capital, only a shortage of good investments. This shortage of lucrative investments will only increase if the government proceeds with new corporate taxes and its proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act. As well, if the government has to guarantee the success of the Ontario investment fund, this would amount to a subsidy, which could invite retaliatory trade action.

As for the worker ownership plan, I believe it is irresponsible for the government to encourage workers to invest in failing companies. Take the case of Algoma Steel, where workers have purchased a share in a company and that company lost $190 million last year and faces dismal markets for its products. What future can there be for that company?

Having touched on my main concerns about the government's industrial strategy, or lack of it, I would like to discuss several issues in the area of municipal affairs and housing.

On the surface, the government's statement that "Municipalities will be given increased flexibility to borrow and invest" sounds positive, but why should the provincial government want municipalities to put themselves in the same miserable fiscal position as the province, with a ballooning deficit whose interest charges divert money from other badly needed areas? I'm afraid this throne speech statement is a veiled threat that municipalities will need more options to borrow because the province plans to offload the costs of more programs on to the municipalities.

The government's promise to commit new resources to the unacceptable backlog at the Ontario Municipal Board also sounds positive, but I am sceptical as to whether the goal will be accomplished when I look at what has happened to the government's review of the backlog at the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

1630

Last September we had an announcement by the Minister of Citizenship about a strategy to resolve the backlog of cases at the Ontario Human Rights Commission and to strengthen the commission's ability to manage cases effectively. Then in December the minister, not to be embarrassed on International Human Rights Day, announced plans for a review of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Three months later we heard that the task force has until the end of June to make recommendations about how to reduce the backlog. In the meantime, more and more cases are piling up. Are we going to have the same circuitous route, an all talk, no action solution to the Ontario Municipal Board backlog?

Moving to housing issues, I am pleased the government says it will finally introduce the long-awaited revisions to the Condominium Act. I have heard from many condominium owners over my seven years in this House, including the Fairways Condominium Corp in my riding, about costly legal problems that could have been avoided had the act been revised sooner. In the fall of 1989, when the Liberals were in power, I was promised by the officials in charge of the Condominium Act review for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations that the bill was almost ready. Now, almost three years later, we will finally see the legislation. Across Ontario, condominium owners who have been victims of the outdated Condominium Act want to know why it took the NDP government so long to bring the bill forward.

While I am pleased we will proceed with the Condominium Act revisions, I am concerned with the statement that the government "will revise the Planning Act to increase the supply of basement apartments throughout the province, an inexpensive way to increase affordable housing and create jobs in the home renovation industry."

As the Progressive Conservative spokesperson for Housing and as a member of a constituency that has serious problems with rooming houses, I have heard of many problems resulting from housing intensification and the landlord-tenant law.

For instance, we need right-of-entry legislation to control problems that may arise from conversions, such as renovations that do not meet Ontario Building Code standards. The proposed changes to the Building Code Act will provide right of entry in the case of buildings that pose an immediate danger to the health and safety of any persons, while Bill 121 will give inspectors power of entry to determine whether a landlord has complied with prescribed maintenance standards. However, there are no changes planned to help bylaw officers to enforce noise, parking and land use laws. These right-of-entry issues are a major concern to the municipal governments of Mississauga and the region of Peel.

We also must recognize that a dwelling with an accessory apartment should not generate the same tax assessment as a dwelling with a finished and unrented basement. At present, unless the unit increases the market value of a property by more than $5,000, which is not the case with many properties, the assessed value of the building does not increase. In effect, property taxpayers subsidize municipal and educational services for residents of many accessory apartments. We need an amendment to the Assessment Act to allow municipalities and school boards to receive additional tax revenue for these units.

Turning to landlord and tenant matters, I do not see how all measures in the Landlord and Tenant Act could apply to home owners who share their homes with tenants. Consider the following examples.

What if a tenant tells a non-smoking home owner that he does not smoke when in fact he is a smoker? Air exchanges freely between a basement apartment and the rest of the home. Why should a home owner have to share his home with a person whose habit endangers the health of the home owner and his or her family? Yet it would be extremely difficult for the home owner to force the smoking tenant to leave.

As a second example, what if a growing family decides it needs its basement space to accommodate new children or aging parents but the tenant refuses to leave? Despite the fact that landlords have the right to take possession of a rental unit for their own use if they give the tenant due notice, should a tenant refuse to leave and the matter goes to court, it could be months, even years, before the family could repossess its basement.

Third, what if a family purchases a home with a basement apartment, counting on the rent from that apartment to pay the mortgage and the tenant does not pay his or her rent? Again, it can take many months to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. That could amount to enough income for the home owner to lose his or her home.

When the government amends the Planning Act to facilitate the building of basement apartments, it must also consider the changes that would be required to related legislation in order to address the problems I have outlined.

Moreover, the creation of more basement apartments is not the solution for more affordable housing. I would like to emphasize that the vision of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party for affordable housing and accommodation for people in Ontario is not basement apartments.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You're too good for basement apartments.

Mrs Marland: We have a greater vision for the future of this province than solving a problem by saying, "Let's put people in basement apartments."

Mr Mammoliti: Would you live in a basement apartment, I wonder, if you had to? You're well off. You don't have to live in one.

Mrs Marland: Moreover, the creation of basement apartments will never be the vision of this party. While basement apartments do fulfil a housing need, almost every tenant, I say to that member who is interjecting, aspires to something more than a basement apartment. If the government really wanted to create affordable housing, it would not have introduced Bill 4 and Bill 121. This government does not care about tenants. It does not care about people who cannot afford, under its rules and regulations, under its economic strategy, to move into their own homes. It simply thinks the solution is basement apartments.

No one in his or her right mind wants to be a landlord now, with the result that the only new affordable housing being built is non-profit housing, which is heavily subsidized by the government. By 1995 the NDP government will be spending over $1 billion a year to subsidize just 115,000 units of housing. That works out to an average subsidy of more than $725 per month per unit. What a ridiculous amount: a subsidy, not the rent, of $725 a month. Instead of subsidizing all non-profit units, the government should introduce a shelter subsidy program that would give direct aid to needy tenants and allow them to choose the shelter of their choice.

1640

A shelter subsidy program would help far more people with the same amount of money compared to the non-profit housing programs. The most recent study available found that if we subsidized families which spend more than 25% of their income on rent by covering 100% of the gap between affordability and the cost of shelter, 250,000 Ontario families would be eligible for assistance. The annual cost of the program would be $410 million, with an average monthly cost of just $137 for each assisted household. This is a simple model; other factors will add to the costs. However, even if shelter subsidies were combined with rent decontrol, the cost of the program would be under $600 million a year. Compare that with $1 billion a year and a monthly subsidy of $725 per unit for non-profit housing.

Other major benefits of a shelter subsidy program include the creation of construction jobs and an increase in the supply of affordable rental housing. If, as the throne speech said, the NDP government wants to increase the supply of basement apartments to create jobs in the home renovation industry, it should take steps to improve the business climate in Ontario instead of pressing ahead with unnecessary changes such as labour law reforms which will result in lost jobs. If people don't have jobs, they don't have the money to renovate their homes.

At this point I will turn to the government statement that it will increase the child care spaces that it will make available to working women. I'm really curious as to how the government plans to accomplish this objective when it is in the process of eliminating private child care centres. What can be the logic of putting the private centres out of business when there is a crying need for more day care spaces yet the cash-starved government cannot afford to provide them?

Across Ontario 30,000 children are cared for in private centres, which comprise about one third of all the licensed day care centres in Ontario. In the region of Peel, where my riding is located, the private centres provide 41% of the day care spaces. They are therefore a vital component in our child care system. However, the NDP government is aiming to eliminate private centres altogether. It is doing this insidiously by creating a climate in which the private centres cannot compete with the non-profit centres.

The NDP government has introduced a series of measures which reward non-profit centres and punish private centres. It has given $2,000 per year, retroactive to January 1991, as a wage enhancement to the workers at non-profit centres only. This program is costing the taxpayers of Ontario $30 million. Private centres that cannot provide the same salary increase are losing staff to the non-profit centres. The region of Peel has recommended that the Minister of Community and Social Services reconsider her decision to flow these funds to only the non-profit child sector.

In another blow to private day care centres the NDP government has decided that private centres will receive no capital or startup funding and no grants for new spaces. The grants for existing private spaces are already 50% less than for non-profit spaces, even though the private spaces provide the same licensed and strictly controlled child care. The grants to private centres are likely to decrease even further.

In addition, the NDP government has ordered local municipalities to direct children who receive child care subsidies to non-profit facilities only from now on. Parents of subsidized children will no longer be able to choose the centre to which their children are sent. Municipalities are being required to discriminate against taxpaying businesses in their communities. The government has also announced plans to spend $75 million on incentives for private centres to convert to non-profit status. Yet this same $75 million, if spent on subsidies, would immediately put all 12,000 children on the waiting list for subsidized spaces into day care.

In a report on the NDP's day care policy the region of Peel has written: "For-profit operators have functioned in Peel since the early 1960s. We have purchased service from centres since 1974 and we have appreciated the quality of care provided by the majority of operators. It should be noted that the majority of for-profit centres are considered to be small business operations owned and operated mainly by women and/or families. These are the people whose years of work is jeopardized by the provincial government's new funding trend. At a time when governments are under extreme financial pressure it seems illogical to put a system which employs approximately 6,500 employees, mainly women, in Ontario, out of business. Conversion to non-profit status will not guarantee the owner's position since he or she could be voted out of business by the centre's board of directors."

If the government really wanted to provide more day care spaces it could have spent the $100 million for salary enhancements and conversion incentives on additional subsidies for needy children in either private or non-profit centres. The waiting lists for subsidized care would have been cleared up instantly. Instead this government is likely to provide more subsidies to the non-profit or taxpayer-funded centres while more and more private centres which provide excellent care at a reasonable price will be forced to close.

Because of its ideological blinkers, this socialist government cannot see that private centres can offer the same level of service as non-profit centres but at a better price. In the end it is the taxpayers and their children who suffer because of the government's blindness to the link between the profit motive and efficiency.

Before I conclude my remarks I would like to spend a minute addressing the throne speech's statements about energy and the environment. I am extremely curious about details of the government's green industrial strategy, which I hope will be announced soon. However, if it takes this government as long to implement the green strategy as it is taking to streamline the environmental assessment process, people will be waiting years for results.

I approve of the government's emphasis on energy conservation or demand management. In fact, today I'm holding an energy conservation forum in conjunction with the Ministry of Energy, Hydro Mississauga and the Consumers' Gas Co to help my constituents identify ways to conserve energy in the home. However, I have also heard from major power users which are concerned that we are dangerously underestimating the amount of electricity we will need in the future. I hope this government will not put Ontario in the position of having insufficient power to maintain our industries in peak periods of demand. Our economy is already hurting badly; we cannot afford lost productivity because of poor energy supply management.

To conclude my comments I want to return to my opening comments about the two faces of the Premier's socialist government. This throne speech has a conciliatory, pro-business tone, but words must translate into actions before we will be convinced. If the NDP government introduces labour law reforms that result in lost jobs and investment, if it thinks an industrial strategy means government spending and investment, and if it puts private day care centres out of business, we will know this socialist government does not understand or respect the role of the private sector as the engine that powers Ontario's economy.

We are waiting to see if the NDP is really willing, to quote from the throne speech, "to work in partnership to achieve the goals we share."

1650

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I want to address a very specific issue in what the honourable member has spoken about in terms of housing. Of course it is something I'm very concerned about. We have something in common. The member did mention that she's having a problem within her constituency in terms of, from what I understood, the illegal aspect to housing. I share that concern as well.

I honestly believe our piece of legislation will address the concerns she has been speaking about, and I think she neglected a lot. I think she neglected to talk a little bit about rights of tenants, and rights of landlords, those home owners she was talking about as well, about the fact that after this piece of legislation goes through, and more specifically the Landlord and Tenant Act, they will have rights. They will know exactly where they stand on the issue, and the questions they have had in the past will be answered.

I know that in my constituency, home owners will frequently come in and say that they've rented out a room or two or they've rented out a basement and they want to know their rights. Frankly, right now, as it stands, even I am not too sure about their rights. I think a piece of legislation actually addressing those concerns will help both the home owner and the prospective tenants who may live there.

In terms of tenants, I think we have agreed in the past that we don't agree in our views. I think that we on this side certainly care for that single mom who needs that basement apartment. From statements the member has made today, not only now during her speech but earlier, it is obvious the Conservatives are still stuck-up, as always.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I appreciated the comments made by the member for Mississauga South. She honed it down to one of the major, important things that we in this Legislature should address ourselves to, and that is the whole issue of trade and business interdependence.

I think her point that if this government does not follow along with some kind of policy approach that would at least to some degree placate our businesses from leaving, and by leaving taking jobs across the border -- obviously it is so important that we concentrate on jobs. The member for Mississauga South has identified this as a major point. I would only hope this government will take that point very seriously. We all know the economy obviously is tied in. There will be interdependence. The borders are falling, trade relationships are changing and Canada -- especially Ontario -- can no longer afford to take a parochial view in terms of trade and economic development.

I would only hope that this government -- the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology happens to be here today -- will take seriously the fact that the minister has to do more in cabinet to ensure that his colleagues will be with him when he talks to the Premier about expanding businesses; to give incentives to businesses; and above all else -- to include the climate that this government would have, especially as it relates to the future -- that there obviously should be a business attitude fostered within the parameters of cabinet that would ensure that business stays and that jobs are being created.

The second point I know the member for Mississauga South would want to make if she could is that of safety on the streets.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to spend a moment commending and congratulating my colleague the member for Mississauga South and saying how ashamed I am that the NDP took exception to her very thoughtful remarks. I think the NDP members who were quick to criticize the member for Mississauga South should know that she was born in England, lived through the war and came from a much humbler background than many of these NDP members pretend they come from. She comes from a very humble family. That family came to Canada and was able to eke out a living and prosper, essentially, in most of her lifetime, under a Conservative government in Ontario. For 42 years, you could make a living in Ontario, you could prosper, you could do well and you could get off unemployment and welfare rolls. That is no longer possible.

I also note in the member's comments that she mentioned the transfer payments from the federal government. I want to say to the members of this House that a fact that is very often lost when the government in this Legislature blames the federal government for not transferring enough money for welfare, health and social assistance, is that those transfer payments from the federal government were not cut this year, were not cut last year and won't be cut next year. Each year this government has received a 5% increase from the federal government in those transfer payments.

The Minister of Health, the Premier and the Treasurer decided to give hospitals and schools 1% this year. I think the essential question is, what happened to the 4% difference, the cash they received from the federal government? They got 5%. It wasn't a cut. They clearly got a 5% increase this year from the federal government, got a 5% increase last year and will get 5% next year. The question is, what did they do with the extra cash they got from the federal government?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I want to comment on the issue the previous member brought up and the member for Mississauga South mentioned in her speech about the comments the Premier made at both the first ministers' conference and the speech at Queen's University. The response from the opposition and from the member is to say that somehow the Premier is taking a very parochial view, that he's only looking out for Ontario and doesn't care about the country.

My interpretation of what the Premier said is the following: The federal government had and has legal commitments to this province and has made those commitments to fund programs at a certain rate. It has decided, for those "have" provinces, to put a cap on. At the same time as it decided to put that cap on, there have been federal policies, free trade, high interest rates, a high Canadian dollar, that have had a tremendous impact on this province, with the result of losing over 270,000 jobs.

I think any neutral observer would say, "We understand the federal government has a financial difficulty, but if it is going to place this cap on and still carry out these other policies that are having a very severely detrimental effect on this province, then it has a moral obligation to work with the province, to be cooperative with the province, to try to come up with other solutions to help Ontario get the economy going again." That is what the Premier has been saying. They have this obligation to provide some leadership and to be willing to work if they are going to carry out these other actions, with their tremendous impact.

The member mentioned money for health care. He didn't mention the over 40% increase in welfare rates, and the federal government is capping at 5%. That has a detrimental impact on this province, and there is a moral obligation among the federal government to provide some leadership and work with the province to find solutions that both will agree on.

1700

Mrs Marland: I think it is always interesting when you have a socialist ideology, because the thing about these government members is that they think they know from what base any comments are being made by opposition members.

I find it particularly significant to hear today from the member for Yorkview, who sat for more than 12 months as a member of the standing committee on general government that dealt with Bills 4 and 121, and today he says, "I'm not even sure of the rights of tenants and landlords." This person, this member for Yorkview, who voted on Bill 4, who voted on Bill 121, and in fact voted against all the amendments that were brought forward by the opposition, today admits, after a year of dealing with landlord and tenant legislation, that he doesn't understand their rights. I could understand a member who hasn't sat on the committee saying that, but I think it's deplorable that a member who had the responsibility to vote on behalf of tenants and landlords in this province says today he's not sure of their rights.

I simply say to the member for Oxford that if he's talking about the federal government's commitment to fund programs, he better look very closely at this provincial government's commitment and responsibility to fund programs in this province and go out to the region of Peel and talk to the parents and teachers of those children in an education system which is being hacked and chopped because this government does not fulfil its commitment to fund programs. Simply, you are not in a position to criticize the federal government.

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In terms of what I've done in the past and in terms of what I've done in committee, I've continually said --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. That is not a point of order. You may not agree with the honourable member --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: It is not a point of order. For further debate, the honourable member for Renfrew North.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): It looks like we're here for the weekend.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to disabuse my good friend the member for Mississauga West that we are here for the weekend. We certainly are not. I am aware that the Premier wishes to conclude these debates this afternoon, and I certainly want to facilitate that. I understand I have something like 25 or 30 minutes and I shall try to use those minutes to make some comments on behalf of myself, as the member in this Legislature for North Renfrew, and on behalf of my colleagues in the official opposition.

Of course, Mr Speaker, I am delighted to see you discharging your responsibilities. It is always good to see a fellow easterner, and particularly one who comes from north Stormont. I will ask your support in trying to contain what we would have called once upon a time in here the Chicago gang. Mind you, they were on this side. But the Chicago gang over there from Kingston and Pickering and Barrie and Durham I am sure will want to be like I always am in here, which is very quiet and very understanding of the other side of any debate.

We have the Lieutenant Governor's speech, which is an interesting speech. I must agree with one of my colleagues who said that it was more like a session ender than a throne speech, but I don't intend to carp my way through 30 minutes of this, notwithstanding the opportunities that might be provided to do that.

I must say, though, that if there is one thing I come back to the session with, it is a direction from my constituents in eastern Ontario that they are sick and tired of the various levels of government in our wonderful federalism blaming each other for the woes of the land. I must say I am increasingly disposed to support them in that. I know what it's like to be a provincial minister, a provincial member, because you can blame those governments on either side of you, the national government and the local government. But I want to say, having spent the winter months in part travelling around eastern Ontario, most of it in my own constituency of North Renfrew, people are really concerned about what they think is the waste of time often engaged in by politicians blaming one another.

I must say, though I thought it was one of the most interesting lines in the Lieutenant Governor's speech -- let me just cite it, because my friend the former Attorney General would, I am sure, want me to do this. Tell me where you have heard language like this before, and to hear Lieutenant Governor Jackman read this was doubly inspiring:

"My government has made it clear to the national government that this is not the time, particularly as profound changes are being negotiated to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, for more adventurism at the expense of Ontario jobs."

The reference here, of course, is to the negotiations around the Canada-US-Mexico free trade arrangement. The language "adventurism" is part of the Cold War vernacular that I thought even Ontario socialists understood was passé.

The Lieutenant Governor's speech was a very interesting speech, because I had the pleasure of sitting very close to his family. I think the member for St George-St David would want me to observe that it was a very special and memorable occasion last week when the Lieutenant Governor put the following words before the assembly and the distinguished guests, including his sister, the erstwhile Conservative candidate provincially for St Andrew-St Patrick.

I was watching Miss Nancy Jackman when the Lieutenant Governor said: "The legislation" -- meaning the reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act -- "with changes based on the results of those consultations" -- those very famous NDP-style consultations -- "will come forward this session. Many will prejudge the bill and spend large sums of money doing so." At that point even the Lieutenant Governor's sister found her enthusiasm uncontrollable and uncontainable.

It is interesting when we see even in the throne speech an almost anticipatory concern about the fact that there might be people on the other side of an NDP policy who might actually go out and inspire the public to what the NDP is about and that these people might actually use the NDP play book against the NDP government. It's very obvious that our friends in the New Democratic Party don't like that. We have had all kinds of evidence over the last number of months to suggest that the NDP really does not like it when other people organize and lobby in ways that it has done so splendidly for so many years.

I was sitting here yesterday listening to the now absent member for Etobicoke West and he was working his way through the vernacular. I don't necessarily share these views, but I was chuckling listening as he worked off the various phrases. "Community-based activism," he said, is of course synonymous with Dipper partisanship. It's certainly not my view, but I just thought it interesting that when the Lieutenant Governor read those remarks, even his sister, dispassionate lady that she is, found her response uncontrollable and uncontainable.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): You said that already.

Mr Conway: I'm always happy to have the member for Ottawa Centre here to guide me and keep me from being repetitive.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It wasn't me. I think it was the member for Sudbury.

Mr Conway: I apologize. It's the member for Sudbury.

The Acting Speaker: Could the honourable member address the Chair, please. It might avoid a lot of confusion.

Mr Conway: Yes. My friend the member for St Catharines -- and I think this is so true of my friends in the new democracy -- but the member for St Catharines, if he were here, would say, "The one thing about the NDP that has to be observed is that they don't understand that politics is like baseball; it's a game of both pitching and catching." The member for St Catharines is right. This is a group of pitchers; they do not like the catching. They do not like the lacerations that are applied to their governmental backs by means that they have themselves employed over the decades in this business.

I am going to talk a bit about the Martel hearings, but to see Sue Colley, the executive assistant to the Minister of Health, come before our committee, was like the new Evelyn Gigantes. It was Mary Poppins revisited. It's Sue Colley the Innocent: "Oh, gee whiz, I'm just new to all of this." Sue Colley? The Sue Colley I know? The activist, the NDP partisan who camped out in ministers' offices, who hell-raised around here like few people I've ever known or met? I don't fault her for that, not at all. She did extraordinarily good work for the child care coalition -- absolutely. But to be offered up as Sue Colley the Innocent stretches credibility beyond most other things I've experienced in the last few months around this place.

1710

Speaking of credibility gaps, in his speech the Lieutenant Governor also -- I thought again of the absent member for St Catharines. Who among the environmental community did not find themselves transported into a kind of environmental heaven when they heard of this kind of activism from the Minister of the Environment? Remember her, the cutting edge of environmentalism? Let me read page 11 of the Lieutenant Governor's speech. Almost two years into the mandate of this government we are told by the Lieutenant Governor himself:

"The environment bill of rights consultation group, involving members of the environmental and business communities, is expected to report this spring. Draft legislation will be released later this year."

I have to say that's action. I tell you, Mackenzie King would look at that and say, "Not so fast." It appears that we're going to get to the end of this four-and-a-half-year term and we might actually have a bill for first reading.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): No, draft legislation.

Mr Conway: Well, no, I'm expecting two years to get the draft legislation out and another two years to get a bill ready for first reading.

Hon Ms Gigantes: With your help.

Mr Conway: As the member for Ottawa Centre rightly observes, with my help. Again, for me this is all about promise versus performance. I'm not one of these caterwauling oppositionists who in all respects is going to hold particularly this government to some of the outrageous commitments it has made. I hope and I pray daily that we are not going to see them do some of the things they said they wanted to do, because this is an economy in very basic restructuring in continuing recession. On behalf of my constituents, I am anxious to see recovery and new wealth created to stimulate new employment across the province.

When the Premier said what he said to the Ontario provincial council of the New Democratic Party three weeks ago, he certainly enjoyed my support. I will say to him, hopefully not with synthetic indignation or in fact with synthetic enthusiasm, that I appreciate, as do most of my constituents, the very difficult times in which he finds himself. It is a very tough time, as not just Ontario New Democrats are finding, but as New Brunswick Liberals, federal Tories and, yes, even Saskatchewan New Democrats are finding.

I think it behooves all of us who want to see a more credible public and political discourse to focus our attention on that which is achievable and that which is responsible in the context of the 1990s. I for one do not intend to hold out a variety of irresponsible commitments that no government, irrespective of how well-intended it might be, could ever hope to achieve.

I come back here after the winter recess and hear from people in my constituency that they are concerned in ways many of them have never been concerned before about their jobs, about their spouses' jobs and about their childrens' jobs or hopes of jobs. This recession has bitten into a part of the Ontario economic core that has not been touched by previous recessions.

I come from a little resource community called Barry's Bay, where I grew up. I am deeply troubled when I go home and see my parents and a lot of my friends, most of whom are now out of work because there isn't a sawmill around that's anywhere near full employment. I understand the reasons for that. There are no quick fixes.

I congratulate the Rae government for appointing John Valley and that special group the member for Algoma has put in place to find some intermediate and long-term solutions. I think that's an initiative spoken to in this throne speech that deserves the support of all members. It certainly has the support of this member and my constituents, because we have unemployment rates in communities like Barry's Bay and Killaloe and Eganville, and my friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton knows only too well what's going on in his resource communities of Haliburton and north Victoria. It is not a good situation.

I was in the Stedman's store the other day in Barry's Bay, talking to a former reeve who runs that store, and he said his sales were down over 30% this February compared to last February. The Minister of Labour has a cottage in that part of the world, and he knows some of those businesses very well. His sales are off 30%. People who have money are not spending it, and more and more working families just do not have it to spend.

People are coming off unemployment; they're on social assistance. The social welfare reforms that the Minister of Community and Social Services is talking about I also applaud, because I represent a county with 36 municipalities, many of which have almost no tax base, many of which have populations of 300, 400, 500 and 600, and they cannot afford nor can they sustain much longer the burdens that social welfare has placed upon them.

As governments did 50 years ago in this country, we are going to have to redefine that relationship, not just between the province and the municipalities, but between the province and the Dominion government. It's not going to be easy, but I say to you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the people I represent in rural Renfrew and in the urban communities like Pembroke -- and many of those communities are like Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry -- we cannot go on much longer.

That is why I support the Premier when he says the days of the 5%, 6% and 7% annual pay increase when inflation's at 1.5% are just not on. He deserves our support when he conveys that message, and I know it's not always happily received by some of his supporters or some of mine. I don't like the fact, I suppose, that my salary was frozen this year and is going to be frozen next year, but I understand that, and I applaud the Premier for taking that leadership, because we'll have no hope with our public service, with our para-public service and with the community beyond if we are not seen to be taking that leadership role. I know as well that it's easy for a 40-year-old bachelor to offer up that kind of praise, because I don't have a spouse and four children. I think if I did, I probably couldn't afford to be here, but none the less, I again congratulate the government for taking a tough decision.

That is why I get so angry about this Eliesen business, because it is such a glaringly bad example. I know the Grits and the Tories may have been terrible in the days of their regime, but I thought the NDP had a new policy. In appointing Marc Eliesen to that job -- to those jobs, I might add, both the chairmanship and the CEO -- you have done it differently than it's been done before with that kind of political appointment.

I have no difficulty with Marc Eliesen being appointed as chairman, but I do have a profound difficulty with his being appointed as both chairman and chief executive officer. At any rate, that debate will continue, but I say to my friends opposite that the Eliesen example is a terrible example. It may be that some of us are reading into all of this more than is there, but how --

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.

Mr Conway: The member for Ottawa Centre says yes, and she may be right. That is why I want all the facts and I want them here. I don't want to have to send over to the Ontario Energy Board two months from now to get those. It was your order in council, it was your appointment, and I think you owe it to this assembly to tell us where we are wrong and where we may be right. I think even a dispassionate observer would say the way in which this has evolved to date has been uneven and somewhat incomplete.

My farmers, my unemployed loggers, are saying: "Increases of 9% or 10% in terms of hydro next year? I paid 12% and 13% this year, and now I read in the paper that the chairman of Ontario Hydro has two cars, he's got some kind of a deluxe pension, he's got home security, he's got a salary in excess of a quarter of a million dollars, and he's got so much money he's even got $1,000 to procure financial services as to how to invest it."

I've got to tell you, in Moose Creek, in Wilno and in four-corners Ontario, that's not selling. I want to say to the government, and to the leader of the government particularly, I want and expect you to show leadership in the Eliesen matter just as you've shown leadership in some of these other matters to which I've made reference and for which I am prepared, quite honestly, to give you credit.

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): It's a rerun.

Mr Conway: My friend from Windsor says, "It's a rerun." I want to tell you that I am going to run and rerun this tape until I get some answers, because I am concerned about it. It may be that I'm wrong; I've certainly been wrong before. But I think it's only fair to request the information. What was the deal with Mr Eliesen? Because it's symbolic.

I repeat: If you are a farmer in Renfrew county, if you are running a sawmill -- I was talking to a sawmiller the other day. His hydro bill will have gone up by, I believe, about 23% over the last year and a half. That's going to mean, to that individual, over $200,000 in additional cost and he hasn't got it to give.

1720

Dairy farms and sawmills, to name two examples in the resource sector, are enormously dependent on electricity. In case you haven't heard, those parts of our resource economy are in dire straits. My friend the member for Cochrane North will understand what some of these electrical bills are for some of these sawmills. They will pay it, obviously, because most of them have no choice.

But to read that some of the costs at Hydro are as they have been described in our popular press and in statements in this Legislature is to add pain upon pain. I repeat: I expect more leadership from this government on the question of openness and accountability in Hydro affairs than I have seen to date.

I want to touch briefly on what I think will be one of the most central issues for this assembly in this session, and that is the reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I want to say that throughout my part of the province there is deep and serious concern about what the government intends.

Let me say that I expect to see a bill that will incorporate a number of the criticisms that have been levied through the consultation process. I heard the other day that the very distinguished Deputy Minister of Labour, a gentleman for whom I have the highest regard, was, in the course of some consultation, making plain that the government was listening. I was happy to hear that.

The minister is not always a man with whom I agree, but he is not incapable of understanding what he's hearing. He must understand, as we all do, that as this economy struggles with recession -- you saw the growth projections from the Conference Board of Canada and others the other day. It is not going to be the kind of year that we expected it to be, and 1993 may be equally sluggish. It is going to put pressures on all of us to understand that we are going to have to create new wealth if we are going to sustain that which we all want.

People in Renfrew county, whether they support the New Democratic Party or whether they support others, are deeply concerned about the timing of the labour relations initiative, about the extent to which there has been real and meaningful consultation and about the kind of balance that is going to be struck by this government, a government that appears to be so beholden to a select number of very senior powerful union interests in this province. That concern is out there and it must be understood and responded to.

If we get the kind of labour relations reform that some people are suggesting, we are going to arrest any kind of economic recovery in this, the economic heartland of the Dominion of Canada. That is going to hurt people in York South, it is going to hurt people in north Renfrew and it is going to hurt people all across the province. That kind of hurt we cannot stand, and we ought not to impose it upon ourselves and upon our colleagues in the economy at this time.

As I look to the clock and see that I've probably got six or eight minutes remaining, I want to turn again to a question that I have expressed some interest in both today and over the past four months. That is the question of the conduct of the honourable Minister of Northern Development and the conduct of others involved in the so-called Martel inquiry.

I want to say that in the course of 16 1/2 years, I've had the opportunity to serve on a number of legislative inquiries, and I've had the opportunity as a student of Ontario political history to look at some others. I always like to cite the so-called Moog business of 1972-73 as another good example of where this Legislature was seized of a highly political issue involving the conduct of one of our members -- at that time, the member for Peel North, the honourable Premier of the province himself, Mr William Grenville Davis.

But like my other colleagues in the Liberal Party, I sat through these hearings with a real degree of interest, and I think with a reasonable degree of impartiality.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: People laugh and they say, "Well, didn't you say at the outset that the member for Sudbury East ought to resign?" I did say that.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I'd like a little bit of attention, if I could.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. We have too many private conversations. The honourable member for Renfrew North does have the floor and does merit being listened to.

Mr Conway: I want to make a point. I don't care if people interject, but I want to make a serious point that I hope people understand. I said the minister ought to resign, as early as December 10 I think it was, because of what she said.

I have always argued that the Martel business admitted of two possibilities. Either the minister had access to confidential information to which she was clearly not entitled, in which case she and a number of other people were clearly in difficulty -- I am quite proud to say that after five weeks of legislative investigation it is obvious there was no smoking gun. There was no evidence to connect the minister with the smoking gun, which was for me the Teatero memorandum of November 13. I say that to my friends in the assembly this afternoon, but I say something else, that there was a second possibility, that a minister of the crown, one of our colleagues, has admitted throughout this piece that she made up a story that just happened to slander, or at least smear, an Ontario citizen, a citizen who was involved with the honourable member in quite an active and sometimes controversial public discussion about a major public issue.

I simply say that when those of us who have been honoured with the responsibility of office take the oath, we take an oath that says among other things -- I want to read the oath of allegiance that all ministers, past and present, have signed in recent times. Among other things, it causes the individual minister to swear: "I will be vigilant, diligent and circumspect in the performance of my duties. I will not discuss decisions of the executive council outside of council without the consent" --

[Laughter]

Mr Conway: Everybody laughs. It's a big laughing matter. Let me put it this way: When any us, particularly any of us in cabinet, has to think about going to take a lie-detecting test to prove we're telling the truth, it's over. I am humiliated that any of my friends, any of my colleagues would ever think they had to go and take a lie-detecting test to prove they were telling the truth.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): To you.

Mr Conway: I want to say to my friend the member for Perth that if that day ever comes with me -- it might; I hope to God it never does -- I must in honour resign, because this is an issue that goes to the core of our system.

I have known the member for Sudbury East a long time. I happen to like her. I do not want to believe, I do not want to be told that Elie and Gaye Martel's daughter is a liar, because I don't believe it. But if I'm asked to believe that, then it seems to me that in our system of government of honourable members the basis of that honour is that we tell the truth to one another. In cabinet we swear an oath that we will tell the truth to one another. If any of us should ever contemplate going to find a polygraph to affirm that we have told the truth when we said we were lying about a citizen with whom we were having a public argument, do we not understand, all of us as honourable members, what that means?

This is a tragedy, and it is a tragedy that contaminates all of us. Of course we've all made mistakes, Mr Speaker. I've made them, you've made them, Joan Smith made them, Peter Kormos has made them. A lot of other very distinguished, and sometimes not distinguished, members have made mistakes. But in our system the fundamentals turn on the notions of trust and honour and the notion that if any honourable member who is of the executive council should lie for whatever reason, and admit to lying, he or she has breached that trust and must by definition, I submit, offer to the leader of the government -- this government or any government -- his or her resignation.

That is not to say there will not come another time, because we have all kinds of case history showing where people have in fact served their time out of government and honourably returned. But that is the core of my concern. I know there will be people who think: "Conway's on a witchhunt. He's hell-bent to get even for the past." I tell you, I've had to do some things in my life as a cabinet minister involving some of my colleagues I hope and pray none of you ever has to do. I have been there in some of the most poignant, tearful and tragic moments in public life, and it's not any fun. The Premier has my sympathy.

1730

I will sit down simply with this final observation: Our system is a system of honourable members, some of whom serve in the high office of the executive council, an office to which we swear an oath that talks about circumspection, about not impugning the integrity of our fellow executive councillors, that respects as secret all matters that may be disclosed by council in arriving at a decision, and, interestingly -- this is what I was trying to find earlier -- an oath that says, "I will not disclose to any person outside of the cabinet any discussions or any decisions relating to the conduct of another member of cabinet." Read the oath; the oath just oozes with these principles that underscore this doctrine.

I just say to you, I like to think -- and I know it sounds odd -- as a friend and a colleague, not just of the member for Sudbury East but of her father before her, when the day comes that any one of us has to even think about going to take a polygraph, we are in deep trouble. We are in deep trouble because we have violated the honour code of trust and truth-telling. That's my concern. Unless there is some redress to that concern, it's not just the Rae government that is going to be troubled by this; it is all honourable members in all parliaments across this land and across the British Commonwealth.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the opportunity to speak in reply to the throne speech and the debate which it engendered. The purpose of a throne speech, of course, is to present the agenda of the government as clearly as we possibly can and to give an opportunity to the House to consider as directly as it can the issues before the province.

I was not able to be here for the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, nor for the comments of the leader of the third party, and I want to say to both of them that I regret having been away. I would like also to say to the House that I regret that the circumstances of the constitutional discussion will from time to time require my absence from the Legislature for the next few weeks.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): You read our remarks carefully.

Hon Mr Rae: I read your remarks carefully; I have them in front of me. I would simply say to my colleagues who say, for example, that the economy comes first and therefore the Premier should not be spending his time on the Constitution -- I'm sure members who have constituency offices will understand the sentiment from which that comment flows.

I would only say to members, members of my own cabinet and colleagues in the caucus, that the fundamental reality of our time is that until and unless we resolve the constitutional differences that have so bedevilled public debate in this country for the last several years, it is going to be more difficult for us to get the economy moving. The fundamental fact of life, I believe, is that the confidence the world has and which we as Canadians must have in the country depends to a significant degree on our ability to forge effective and real national unity.

I want to stress at the outset that the fundamental direction that was set in the throne speech does represent a clear message from this government to this Legislature and to the people of the province, as clear a message as we can possibly deliver, that the economic changes which have taken place in the province are very real, they are profound and they require a change in attitude and a change in action from all of us in the province.

The member opposite who just finished speaking, the member for Renfrew North, commented on a number of these changes. He commented as well and spoke very eloquently about his own constituency and his own riding. I know it's not much comfort to the honourable member for me to say this to him, but I will only say to him that I appreciated his comments. I think they reflect the frustration and concern that are felt by all members of the House and are felt, I believe, by the citizens of the province when they consider how much the world has changed and when they consider the impact of these changes on us.

I also can't resist saying from time to time that I am rather struck by the fact that although we demand the changes that are obviously required, it's I suppose not inappropriate that from time to time we do comment on our partisan differences, and no doubt there will be some moments in my speech when I do refer to some of that. I still find, and this is partly because of the structure of our place, that there is still an enormous tendency for members of the opposition to want to have it both ways. I find it strange, for example, that people in opposition who have been in government -- and now we're in a position where there isn't any party that hasn't been in government. The third party was in government for 42 years; the party opposite was in office for five.

The fundamental reality is that there is no way that Ontario can make the changes which are required without there being a degree of sacrifice and a degree of difficulty for the people of the province. I wish it were otherwise. Nothing would make me happier than to be the Premier at a time when difficult decisions were not required and when some people were not going to be told news they did not want to hear. It would be great to be able to simply deliver good news from the desk and from the office of the Premier of the province. That isn't possible.

I don't expect the opposition -- given, as I say, the structure of our system -- to praise me or praise us for making difficult decisions, I don't expect them to support them, but I want to say to honourable members, don't ask us not to reflect on the irony of listening to comments being made, for example, by members of the third party about the difficulties being faced by school boards and have the member for London North, who is a former chairman of a school board, say, when one of our members was answering the question: "Just spend the money. Just give them the money. Just give it to them."

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's what you used to say.

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite from St Catharines says that's what I used to say. Okay, fair enough. I'm not denying for a moment that as somebody who was a particularly difficult and tendentious member of the opposition for 10 years, I suffered the disadvantage of having every self-righteous comment known to history being found in Hansard following my name. I understand that.

1740

Mr Mahoney: You've got them all confused. They don't understand the word "tendentious."

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the member for Mississauga West, I understand that. I think people understand that. The member for St Catharines knows that as well. But just to give you an example, whom did the member for St Catharines blame for the GM decision to close down part of the foundry operation in his own constituency? What was his first reaction? He said, "Well, you know, if the NDP government hadn't been there, this might not have happened." A more implausible statement --

Mr Bradley: You were the negative factor.

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite says I was a negative factor. Does that explain why Ford on Monday decided to invest $2 billion in the province? Is that the explanation? I would say to the honourable member, all you have to do is look at the reality of the restructuring that is going on, at the fact that there is significant overcapacity in the car industry. To ask and expect that Ontario will be singularly free from the changes going on around the world and that everything that takes place in the province with respect to a layoff or a plant closure is somehow uniquely the problem of the government that happens to be there at the time -- nobody believes the honourable member when he utters that kind of partisan nonsense. That is the fact of the matter.

The facts of the matter are that this government is having to make the most difficult decisions governments have had to make in this province for the last 50 years --

Mr Harris: Bullshit.

Hon Mr Rae: Difficult, I say to the honourable member who says that's not true. When the Treasurer's budget comes down in a couple of weeks' time it will be clear that this government has been prepared to make more difficult decisions, to define them clearly and to set out the choices as to why we have had to make them, than other governments have had to do.

As I say, I don't say we did it because we enjoyed it or because it's the first thing that came to mind when we came into office or it's the reason many of us went into public life. We are doing it because the public sector and the private sector in this province have to change and we must be leaders in that change and demonstrate how and when it will be done. The Minister of Health has to do it; the Minister of Community and Social Services has to do it; the Minister of Education has to do it. There isn't a ministry in this government that doesn't have to make these decisions and show that it can in fact be done.

I want to respond as well to one other comment made by the member for Renfrew North, which I was interested in. He didn't follow up on it. I wanted just to pursue it with him. He commented on the extent of the welfare problem in his own constituency. We have now a situation where welfare costs in the province are well over $5 billion and are projected in years to come to go even higher. It is putting an enormous burden on this government. It's putting an enormous burden on our municipal governments.

The leader of the third party was very critical of me for comments I made about the impact the federal cuts were having on our province. He was saying that somehow I was being disruptive of Confederation itself by pointing out the hard fiscal realities we are having to experience as a result of the unilateral changes made by the government in Ottawa.

Mr Bradley: "Don't blame me; blame the feds."

Hon Mr Rae: It's not a matter of blaming any other level of government; it's a matter of explaining to the citizens of this province what has caused this particular problem and why so much of the impact is being felt and experienced by the taxpayers of this province.

Let me say to the members of the Conservative Party that when we went through the recession in 1981 the federal government was supporting social assistance in this province with 50-cent dollars. The federal government in the recession of 1990, 1991 and now 1992 is supporting social assistance in this province with 30-cent dollars -- the first time that has happened since the beginning of the Canada assistance plan.

I want to say to the honourable leader of the third party that if he thinks that's fair and he thinks that's right, then he doesn't realize it's costing $3.5 billion, which we are now short as a result. That is information the people of this province have to have, the people of this province need to have and the people of this province deserve to have.

The fact of the matter is --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Mr Warner): Order. Would the Premier take his seat for a moment, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party come to order, please.

Hon Mr Rae: What precisely is the change we have experienced? First of all, the change we have experienced is the most dramatic difficulty our economy has experienced in many years. Second, the fundamental reality is that the federal government, for a variety of reasons, is not sustaining the social expenditures in this province, federal and provincial, that have been a foundation of public expenditure since the 1960s when medicare and the Canada assistance plan were established. That is a fundamental and unilateral change which has occurred in the last three years. These are facts which need to be understood by everyone.

I want to refer to other changes which were required as well. The member for Renfrew North made a comment with respect to my comments about the public sector. I will say it again: The notion that somehow we can settle or encourage settlements or subsidize settlements that run far in excess of the rate of inflation is simply not on. That's again a message that perhaps not everybody would like to hear. People are saying, "It's not what I got last year" or, "It's not what I was expecting to get two years ago." That's still the fundamental reality we are all going to have to adjust to.

Last year our revenues were down in real terms, and we continued to sustain programs at a rate which allows people to survive in this very difficult recession.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for York Mills describes our social assistance plans as a socialist boondoggle. He would perhaps understand that the foundations of the Canada assistance plan were established by the federal Parliament in the 1960s. The changes that have been made in this province to social assistance have been made over the years and are ones which need to be understood.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): That's not what I said. You're selectively quoting me.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: Don't lie about what he said. Quote honestly what he said, but don't lie.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party knows well the rules and knows that you should not accuse another member of lying.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry. If you misunderstood me to accuse him of lying, I withdraw. I just suggested that he not.

Hon Mr Rae: If I misheard the honourable member, obviously I apologize to him. I apologize if I did mishear him.

Mr Scott: Don't overdo it.

1750

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David questions my goodwill. I demonstrate it in all circumstances.

I want to refer at the end of my remarks to some comments that have been made about the Labour Relations Act and the reforms that are being discussed thereto, because I think it's important for us to try to come to terms with the changes that are happening.

South of the border we have just witnessed over the last several months a most difficult, protracted and painful labour dispute involving thousands of employees of the Caterpillar company in Peoria, Illinois. Those employees were told in the middle of a legal dispute that unless they caved in and simply went back to work on the basis on which the company wanted them to come back in, the company would replace all of them with replacement workers.

I want to say to members opposite who think that is a model we should somehow follow or encourage that if you look at the successful examples of economies around the world, they are economies in which the labour movement, in which working people who are working on the shop floor and the people who represent them are seen as legitimate and serious economic partners, who are treated with the same kind of understanding that people who run businesses and people who borrow and people who finance and people who run governments are treated with as well. If we follow the example of those who see the answer in confrontation, in complete insecurity, in undermining the very basis upon which people are negotiating and discussing with one another, if we use that as an example, I think we would be making a serious mistake. It is not an example which we want to follow in this province. If I may say so, it's not an example we have ever encouraged or followed in this province.

The ideas, the proposals, that will find their way into legislation in this province are ideas which follow a long tradition in this province, of encouraging collective bargaining, of allowing it to take place in conditions of mutual respect and security, and of respecting the responsibilities and the rights of both employers and workers. That is the basis upon which we shall and must move ahead. If we move ahead in this province, as we face this choice, on the basis of cut and slash, of undermining the security of people who are working for a living, if we take that as the approach that is going to drive the day, then I think we're making a major mistake.

I say to members of the House that the legislation the government will be bringing in this spring is legislation that follows the traditions of labour legislation in this province and in North America since the Wagner Act of 1935 in the United States, and I would say to the honourable members opposite that it follows as well the best traditions that are taking place around the world, of workers and employers working effectively together.

I had the opportunity last night to co-chair, with the chairman of the Royal Bank, a dinner of 1,200 people in honour of five people, one of them a journalist, one of them a trade unionist, a business leader from the province of Quebec, Mr Saint-Pierre, Arden Haynes, who is the chairman of Imperial Oil, and a very distinguished public servant from Ottawa.

Previous governments, and I paid tribute to them, have worked hard to bring the various solitudes and sectors of our economy and our society together. That is what Ontario at its best has always done. That's the spirit which allowed Ontario to become as prosperous and successful as it was in the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s. It was that same spirit which drove the previous government to establish the Premier's Council, which did so much work in bringing people together.

What we are trying to do, and what this government wants to do is in its own way to reaffirm that partnership and that sense of social solidarity. Nothing will be gained if we end up having a generation of men and women who are, many of them, new to this country if they are unable to bargain, if they are unable to work in association with their employers, if their fundamental security is taken away or is threatened by what is going on in the economy. That's why we've established the principle that workers ought to be able to buy in in order to invest in and save their own jobs. That's why we are so active in supporting this. The workers in Sault Ste Marie are voting today with respect to the question of worker ownership in Algoma.

I was proud of the fact that we were able to get the bankers, the managers and the workers together to make sacrifices that nobody thought they would be prepared to make in order to save those jobs. It is that same determination to create strategic alliances and effective partnerships in the workplace which drives our desire to reform the Labour Relations Act.

I want to say to honourable members I expect and anticipate vigorous opposition to many of the things this government is proposing, but I would ask honourable members to reflect on the fact. I must say some of the comments that were made in speeches trouble me because they say Ontario isn't a good place to invest. The leader of the third party says Ontario has the highest taxes in Canada and North America. That simply isn't the case. It simply isn't a factual account of what we are experiencing as a province. Nothing is to be gained by any one of us running down the place in which we live and work and in which we want our children to live and work and to grow up and be strong. Nothing is to be gained by doing that.

I do not believe that to say we want to extend the rights of workers through pay equity, employment equity and reforms to the Labour Relations Act takes away in any way, shape and form from the other changes which we feel and believe are essential for the future of this province and for the future of Canada. Government must be more efficient. Regulations must be streamlined. We must do everything we can to make government efficient and productive and to make sure that Ontario continues to be seen as the place to invest, as it has always been seen in this country. We do not do that successfully by taking away from the rights of people or depriving a new generation of Canadians from participating in the economy to the same extent as previous generations have been able to do. We benefit by putting these things together and by letting them happen together.

I appreciate very much the comments that have been made by members opposite and by members of my own party. We will obviously be having another vigorous debate when the budget comes down on April 30. We will obviously be having another vigorous debate when other measures of this government are brought forward. I only hope that in our vigour we remember that Canada comes first, that the country comes first. We must work hard, all of us, to ensure that national unity is successfully achieved this year, as in every year, and that although there are changes happening and changes taking place which many of us would never have dreamed or imagined would take place, we understand and appreciate what is good and great about this province, what we have achieved successfully together and what we have succeeded in doing together.

When we work together, that is Ontario at its best. When we work in partnership, that is Ontario at its best. That's the spirit with which we try to provide leadership to this province and to the people of Canada.

1800

The Speaker: The time allotted for the debate on the speech from the throne has expired.

On Tuesday, April 7, 1992, Ms Swarbrick moved, seconded by Mr Bisson, that an humble address be presented to His Honour Lieutenant Governor as follows:

"To the Honourable Henry Newton Rowell Jackman, a member of the Order of Canada, officer in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, bachelor of arts, bachelor of laws, doctor of laws, honorary lieutenant colonel of the Governor General's Horse Guards, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us."

On Wednesday, April 8, 1992, Mrs McLeod moved that the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following words:

"This House regrets that the speech from the throne simply confirms the government's inability to provide a clear strategy to reinvigorate Ontario's economy, stimulate economic investment, create permanent jobs, tackle welfare and unemployment lines, and condemns the government for:

"Failing to acknowledge and understand the recession's impact on the people of Ontario and instead sacrificing legitimate policy goals for an ideologically driven agenda;

"Failing to rebuild partnerships with business by postponing changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act until meaningful consultation on the proposed changes has occurred;

"Failing to provide real and effective cost containment strategies to control government spending;

"Ignoring the need to address the government's crumbling standards of integrity; and

"Failing to limit additional growth in the already unacceptable provincial deficit to ensure that the credit rating is not further eroded and investor confidence is not further undermined."

On Thursday, April 9, 1992, Mr Harris moved that the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following words:

"Failing to indicate that it will abandon the disastrous tax-borrow-and-spend fiscal policy pursued by successive governments since 1985 that seriously undermines the strong economic foundation that for 42 years provided equal access to the best social, education and health care programs in the world;

"Failing to provide effective leadership in the field of education required for excellence and ultimately to secure our children's futures;

"Ignoring the plight of those in border communities who are trying to keep their businesses open in order to make a living for their families and keep their employees working;

"Ignoring our besieged retail sector by not allowing Sunday openings and forcing thousands of retail workers, many of them women, out of work;

"Continuing to indulge in a pointless and futile attack on the policies of other levels of government at a time when a cooperative effort is required to resolve our nation's constitutional, social and economic policy;

"Creating an environment so hostile to private investors that Ontario is no longer the province of choice for job creators;

"Failure to understand the importance of agriculture and the values of small-town and rural Ontario to the province's prosperity;

"Failure to introduce policies and directions that will restore our confidence in the hope and opportunity that Ontario has traditionally enjoyed."

1810

The House divided on Mr Harris's amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 14

Arnott, Carr, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jordan, McLean, Runciman, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 90

Akande, Allen, Beer, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Brown, Buchanan, Callahan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cleary, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Eddy, Fawcett, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Mancini, Marchese, Martel, Martin;

Mathyssen, McGuinty, Miclash, Mills, Morin, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Scott, Silipo, Sola, Sutherland, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The House divided on Mrs McLeod's amendment to the motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 36

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Harris, Jordan, Mahoney, Mancini, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Morin, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Scott, Sola, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 68

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

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

The House divided on Ms Swarbrick's main motion, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

The Speaker: It is therefore resolved that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable Henry Newton Rowell Jackman, a member of the Order of Canada, officer in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, bachelor of arts, bachelor of laws, doctor of laws, honorary lieutenant colonel of the Governor General's Horse Guards, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

The House adjourned at 1820.