The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARABRAM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It gives me great pleasure to rise today and invite the honourable members of this House to come out to Brampton to experience the finest multicultural festival in all of Canada.

On July 3, Carabram '92 will open its doors in Brampton with 19 pavilions participating -- the biggest and best festival ever -- and will continue through July 4 and 5, a fun-filled, exotic weekend for everyone. Experience the sights, tastes and sounds of 19 diverse and exciting cultures without travelling outside our fair city of Brampton.

Carabram started in 1983 with just four pavilions, and this number has grown steadily every year. This year we are proud to have the Chinese pavilion back with us. I would also like to welcome the Israeli pavilion, which has just joined.

Posters for Carabram have been placed on bulletin boards around the building. Passports cost $7 in advance or $9 at the door. Free shuttle bus service among the pavilions is included. Tickets are available through my office. Please call if you would like to obtain passports. Last year over 80,000 visitors from around the province proved what Bramptonians have already known: that they have the excitement of the world in their own backyard.

Congratulations to the 2,500 volunteers who make it happen. This could well be an image and a plan of action for learning about our neighbours of the various cultures that have come to this country that could be used throughout this country, throughout this province and perhaps throughout the world.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On April 22 of last year I rose in this House and presented a petition on behalf of over 900 concerned residents of the city of Etobicoke who have children or relatives attending St Gregory separate school. St Greg's has been petitioning the Metropolitan Separate School Board since 1982 for much-needed renovation and expansion to meet the demands of increasing enrolment.

Finally, after eight years of waiting, St Greg's was informed that it was second on the funding priority list, and hopes were high in my community that something would be done. Unfortunately, as this story plays out, when the current government took over St Greg's was bumped to sixth place under guidelines which combined lists for new schools to be built and schools to be renovated.

I personally visited the school last spring and agree that renovations are in fact necessary. The results of my petition presented 14 months ago are what? None. The situation at St Greg's, still bad, is getting worse. The school is seriously overcrowded. Washroom facilities could not possibly meet current building code standards. The playground is full of portables. Storage rooms are being used for staff offices.

On April 30 of this year I wrote the Minister of Education to formally request a meeting with him and his staff person in charge of setting the school funding priorities. It is now eight weeks since that letter was sent, and the results? None. I urge the minister to please respond to my letter now. The children and the parents at St Greg's are waiting.

NIAGARA RESIDENTS FOR SAFE TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to pay tribute to a group of dedicated environmentalists in my riding of Lincoln.

Since 1987, the Niagara Residents for Safe Toxic Waste Disposal have been actively fighting a proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a giant toxic waste treatment facility in the township of West Lincoln. This group of over 50 people is known locally in Niagara as the little people who have been erecting large signs opposing the Ontario Waste Management Corp facility. To date, six large billboard signs have been put up in strategic areas in the Niagara Peninsula. Another 60 smaller lawn signs and hundreds of bumper stickers have been distributed to make people aware of the Ontario Waste Management Corp's plan to use West Lincoln farm land to dispose of the province's hazardous waste. It was this group which organized the 720-foot-long petition that I presented to the Legislature two weeks ago. They are dedicated and have made many personal sacrifices to spread the word about the dangers of the Ontario Waste Management Corp's proposal.

I am proud that I was a founding member of this group, and I continue to support its efforts. I am proud to carry their message to Queen's Park. The "little people" are just one of three local environmental groups in my riding that were formed to oppose the OWMC. These are regular citizens who have the courage to take on the mighty OWMC, a crown corporation that has spent over $110 million in the past 11 years on its proposals. It is groups like the Niagara residents that prove the voice of the people is being heard.

1340

MICHAEL BLOOMFIELD

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): It gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of the House the accomplishments of a distinguished citizen of Ottawa-Carleton, Mr Michael Bloomfield. Michael is one of this year's 75 recipients of the prestigious Global 500 Environmental Award. This award is achieved by only 500 people worldwide in recognition of exemplary work on behalf of the environment. Mr Bloomfield is the only resident of Ontario to receive this award in 1992.

Michael Bloomfield quietly builds bridges between educators and individuals, between governments and corporations concerned about environmental issues. Michael Bloomfield is the founder of the Harmony Foundation, a charitable organization dedicated to achieving environmental progress through cooperation and education. The Harmony Foundation's summer institute has gained an international reputation for excellence, and this year's program will attract delegates from 15 countries beyond Canada's borders, people who come together with one goal, to hone their skills in motivating people to improve their environmental practices. Michael Bloomfield is a man who has proved that dreams can be realized, that individuals can make a difference.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Children are society's most valuable asset. Our future relies on their growing up in a healthy, loving and supportive environment. Why, then, are vulnerable children the last priority of this NDP government?

I speak of the totally inadequate funding increase of just over 0.5% to the children's aid societies, which give vital assistance to neglected and abused children. I speak of the same meagre increase to the community living associations, which provide essential services to children with developmental disabilities.

Earlier this month I told the House how this funding shortfall is hurting disabled children who rely on Community Living Mississauga. Today I want to talk about those children who count on the Peel Children's Aid Society.

In the past two years, the Peel Children's Aid Society has seen an increase of more than 25% in child abuse cases and 20% in cases which are so serious they go to court. Although exceptional circumstances review may provide extra funding after the fact, it doesn't help the CAS cope with its intake case load. This means that many troubled children will have to go without proper care.

These children cannot afford to wait while the Ministry of Community and Social Services figures out how to fix its bungled funding of children's services. Abused and neglected children are innocent victims. They cannot look after themselves. Often they cannot even speak for themselves. If we don't care for our children, who do we care for?

J. M. SCHNEIDER ENVIRONMENT DAY

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): On Wednesday, June 24, I had the pleasure of attending the third annual Environment Day hosted by J. M. Schneider. The purpose of Environment Day is to increase employees' awareness of the environment and what efforts they can contribute to protect the environment.

Schneider's believes one of the biggest challenges facing responsible corporate citizens throughout the 1990s will be how to address consumer need in an environmentally sensitive manner. As one of the leading food processing companies in Canada, they have taken up the challenge and are meeting it head on. Schneider's takes great pride in being an industry leader by proactively addressing serious and difficult environmental issues.

In the short term, their objective is to implement water efficiency/sewage abatement teams; plant and office programs for solid waste using the 3Rs; plant liquid waste 3R programs; hydro efficiency and conservation; hazardous waste control and reduction, and air and noise pollution control and reduction. Long-term objectives are concerned with packaging and industry issues as Schneider's deals with its suppliers to remain proactive in addressing environmental concerns. The company's commitment extends to working with customers on a one-to-one basis when necessary to identifying and resolving environmental issues regardless of their size.

The waste and environmental control department's motto is "An environmentally concerned company is a company with a future." This statement best describes Schneider's corporate philosophy as it pertains to our environment. All employees are to be congratulated for all their efforts.

FORT ERIE RACE TRACK

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The future of the Fort Erie Race Track remains up in the air as the government of Ontario dithers and delays while the clock continues to tick towards the possible October closing date.

At a time when many racetracks are struggling to remain viable, the provincial government is considering establishing Las Vegas-style gambling casinos that will be sure to compete with established horse racing facilities and almost certainly spell an end to this sport in this border city.

To Fort Erie and the Niagara region, the Fort Erie Race Track means millions of needed dollars flowing into a part of the province that has suffered economic hardship over the past several months, and to the 4,000 -- indeed over 4,000 -- people employed either directly or indirectly at the track, this racing facility means a livelihood, bread on the table and personal dignity.

Fort Erie Race Track provides an opportunity for many individuals who might not otherwise be able to find a job to be productive, contributing members of society. It draws thousands of tourists from New York state, tourists who spend money in Ontario, help boost the local economy and mitigate to some extent the effect of cross-border shopping.

The Ontario government has moved swiftly when those affected by a business closing are influential, well-paid and high-profile people. Let Bob Rae and his government proceed with haste to save the jobs of the folks who work in Fort Erie, and at the same time save a sport which has brought pleasure to thousands over the years and put this community on the athletic and tourist map.

ONTARIO VACATION FARM ASSOCIATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): For many weeks now tourists have been encouraged to take breather vacations in Ontario. Breathers are short, relaxing getaways within driving distance of home. I would like to encourage the public and members of this House to enjoy a breather on an Ontario farm this summer.

The Ontario Vacation Farm Association offers a directory of participating farms throughout Ontario. Many are located in Wellington county, as well as many within a short distance from Toronto. Through the Ontario Vacation Farm Association, many farmers have opened their doors to visitors from Ontario and around the world.

Eighty thousand men, women and children live by cultivating the land and raising livestock. The farms vary from dairy and livestock to mixed farms to part-time operations. There is an activity and an interest for everyone. You can enjoy horseback riding, swimming, fishing, hiking, meeting and learning more about the many animals that live on a farm. Children will delight in watching cows being milked, chickens fed and horses groomed and exercised. You may choose to watch these farm tasks being performed, or become a participant. A farm vacation offers the public a unique opportunity to learn at first hand how the food that appears on their tables is cultivated.

There is a range of accommodations offered, from separate accommodation on the farm to bed and breakfast. Day tours for schools and groups can also be arranged.

I encourage anyone who wants a unique vacation experience to consider heading to the farm this summer.

MARGARET MACKINNON-THROWER

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): On June 11, 1992, the Honourable Shirley Coppen rose in this House on a point of privilege to extend our congratulations to Margaret MacKinnon, the daughter of the member for Lambton, on the occasion of her marriage. That wedding took place in the special care unit at Sarnia's St Joseph's health centre. Today it is with sadness that I rise to advise this House of Margaret's death on Sunday, June 28, 1992, at the St Joseph's health centre.

Margaret was a former social worker and shift supervisor at Blenheim Community Village. She was also known as the story lady by the young people at the Blenheim Public Library. Margaret will also be sadly missed by the Blenheim Girl Guides and members of the Sarnia Little Theatre.

Margaret was a compassionate, courageous woman who gave unselfishly of herself to others in thought, word and deed. I knew Margaret personally and I must say that I have never known anyone who demonstrated the courage and love of life she had, even in her battle with cancer.

In spite of whatever misfortunes came her way, Margaret's first thought was for others and what she could do for them, not herself. Margaret fought bravely to the end and her dignity, grace and honour throughout her battle and indeed her life will sustain us all.

I extend my sincere condolences to her husband, Doug Thrower, and to Margaret's mother and my colleague Ellen MacKinnon. My deepest sympathies to the entire MacKinnon family. I share in their sadness today on the loss of their loved one, Margaret.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Last Thursday the member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara, and the member for Eglinton, Ms Poole, raised a point of order concerning a notice filed with the table the previous day. The member for York Centre informed the House that government notice of motion 11, appearing in Thursday's Orders and Notices and business paper, may not have been filed before 5 pm the previous day as required by standing order 51.

I have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the tabling of the notice, the Orders and Notices paper, and Hansard for Thursday and the practices and procedures followed in this and other jurisdictions concerning notices.

Let me say at the outset that our practice concerning notices is similar to that in other parliamentary jurisdictions where the Speaker determines whether notice provisions have been complied with. Thus, the 21st edition of Erskine May states at pages 329 and 330 that the practice at Westminster is that, "If an objection is raised to a notice of motion upon the notice paper, it is for the Speaker to decide upon its regularity...." In Ottawa, the 1989 edition of the annotated standing orders of the House of Commons indicates the following at page 190, "Once tabled or filed, each notice is examined for any irregularities by the Clerk, under the Speaker's authority, who in consultation with the sponsoring member may amend it in form and content."

Therefore, as I indicated on Thursday, the notice in question did comply with standing order 51.

1350

The member for York Centre also indicated that the table would not provide him with a copy of the notice in question when he requested one after 5 pm. The general practice, both here and in Ottawa, is that such notices are kept in confidence until they can be made available to all members simultaneously through the next day's Orders and Notices paper.

In closing, then, I have found nothing untoward in what transpired, but I do appreciate the concerns expressed both by the member for York Centre and his colleague the member for Eglinton.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: First of all, I want to thank you for your ruling. I would point out that I did raise another question in my point of order the other day, and that was as to how an individual member of this Parliament might individually and independently verify that such notice had been filed. I'll leave that perhaps to a further comment from you in due course after you've been able to further examine the rules.

The point of order I raise today is simply this: I submit to you that this Parliament can get along without most of its members; indeed the standing orders provide that only 20 are needed to hold a quorum. The Parliament can probably get along just fine without the security guards most days because on most days there are no incidents whatever requiring security guards. The Parliament could probably get along without our friends at Hansard because most of what the government says is either irrelevant or immaterial to the issues of the day; they make most of their announcements outside the House in any event.

The Parliament could get along without the Sergeant at Arms, I say to the Sergeant at Arms as he shakes his head, because most days there is no need to sword anyone or throw anyone out. I would submit to you that the Parliament could almost get along without table officers on most occasions. The Parliament can get along without the Speaker because as soon as you leave the chair, one other of us replaces you in the chair.

I simply submit to you that Parliament, this Legislature, cannot get along without pages, and I'm wondering why, if the government has determined we are going to sit through the months of July and August, it couldn't have simply advised you so you could organize your affairs to provide pages, particularly in this summer of unemployment when literally thousands and thousands of young people would have been perfectly willing to assist us in making sure this Parliament functions during July and August.

The Speaker: While I appreciate some of what the member has raised, I must take exception with him when he refers to the table officers and the Sergeant at Arms and all of the other people who assist the chamber. With respect to the pages, the member may know that under the standing orders we were to rise Thursday last. There were only two ways in which this place would be recalled, one of which was to include further sittings as part of a motion, which was indeed passed by the House. Not until that became evident was it possible for the Speaker to try and make arrangements for pages. It was not possible, in practical terms, to arrange to have pages here for today or tomorrow, but should this House determine that it will sit the following week, indeed there will be pages here for the weeks of July 6 and, if needed, the 13th. Your Speaker has attended to that.

If I could address the member's first point with respect to notification of notices, the verification is, as I stated, through the Clerk and the Speaker, and that's surely all that is required.

Finally I might make quick mention before continuing that I wish to express my appreciation to the member for Mississauga South, who most ably assisted the Speaker by assuming the duties of the Chair for a considerable length of time on Thursday and did a first-rate job. I appreciate her assistance.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOBS ONTARIO CAPITAL / BOULOT ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr Speaker, last week five of my cabinet colleagues made the first of a series of announcements under Jobs Ontario Capital, a five-year, $2.3-billion capital program to support jobs and economic restructuring and to promote community and social progress.

Today I want to tell the House how Jobs Ontario Capital will be used to invest in the strengths of our post-secondary institutions.

Aujourd'hui, je désire expliquer à l'Assemblée comment le programme boulot Ontario Construction va servir à investir dans nos établissements d'enseignement postsecondaire.

As everyone knows, Mr Speaker, these institutions, our colleges and universities, are at the forefront of research and development and skills training. They are at the heart of what defines the economic character and economic prosperity of the entire province. All of us in this chamber also recognize the important contribution our post-secondary institutions make to the local economies of the communities where we live.

By strategically investing in the renewal and the new development of college and university facilities through Jobs Ontario Capital, we are laying the foundations that will support the province's transition to a more productive, knowledge-based economy in the future.

Nous donnons, d'une part, un coup de main immédiat à l'Ontario et, d'autre part, nous posons les fondations sur lesquelles s'appuiera la transition de la province vers une économie plus productive et davantage fondée sur les connaissances.

That is why I take great pleasure in announcing that through Jobs Ontario Capital, the province will make strategic investments in our college and university infrastructure, for a total of $62.9 million over the next three years. We shall be investing $24.8 million this year, $35.5 million next year and $2.6 million in 1994-95 as the program winds down.

Nine projects, all proposed by colleges and universities, will receive funding from Jobs Ontario Capital. These projects will begin immediately. Not only do these projects represent a significant investment for many communities served by our colleges and universities, but they will create 446 person-years of employment.

Ces projets représentent des investissements importants pour les nombreuses collectivités desservies par nos collèges et nos universités. En outre, ils permettront d'y créer 446 années-personnes d'emploi.

This morning in London, at the University of Western Ontario, I announced the first project receiving funding through Jobs Ontario Capital. Western will receive $5.5 million to renew and improve, among other things, facilities housing its fibre optic network in the natural sciences centre. It will also develop a new medical resource centre to help undergraduate medical students cope with a rapidly changing curriculum through the use of computer technology.

During the next two weeks, my colleagues and I will be announcing the eight remaining projects in the post-secondary sector that are receiving funding through the Jobs Ontario Capital initiative.

I want to point out that the investment in the strategic infrastructure of our colleges and universities through Jobs Ontario Capital is in addition -- I repeat, in addition -- to the $100 million of regular capital allocated to post-secondary institutions and announced by the Treasurer in the 1992-93 budget. It is in addition to the regular capital allocation because this is strategic capital.

Il s'agit d'une subvention de mobilisation stratégique.

This is capital we are investing in our colleges and universities because this government is keenly aware of the role that education and training play in Ontario's present and future, capital that will create facilities to help our colleges and universities anticipate and respond to the rapidly changing needs in education and training.

This is an investment that will create jobs immediately and contribute to the strengthening of the provincial economy in the years to come.

1400

UTILITIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Hon Brian A. Charlton (acting Minister of Energy): I'm pleased to tell the House that this morning at the University of Toronto, I launched a part of the government's $2.3-billion Jobs Ontario Capital program that is being sponsored by the Ministry of Energy. The new utilities management program will create jobs by working with Ontario Hydro to accelerate the pace of energy and water conservation retrofits by public institutions. Ontario's public institutions spend about $1 billion a year for energy. About 20%, or $200 million a year, could be saved by upgrading facilities and practising sound energy management. That kind of savings benefits all of us.

The utilities management program will provide $17 million over three years to help municipalities, universities, hospitals and similar public institutions realize those savings. In the first year the program is expected to create the equivalent of 150 direct, full-time jobs. It will also encourage worker training and acquisition of new skills and energy efficiency.

I am pleased to note that the program will affect the wide range of jobs beyond those direct jobs directly employing engineers, designers, technicians, project managers, plumbers, pipefitters and sheetmetal workers. Indirectly it will employ those involved in making lighting equipment, motors, pipes, heat exchangers, ventilation ducts, insulation and many other kinds of equipment. More jobs will be created to transport and handle those products.

As my colleague Treasurer Floyd Laughren said a week ago when announcing the Jobs Ontario Capital spending plans, the massive restructuring taking place in Ontario's economy gives Ontario the opportunity to lead the way in investing in projects that will, in effect, support a new emerging economy.

The Ministry of Energy, in partnership with Ontario Hydro, intends to ensure the energy sector meets that challenge. To qualify for the utilities management program, clients must have an annual energy bill of at least $100,000. Eligible activities will include project management, including program development, utility bill analysis and reporting, facility energy efficiency improvement and water consumption reduction studies, energy efficiency and water consumption reduction retrofit projects that will pay back their cost within eight years, and fuel substitution, including the use of renewable energy.

As well the program funding could support such things as preparing facility operating and maintenance manuals, staff training and effective facility operations maintenance, and resource conservation practices.

Finally, program funds could lower heating and cooling bills through insulating, window and door improvements, caulking, weather-stripping and upgrading of basic equipment.

Under the utilities management program, participant firms can receive a grant of up to $500,000 based on eligible project costs. An additional benefit will be to help institutions that have had to postpone maintenance. The economic climate makes it difficult, for example, to do routine maintenance. Energy management activities will help to tackle this backlog. It will make it possible to replace older equipment like boilers with new high-efficiency ones.

The utilities management program will be a partner with Ontario Hydro in funding energy and water conservation feasibility studies. Ontario Hydro funding will continue to be available for electrical efficiency measures.

Together with the other stimulus that Jobs Ontario Capital funding will provide, it will help us surmount the serious economic challenges we are facing today.

RESPONSES

UTILITIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): In relation to the Minister of Energy's announcement, let me begin by thanking him for reannouncing this in the House. I was unable to attend at the University of Toronto this morning when the announcement was originally made, and I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that some of us here in the House have a passing interest in matters related to energy in Ontario.

Let me also say that any initiative which intends to create jobs and conserve energy in this province is laudable, but we have some concerns. First, we are told that this initiative is going to involve the expenditure of some $17 million over three years. Our concern is that this expenditure incorporates the practices so far taken by Ontario Hydro to spend money in such a way that it has led to the Ontario Energy Board criticizing it for introducing demand management programs which are simply not cost-effective and are on the whole ill-advised. What we're talking about here is expenditures for -- I guess we could call it short-term pain for long-term pain.

Recently we were advised by the evidence introduced at an Ontario Energy Board hearing that the energy conservation programs being undertaken by Ontario Hydro will have a net cost of $2 billion over four years. An example of that kind of expenditure is highlighted in the lightbulb program.

The other concern we have related to this is that we're talking about the creation here of some 150 full-time jobs. The creation of any number of jobs is never anything to sneeze at, but we have to keep a perspective on this matter. In March in this province we lost 45,000 jobs. That's more than 1,000 a day. Viewed in that context, 150 is really but a drop in the bucket.

The other concern we have is that there is a cutoff point for getting involved in or taking advantage of this program. You've got to have an energy bill of at least $100,000. What about all the home owners in this province? What about the small businesses that are staring in the face of an 11.9% increase in their hydro rates this year? They're looking at at least 9% next year, and inflation is less than 2%.

The other concern we have with respect to this announcement relates to its reference to a fuel-substitution program. As a result of the hearings we had on Bill 118 many people are concerned about a consultation process which this minister is presumably going to undertake to ensure that consumers, Hydro, utilities, alternative fuel suppliers and environmental groups have some input into what we're going to be doing in terms of fuel substitution.

JOBS ONTARIO CAPITAL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise to speak to the announcement made by the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I would like to say to the minister that, at first blush, we welcome this announcement. Indeed, any money that goes into capital is welcome, but in reading through this I'm taken back to George Orwell and the way in which words are brought together to distinguish exactly what is going on here. In the budget, as I go back, some $199 million was spent last year on university and college capital. This year only $100 million has been put forward. Even if we add in the $24.8 million that has been referred to here, we're looking at $75 million less than was expended last year.

I think there is a need on the part of the government to be straightforward and upfront and simply note that we are spending far less money on capital, colleges and universities, then we spent last year. That is not clear from reading this statement, which would seem to suggest that something wonderful and marvellous is going on, and that is simply not the case.

I would also note that one of the ongoing problems with capital dollars is what operating expenses are then caused by the infusion of those capital dollars. Given this government's transfer payments, how are we going to be sure that whatever new structures are built, the demands and needs for new employees or for changing what it is people are doing in the university sector, will find operating dollars as well to go with those capital dollars?

We know for example that York University just this week announced it will be taking many fewer students this year. So we also have to question: If there are dollars available, should they be spent more in the area of ensuring that students can attend university and college?

Finally, I want to stress again what my colleague did: that we're looking at 33,000 fewer people working in the construction industry in May 1992 over May 1991. These dollars are not going to see a tremendous growth in construction. There is real unemployment of 25% in construction. This announcement simply doesn't go far enough.

1410

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm responding to the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities and I'd like to begin in this regard.

Certainly we're appreciative of any money that's spent on the universities with regard to targeted funding, job creation and skills development, but one thing you should know, Mr Speaker, is that we feel very strongly in this party that long-term job creation is there because of private investment by the private sector. That is what we need to do.

The announcement today is part of the normal capital funding, with the targeting sector advisedly added, but in real dollars, the Liberals in their last four years in office spent about $110 million. To give this government credit, it is passing that particular record of the Liberal government. In fact, over the next three years it will be averaging something like $120 million or perhaps even a bit more than that. They're keeping the same track record the Liberals had.

I should remind the minister that this party built the colleges and universities in Ontario. We expected that they would be supported. What the universities really need is a long-term plan for reinvestment, rejuvenation and ongoing support for the most important institutions when it comes to training our young people so that Ontario and, more important, Canada, can be competitive.

I think it's very important for the government to note the two major disincentives to investment in Ontario right now. First of all, later today we're going to be looking at the tabling of Bill 40, the labour laws, which, no matter what the government says, have sent out the wrong message to investors in Ontario, as we watch our companies slowly dismantle and leave. The second one is the same track record the Liberal government left us with: increased taxes, probably the jurisdiction of highest taxation in North America.

If you look at the announcement today, we have to keep in mind the two major problems in Ontario: that the taxes are too high and that we're now looking at unnecessary labour laws.

The nine projects: Of course I'm thrilled to stand here and say thank you on behalf of the University of Western Ontario. I would remind the minister that we probably should remember that we have 39 post-secondary institutions. There are some that will be somewhat disappointed, but the fact that we've targeted training and skills development and high tech is extremely important in this announcement.

Finally, I agree with the minister when he talks about, as did the Alliance for Ontario Universities, the universities in Ontario pumping some $6.2 billion into our economy. The province of Ontario pumps in some $1.9 billion. If we take a look at that with regard to real commitment and job creation, we should be crediting the universities. For every $1 that the province spends, in fact $3 are generated by the universities.

Not to be too upset by the outburst of the member for St Catharines, I think one has to give credit where credit is due. We do appreciate the fact that we're beginning to support the institutions that are so important, but I'll underline that what we really need is a long-term plan for the universities in Ontario.

UTILITIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Energy, who announced today, I believe, about $6 million a year that his ministry will be spending for our institutions in Ontario. Just to put it into perspective, it is old money, as is stated by the Liberals, who started a lot of these spending programs that led to the biggest tax hikes in the history of Ontario. That old money and that spending by the some 10,000 civil servants the Liberals added is what has kept our tax rates the highest.

I just want to point out that $500,000 a project means that of the thousands of Ontario institutions this program has the potential to help 11 or 12 of them. I also want to say that if this government and Mr Eliesen and the Minister of Energy would recognize that the high rates at Ontario Hydro and the high taxes designed for the programs are killing far more jobs than you could possibly create with your public sector spending programs, then indeed lowering taxes, taking a look at Hydro's expenses, is what you should be doing instead of figuring out how much more money you can spend.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. We were all shocked, although perhaps not overly surprised, to learn that the Art Gallery of Ontario would be closing for seven months. Surely we are all aware of the economic and cultural importance of the Art Gallery of Ontario.

We also know, despite the seeming lack of information of the Minister of Tourism on this subject last week, that the art gallery has over 500,000 visitors a year and generates over $30-million in spinoff tourism for the city of Toronto. What we don't know is why the Minister of Culture and Communications has allowed the firing of 250 gallery staff and the closing of this gallery for at least seven months, including the period of what would normally be the lucrative summer season.

Last week the minister implied that it was the fiscal irresponsibility of the gallery's board which has led to this crisis. Can the minister confirm that she feels the Art Gallery of Ontario has been fiscally irresponsible, and if so, what inefficiencies in the art gallery's operation has she been able to identify?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I have never indicated that they are fiscally irresponsible. I have indicated that the government will not be there with bailouts. Last year there was a one-time bailout of $4 million. I have simply asked the art gallery to stay within its budget, that there will be no bailouts. This is a business decision made by the board. It is a first step in them coming to terms with living within their budget.

Mrs McLeod: I find the minister's position on this situation rather interesting, because on the one hand, as she's just said, she is not suggesting that the board has been fiscally irresponsible, yet she has expected it to live within a budget which clearly it has not been able to live within. On the other hand, she is personally now in the process of choosing members for a task force which will cost at least $200,000 of taxpayers' money, for the purpose apparently of examining the operations of the gallery and the makeup of its board.

Can the minister tell this House, if she believes that the Art Gallery of Ontario has indeed acted in a fiscally responsible manner, why she is personally setting up this task force at a budgeted cost of over $200,000 in taxpayers' money. Is this government now about to restructure the Art Gallery of Ontario in a way that fits its view of what the art gallery should be, and if so, can the minister tell us what this Art Gallery of Ontario should look like or will look like when she's finished?

Hon Mrs Haslam: The task force will be reporting to the board and to myself and it will examine the structure, the size, the representation and the exercise of authority by the AGO board. This offers them an opportunity to look at restructuring so that they can live within their budget.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps there is no one who understands the financial crisis of the Art Gallery of Ontario better than the staff and the management. These are the same people who in May 1992 voluntarily took a 20% wage cutback to help keep the gallery afloat. Clearly the management and the staff of the Art Gallery of Ontario have been doing everything they feel they can to manage the challenges, with virtually no assistance from this ministry.

The minister has said in the past that she cannot assist because the Art Gallery of Ontario is an arm's-length institution, yet at the moment at which this art gallery closes for seven months, the minister has no hesitation in stepping in with a handpicked $200,000 task force to look at the operations of the Art Gallery of Ontario.

I was somewhat dismayed to read the minister's comments in a radio program on the CBC last Thursday night in which she said she was pleased the art gallery staff would be willing to work with the government "so that we can restructure them" -- and that is a direct quote -- "and so that they can look to the future to living within their budgets and being accountable."

I would ask this minister if it is not true that because of her government's ideological need to restructure the Art Gallery of Ontario she has not only welcomed its closure, she has waited for it and perhaps even forced it to happen.

Hon Mrs Haslam: That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard her say. I would never welcome the closure of the Ontario art gallery. This government gives over $9.5 million to be sure the Ontario art gallery is there. This is a decision by the board, something it had to do to take a look at how it can live within its budget.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I am very supportive of the Ontario art gallery. I am well aware of what they do for the community around the art gallery and for those galleries all over Ontario. I am pleased to be working with them. I am not going to tell the task force what to do. The task force is going to look at the structure of the Ontario art gallery. They will be reporting to the board; they will be reporting to me; this is a first step in their process to restructure to live within their budgets.

Mrs McLeod: After seven months of being closed, it will be interesting to see how they continue to operate as an arm's-length institution.

1420

ONTARIO HYDRO SALARIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Energy. This minister is certainly well aware, as I would think all members of his government are, that publicly funded institutions throughout the province have been coping with severe financial restraints and that staff in many publicly funded institutions have in fact been accepting minimal wage increases and, in many cases, even wage cutbacks. That's certainly the case for the Art Gallery of Ontario staff as they struggle to cope with their particular financial challenges.

In light of the extreme financial constraints being faced by public sector institutions across the province -- restraints that we know are being made necessary by the very severe economic difficulty this province is experiencing -- would the Minister of Energy confirm that the chairman of Ontario Hydro is considering additional merit pay bonuses for Hydro staff? Does he not consider this somewhat incomprehensible, given the economic situation of this province and the restraint facing other institutions? Can he comment about his own concern as to how such additional pay increases might affect already spiralling hydro costs?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (acting Minister of Energy): Can I confirm what the chairman of Hydro is thinking? No, I don't profess to be a mindreader.

Having said that, I remind the leader of the official opposition that for the first time in Ontario's history we've taken an action which, when she was Minister of Energy, she didn't see fit to take. We've referred the entire remuneration structure of Ontario Hydro's board and senior officials to the Ontario Energy Board for some objective review and comment. I don't intend to allow anything untoward to happen until such time as we've seen that report and can hear some objective comment.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): What we have for the first time is an NDP friend appointed not just as chairman but as chief executive officer at the salary, for his political service in the past, of $260,000 a year at the very time when people are struggling all across the province. Bob Rae saw to it that his good friend, the well-known New Democrat, was appointed to a salary of $260,000 a year, and what we had on Friday afternoon last week was the spectacle of the Premier's quarter-of-a-million-dollar-a-year friend, Mr Eliesen, telling the energy board that he was actively considering bonusing himself and other senior members of the Hydro management staff.

Will the Minister of Energy stand in his place and indicate that as Minister of Energy, now empowered with Bill 118, the principles of which are more openness and more accountability; will the Minister of Energy give this House his assurance that he and his government will issue a directive to Ontario Hydro that Mr Marc Eliesen will get not a cent more than the $260,000 he's already earning and that he will not be eligible for any kind of executive bonus?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The question that comes from the member for Renfrew North is a slight bit cheeky. The member knows full well that this government has already taken significant action in terms of the salary of the chairman, as compared to what the predecessor administration allowed to occur in this province. But having said that, as I've already said, for the first time in this province's history we're taking a look at that whole package of executive salaries over there. What the chairman of Ontario Hydro may want is not necessarily what the chairman of Ontario Hydro is going to get. We've set up a process that will allow us to make some useful decisions that the previous government just totally ducked.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Conway: There are millions of Hydro ratepayers across the province who are outraged at the idea that they're going to be stung again next year with something in the range of a 9% to 10% increase on their hydro rates. The taxpayers of Ontario are outraged that Bob Rae took Ed Broadbent's former director of research and gave him a job of $400,000 a year, and when he was found out he offered a rollback to give this good NDP friend a salary now of only $260,000 a year. Last Friday afternoon Mr Rae's good friend Marc Eliesen went to the Ontario Energy Board and suggested that in fact he might also be entitled to some kind of a bonus beyond his obscene salary of $260,000 given his past executive experience.

I repeat, as the new government has a new energy policy, the hallmarks of which are openness and accountability, and as the cabinet now has the power to issue directives, I again ask the Minister of Energy, will he stand in his place in light of this kind of testimony offered last Friday afternoon by Mr Eliesen, and will the Minister of Energy promise the House and the Hydro ratepayers that in the very next little while he will issue a directive to the board of Ontario Hydro that Mr Eliesen will be ineligible for any kind of bonus so that his salary will not be a cent more than the obscene $260,000 it already is?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member for Renfrew North is good at spinning the rhetoric but not very good at remembering some historical facts. First of all, let me say that this minister does not concur or agree in any way, shape or form with the comments that the chairman of Ontario Hydro made at the OEB hearing on Friday. Second, in the context of the comments just made by the member for Renfrew North, he should remember that the chairman of Ontario Hydro is making less than half his predecessor's salary as set up by the former administration, and that Mr Eliesen was not stolen from Ed Broadbent's staff by Bob Rae. It was in fact by David Peterson, presumably with the concurrence of the then Minister of Energy, that Mr Eliesen was brought from Ottawa to Toronto.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am asking the member for Renfrew North to take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party, new question.

1430

Mr Harris: Instead of arguing about whether the Liberals or the NDP paid more for what type of competent people, I wonder if we could bring this question back to the debate that is relevant today.

Today, Mr Minister of Energy, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of people out of work. Hydro rates are going up three, four, five, six times the rate of inflation. These hydro increases are scaring away investment and pushing other companies into bankruptcy. Aside from the fact that Marc Eliesen, a friend of the Premier, happens to be in the top position, will you dismiss out of hand today any suggestion that there should be a bonus paid to Mr Eliesen and state categorically as the Minister of Energy that no bonus will be paid in the future to Mr Eliesen?

Hon Mr Charlton: I think perhaps the leader of the third party should from time to time pay attention to the questions and answers from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Why don't you just say yes and sit down then?

Hon Mr Charlton: I just did.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You didn't even know the answer, you buffoon.

The Speaker: Would the leader take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Language which is insulting is not parliamentary. I would ask the member for Etobicoke West to withdraw.

Mr Stockwell: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Harris: At a time when Ontario consumers are facing some 20% increase in rates over the next two years, Marc Eliesen has the nerve to try to further pad his own pocket. Minister, we all know that he makes $260,000 a year, that he negotiated a cushy pension package, that he has a driver and two cars, that he has a home security system and financial counselling, and now he wants a bonus.

Minister, when you read this, surely you were just as appalled as all of us were in this House, as your colleagues were, as every Ontarian was, particularly power consumers. In spite of the fact that Mr Eliesen just signed a five-year, no-cut contract extended by the Premier, could you not tell us that you were as appalled as we were and that you as Minister of Energy called your friend Marc Eliesen, told him you were appalled and that in spite of that contract, any further discussion in public at this time and in this recession will be cause for dismissal for the head of Ontario Hydro here in this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: I'm not personally aware of anybody who has ever been dismissed for being honest and straightforward. Having said that, I will repeat what I've said here in this House this afternoon.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: This government will not accept, this minister does not accept, any form of bonusing. I've already said that and said it clearly.

Mr Stockwell: You didn't say that when you answered the first question.

Mr Harris: You didn't.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, there are some members on the other side of the House who perhaps need to check their ears a little. I've said that and said it clearly. But at the same time, the leader of the third party has a responsibility to this House and to the people of this province to stop his continuing use of myth around a number of issues he's raised in the preamble to his last question, like the pension one, that has been fully and firmly resolved in this House. That myth should not continue to be used.

Mr Harris: To clarify the first five questions that have been asked on this, I gather the minister is saying it's counter to his government's policy for bonusing to be discussed by deputy ministers, by civil servants and presumably by the chairman of Ontario Hydro. On that basis, I would assume he will be reprimanded and that it would be cause for dismissal if he carried on. If that is the case, I don't know why the minister doesn't just say that. Mr Eliesen says he believes in the profit motive and sees it in the private sector. Let me give you a suggestion that you can take to Mr Eliesen.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't find the term "check their ears" acceptable. I'd ask the minister to withdraw the comment, please.

The Speaker: While not unparliamentary language, in the past we have always indicated that if something is said which offends any member of the House, there is a request that the member withdraw, and I would ask the member if he would consider.

Hon Mr Charlton: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr Harris: I have a suggestion for you, as Marc Eliesen wants a private sector-type incentive. We all know that in the private sector there are sometimes bonus incentives for a better bottom line and that there are disincentives from time to time as well. I would ask the minister if he'd take this to Mr Eliesen: For every percentage point that hydro rates come in below inflation Mr Eliesen will get a 10% bonus on top of his $260,000-a-year salary -- I think all hydro consumers would be happy to pay it -- and for every percentage point that hydro rates come in above inflation Mr Eliesen loses 10% of his $260,000-a-year salary.

Mr Minister, since he wants an incentive, a performance bonus, will you then agree to offer Mr Eliesen this package of incentives in the spirit of cooperation, to give you a positive suggestion that might benefit the hydro consumers of this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: Perhaps the kind of incentive program the leader of the third party is talking about might be better framed in this fashion: that for every percentage point Mr Eliesen and Ontario Hydro can come in below inflation, the leader of the third party and the leader of the official opposition will avoid penalty, but for every percentage point above inflation that the hydro rate comes in we should penalize those who made the decisions that caused the problem, because the problem in terms of the rate increases is Darlington, a decision made by the former Conservative administration and a decision that was thoroughly reviewed in 1986 and sustained by the Liberal opposition, the then government.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This question is for the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and the Minister of the Environment. I preface this question with the fact that York region has found a flaw in Bill 143 so large that it could commence a legal challenge against the bill that will greatly change the intention the minister has had up until now. I am most grateful for the fact that York region has done its homework and is ready to do something of this nature.

It's a very serious bill, and they have found such a loophole that you could drive a garbage truck through it. Indeed, I would like to ask the minister if she's had a chance, in light of the fact that it's no secret that York region is going to be doing this -- in section 15 of the bill, there is a section which is very permissive in nature which says the environmental assessment for a landfill site is "not required to contain" other options. If in fact this bill were to have the strength and teeth that maybe you wanted it to have, it would have said they "will not be permitted to contain" other options.

But inasmuch as the bill itself is in such an open way that it says "not required to contain" other options, such as rail haul options, such as incineration, it means that York region in approaching the Interim Waste Authority will now be in a position to ask the Interim Waste Authority to consider other options than just the 57 sites --

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

1440

Mr Cousens: -- that have been selected for Markham for York region, Durham and Peel.

Inasmuch as the Interim Waste Authority can now look at other options than just the ones that have been before it, will you encourage the Interim Waste Authority to look at all the options to dispose of Metro's and the region's waste?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): The member says that York region can now look at options other than waste reduction and landfills. His premise for making that statement is that lawyers for York region have found some flaw in Bill 143. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of any court cases being launched, and if there were, I would not comment on it.

Let me say to the member that the policy of this government is very clear: The options for waste management within the greater Toronto area and indeed within the province of Ontario are to do as much as we possibly can to both reduce the amount of waste that is generated, to increase the amount that is reused and recycled, and to find safe landfill sites for the remainder.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Cousens: No, there's no court case yet. In fact, what I'd like to see this government do is become capable of working out a problem before we spend taxpayers' money from York and from the province in a costly legal entanglement. I don't want that, but what I'm seeing here and what anyone can see is that section 15 of this bill is very permissive. It means that the Interim Waste Authority is not "required" to look at other options; the Interim Waste Authority could then look at other options such as rail haul or incineration or other places.

All I'm really asking this minister is whether she would like to begin the process with the region so we don't have that expensive legal court battle, a war between my region and the government. You've already got one, but let's try to handle things in a way that you don't have to have such a legal battle going.

Based on the fact that this bill does have a flaw -- you will see the flaw; you're going to hear about the flaw -- rather than spend the summer in court, would you be in a position now to begin to look very seriously at this flaw and begin friendly negotiations between the region of York and the province of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me assure the member that I certainly have no desire to involve the government or the region of York in legal challenges or court cases. That is certainly not my intent. My intent is to try to resolve a problem that has been outstanding for the last decade, ie, how to establish a comprehensive waste management system for the four million people who live within the greater Toronto area.

The member persists in saying that there is a flaw in Bill 143. I would remind the member that there were four or five weeks of hearings into Bill 143, innumerable legal opinions on Bill 143, and if there was in fact a flaw in that legislation, I'm quite sure that many of the people who reviewed it during those hearings, during the debate, would have revealed it.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Cousens: It just goes to show, if you think you've got a perfect law, the fact of the matter is that you may well not. The evidence before us now by virtue of section 15 and the permissive nature of that really opens up the whole question, and the question could be handled very easily by this government if it were willing to listen and willing to act.

There has not been a landfill site placed in the shadow of a large urban municipality in North America within the last 10 years, and we are about to have at least three of them; you name it, if you can name any large urban municipalities that have had a large landfill site placed as close to them as you're now talking about in York, Durham and Peel.

There's no logic to what you're doing to Metro Toronto. There is no logic in using environmentally sensitive lands. There is no logic in having 500 trucks trucking their garbage -- our garbage -- through these communities if you don't look at all the options.

All I'm asking the minister to do is to carefully and sincerely, without having a court battle, without going to court, to try to work something out with York region so we can have the Interim Waste Authority look at all options, which could then be the incineration of waste or rail-hauling it. Will you look at the options with York region and save the costs of a legal battle for the province of Ontario and the people of York?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member is, as sometimes happens, I think not quite right in his facts. There is in fact a waste management site opening up in Halton in the shadow of an urban area within the GTA. The previous government found two sites, just miraculously found a site in Brampton and a site in Whitevale, and said they were suitable for garbage. The problem was that those sites were not found on an environmentally sound basis --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and were not, in the case of the Whitevale and Brampton ones, submitted to an Environmental Assessment Board.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: The tenor of the member's arguments is designed to ship the GTA waste to northern Ontario. That's what he wants, that's what his party wants and that is not the policy of this government.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour introduced amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act over a month ago, but delayed the release of the task force that examined the agricultural implications of those proposals until last Friday. That report states that for farmers the single most critical issue is the threat of work stoppage, and the report goes on to recommend that separate agricultural labour legislation be developed by the continuation of the task force.

The minister, to the best of my knowledge, has refused to commit to any policy on agriculture labour reforms until the report was released. I would ask the Minister of Labour whether he will now indicate whether his government will implement the task force recommendations to abandon the new agriculture inclusions in his recent amendments and instead develop separate agricultural labour legislation.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I can tell the leader of the official opposition that we will continue consulting. The committee is to continue consulting in terms of the agricultural community. We have indicated very clearly that we support most of the recommendations they've made. We want to do some further consultation on one of them and that's exactly the position of this party.

Mrs McLeod: I'm still seeking the commitment from the minister, who it seems has been very supportive of the report's recommendations in his meeting with farm groups behind closed doors but still refuses to take a clear public position. The minister is refusing to announce the government's policy on separate agriculture labour legislation, but at the same time the government is moving to second reading of the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments.

The minister is well aware that the proposals that will come before this House for debate include a very significant provision that will affect the agriculture industry and agricultural workers. I want to read it; it's very brief, "The act applies to a person employed in such class of agricultural or horticultural operations as may be prescribed by regulation."

I would ask this minister why the government is still proceeding with these agricultural provisions in the current bill when the provisions are clearly opposed to the task force recommendations, which he says he is still consulting on, and I would ask the minister to make a commitment today, before the debate on the Labour Relations Act amendments begins, to removing the section of those amendments which allow him to include agricultural workers at some subsequent date by regulation. Will he ensure that all those involved in the agricultural industry in this province will have a full and open opportunity to participate in the development of any legislation which affects them?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. We've had meetings with the agricultural community. They know we are in support of most of the recommendations they've made, indeed almost all of them, but one we have some questions on, and they're going to be consulted with on it before we make any final move. Until we've done that consultation, I'm not prepared to say anything else.

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I'm wondering, if I went very slowly, if this minister could follow my question.

Mr Speaker, in asking this question, through you to the minister, I want her to understand what the Art Gallery of Ontario is all about. I want her to understand why it's there, why it's been managing its own affairs very well for over 100 years at this point, why it has $500 billion worth of work within its walls. It is because the people of Ontario, through their bequests and gifts, have provided that institution with what it now has to share with the rest of Ontario.

I would like this minister, when she answers my question, to understand that the former minister made it very clear in a letter to this board the minister refers to that they would be looking to their long-term financing. He didn't lead them down a garden path and say, "We're not going to bail you out." He cared about the AGO.

If this minister can understand this scenario, can she not understand that it isn't good enough for her to stand in this House today and blame the board for the problems the AGO faces financially, which have a lot to do with her own government's policies and mandated programs?

1450

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): The member has indicated they were looking for long-term solutions, and so am I, and that's why we set up the task force, so that we can find long-term solutions so that short-term solutions of coming for bailouts every year will not continue.

For the member's edification, I would like to remind her that since 1985-86, the art gallery has had over $6.5 million of one-time support. They received additional moneys for capital of over $11 million. This government has been, and will continue to be, very supportive of the Ontario art gallery. I am pleased to see that they're going to be working with us, that we're going to be examining this first step so that they can look at long-term solutions.

Mrs Marland: I guess the problem is that this minister lost in the cabinet sweepstakes at the cabinet table. The problem is that they are faced with this tremendous crisis where they have had no choice but to close down for six months because of programs they could not have any choice about budgeting for: pay equity and the other mandated programs by your government and the previous government; maybe we could even talk about the employer health tax.

Madam Minister, if you're going to stand in this House and simply go over and over these figures, as you have tried to do in answering this question, we feel it's obvious you don't understand that if you'd left the AGO alone, it would have managed its own affairs.

When you read -- and I hope you have read the weekend newspaper -- there's a whole other perspective to this that I'd like you to tell this House about. I'd like you to tell us about the millions and millions of dollars that are going to be lost in tourist dollars because the AGO is closed. Most importantly, I'd like you to answer this statement: "People are finding that spirit less and less as this NDP government seeks to remould all our institutions, from the police to the private sector to the arts, in its own politically correct image." That's the real tragedy. Are you proud of that?

Hon Mrs Haslam: The member is saying that expanding cultural funding to include communities throughout this province, whether they are rural areas or culturally diverse communities, means a descent into mediocrity? I do not agree. As a government we find that offensive and demeaning to the people of Ontario. The excellence of first nations culture, francophone culture, the culture that springs from the communities of colour and from rural Ontario deserves our support and commitment as well as the AGO does.

I have reiterated time and time again that the AGO is an important cultural facility here, that we have supported it with a 12.5% increase to its funding, and I will continue to address other concerns that the AGO has through the task force.

INVESTMENT FUND

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Recently I, like, I know, many of the other members in the peninsula, have received correspondence relating to the proposed Ontario investment fund. My constituents, many of whom contribute to the Ontario municipal employees retirement system plan, as I have done for many years myself, worry that if this investment fund goes ahead, the government will be taking control of their pension money and their life savings could be lost in some risky ventures.

Is the government planning to access this public sector pension money, and if so, what safeguards will there be for my constituents to ensure that their retirement money won't be put into jeopardy?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): Public sector pension funds are only one of a number of large institutional investors being considered as possible participants. The objective of the fund is to achieve a competitive rate of return while producing investment and protecting the principal. The fund will be operational and successful on its own merits and I must stress that participation in the fund will be voluntary.

Ms Haeck: Definitely that goes some way to assuaging the concerns of my constituents.

Interjection.

Ms Haeck: It's true, and I hope you'll actually listen too.

Mr Minister, I know my constituents would be reassured about this whole proposal if there was an opportunity for them to become more involved in the discussions surrounding the organization of this fund. In particular, they're concerned that some trustees might be making some decisions on their behalf. I understand the Ontario investment fund discussion paper is now the subject of consultations, but could you tell me -- and obviously my constituents -- what the process is for determining how this fund will be run, and more important, if and how the public can be more involved and included in this process.

Hon Mr Philip: An advisory committee, with members representing business, labour and the financial communities, is now working with me and the OIF team to develop structures and models and to look at those that have been developed in other jurisdictions. The project team is also doing extensive research on the difficulties the companies are facing, and had been facing under previous governments, in obtaining the kind of investment they need. Consultations are being held with the key stakeholders, the industry sectors and the financial community, and if anyone wishes to make a submission to us, we'll be more than happy to receive it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for York Centre.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, did you not get the distinct impression that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology actually prepared that question for the member for St Catharines-Brock?

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Sorbara: I'm just asking you. That was my question.

The Speaker: I recognized the member to place a question. I invite him now to do so.

Ms Haeck: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The question in fact comes out of a series of meetings I held personally with my constituents, and I really feel that the previous speaker, the member for York Centre I believe is the correct title, is maligning me and my staff.

The Speaker: Just relax. The member for York Centre with his question.

Mr Sorbara: All I can say is, my impressions remain.

1500

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. About a week and a half ago a variety of environmental groups rated the minister's performance at a D. Over the weekend the Toronto Sun was much less kind in rating her performance at an F.

Up in York region the rating is an entirely different matter. There is palpable anger in York region that is bringing people together in groups of five, 10, 500 and 1,000, almost on a nightly basis, to try to undo the damage that the Minister of the Environment has done with Bill 143. Just last week 500 people gathered in Stouffville to begin the organization process to undo this damage.

The questions that remain unanswered and that they continually ask at these meetings are these -- and I want to put these questions once again to the minister: What studies did she do? What assessment did she make? With whom did she consult? On what basis did she make the determination prior to introducing Bill 143 that York region was to be the situs for the garbage of 2.5 million people in Metropolitan Toronto? I ask her not to simply rely on the historical fact --

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

Mr Sorbara: -- that there had been a contract. What studies did she do? With whom did she consult? What kind of environmental assessment did she undertake, and why is it that she decided, after doing whatever she did --

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

Mr Sorbara: -- that Metro garbage is going to go to York region under Bill 143?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): Shortly after I became the minister I was faced with the issue of what to do with waste in the greater Toronto area. As the member will know, this issue has plagued previous governments for quite some time and has had a variety of solutions, none of which has led to any permanent solution. So the decision I was faced with was how best to try to resolve this problem once and for all, knowing full well that nobody is popular who goes seeking a landfill site and certainly that nobody wants a landfill site in their community.

In response to the member's question, let me tell him that I met, either after I was appointed minister or before I became minister, with groups around this province who didn't want landfill sites for GTA waste in their community, groups he is well aware of. I met with many people in both municipal government and non-governmental organizations to discuss the crisis facing the greater Toronto area and I relied on the historic pattern of municipalities and regional municipalities being responsible for waste disposal and historically coming together and making agreements to look after each other's waste.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'd like to ask a supplementary of the Minister of the Environment. I'd like to inquire whether you ever spoke to the farming community, most specifically the Doane family in my riding. They've been farming at Wanless Drive and Heritage Road since 1935. I can remember, from being here in 1985, listening to the marvellous speeches -- not just by the now Minister of the Environment but by everybody; the Premier -- how farm land was so sacred. Minister, how can you possibly have gone through the 1990 campaign and said farm land is sacred and then desecrate it by having one of the locations be a farm that's been in operation since 1935?

Do you not think that's a bit hypocritical? Do you not think that's a total disavowal of all the things you people said you stood for when you were in opposition? The people of Ontario believed you and we now find you're about to just abandon all your principles and do whatever you damn well please. What do I tell the Doane family who have been farming since 1935? Do they just sit there and wait --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary, please.

Mr Callahan: -- and wait and determine whether they're going to be put into a landfill? This is a direct contravention, I suggest, of your past promises. Can you tell the Doanes why their land has been identified as a spot for throwing your garbage and everybody else's garbage?

Hon Mrs Grier: The family the member discusses is one of a number of families who have found that their properties are identified as potential landfill sites within the GTA. There are 57 of them and I know that not one of them wishes to be a landfill site, but I hope the member will tell them that, contrary to the position of other of his constituents in Brampton who were identified by his government as the site for a new landfill without the benefit of an environmental assessment hearing, in fact there will be an environmental assessment. They have an opportunity to discuss the criteria of the Interim Waste Authority --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and that the decision on whether or not their land will become a landfill will be made by the Environmental Assessment Board.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just to register our dissatisfaction with the answer of the Minister of the Environment pursuant to standing order 33(a).

The Speaker: New question?

LAKELANDS TOURISM GROUP

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Twenty days ago I asked the minister why he was refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Lakelands Tourism Group by excluding it from several of the ministry's tourism promotion publications.

What specific actions has the minister taken to ensure that the regions of Bruce, Grey, Muskoka, Simcoe and Dufferin, regions of the province so greatly dependent on tourism for their income, are included in all the government's tourism promotion programs?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I answered the question 20 days ago, but I'll continue to try to make clarification for the member across the floor.

We've included the area that he speaks of in a number of different advertisements that have gone out across the province. As a matter of fact, I saw some correspondence from a person who was not from this particular country but from another country and said they had seen an advertisement concerning the Wasaga Beach area as far away as Spain.

I can assure the member that if he's had an opportunity to speak to the person we consider to be the mayor of Wasaga Beach, I recently had a phone call from that particular gentleman. He said he was very pleased with the efforts of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation in that particular area and thought we were doing what he would call "a bang-up job."

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I find that answer very interesting, since I live at Wasaga Beach.

My constituents find it disturbing that after my colleague the member for Wellington and I raised this issue in the Legislature some three weeks ago, you and your ministry are continuing to ignore the Lakelands Tourism Group. Just to prove the point, Minister, here's a quote from the June 21 edition of the Huronia Sunday newspaper:

"According to a counsellor at the 1-800-ONTARIO number, the Lakelands Tourism Group, which represents tourism associations in Huronia, the Georgian triangle, Grey-Bruce and Muskoka, doesn't exist. 'We don't have a listing for the Lakelands Tourism Group,' a counsellor told this reporter Friday afternoon."

Minister, if you're going to receive more than a D on your ministerial report card, I would suggest that you put your petty differences aside and provide the public with accurate information about the Lakelands Tourism Group and the tourism associations it represents. Given your track record to date, I have to ask why you persist in treating the Lakelands Tourism Group so unfairly.

Hon Mr North: I appreciate the tag-team efforts of our members across the floor. Once again, another 20 days have passed and they're asking virtually the same questions they've asked in the past. I tried to explain the answer to the members very clearly the last time, and again the member across the floor explains to me that he is from Wasaga Beach.

We have some strong advertisements that the member has probably seen from the Wasaga Beach area that speak of Wasaga Beach in a very integral way. Naturally, anyone would advocate for their particular part of the province, which they want to be flourishing in the tourism sector. As I've said in the past, we have no beef with the Lakelands Tourism Group. They've chosen, for whatever reasons, to not be a part of the Ontario travel association program. We've continued to work with this particular area to try to develop a relationship that has been there in the past and we hope will be there in the future.

The member across the floor speaks of a certain grade in a certain newspaper, and that's his business to do so. I don't think you work as a minister of the crown based on a grading system in any way. If he feels that way, then perhaps at some time he may have an opportunity to be graded himself.

1510

CASINOS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and it's about casinos. The whole province is abuzz since the budget speech with this whole prospect of casinos. At the same time people are incredibly concerned because there are pros and there are cons. People want to know, for instance, what's been happening since the announcement was made. What contact has been made with the federal government to talk about Criminal Code changes? Who are the target groups in terms of whom we expect to draw to these casinos if they're created? And, really, what are we building? Are we building government-run bingo parlours or are we inviting the private sector to participate in a joint effort?

The people of this province, the ones who have been talking to me, would dearly like to know exactly what's been happening in terms of planning, presumably through this ministry, since the announcement. How many people are working on this project? How many people from the private sector are being brought in to share in the decision-making? How many people are being brought in from groups like the Ontario Restaurant Association to help engage in planning and development? Perhaps an updating at this point would be very welcome.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As people here know, cabinet has approved the establishment of a special project team to deal with these kinds of questions and many others. I think the member today raised a lot of the issues that we need to look into. The project team indeed will be looking at those very issues and others. We're in the process of setting up this project team now, and hopefully it will be up and running by mid- to late July. I'll be able to give you more answers at that time about where we're going with this.

Mr Kormos: The minister was at the NDP convention in Hamilton and is well aware that the Welland-Thorold resolution on accountability received strong support. Among those speaking on behalf of it was the Premier himself, the leader of the party, who agreed with the proposition that the party should be consulted when there are major policy initiatives undertaken.

The minister has announced a turnaround time of some eight to 12 months; she's indicated already that this thing will be up and running in the course of eight to 12 months. Recognizing what she just told us about the time frames and recognizing there's not going to be another convention for a couple of more years, my question is: Where does the consultation with the party fit into this time frame? Exactly what process is being developed to consult with the New Democratic Party about the creation of a major new policy initiative?

Hon Ms Churley: The project team, when it's up and running, will be consulting with a vast variety of people from the broader community. I think one of the most important things this project team has to look into and hear from people from the broader community about is what style of casino we're looking at. For instance, we know we don't want the Las Vegas style here. We have to look at things like --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for St George-St David.

Hon Ms Churley: We have to look at issues like illegal gambling in Ontario, which right now is in the hundreds of millions of dollars of money being spent. We have to look at the kind of casino gambling that people want to see. We have to find out which municipalities are interested. We have an awful lot of questions that we need answers to. We will in fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her remarks, please.

Hon Ms Churley: I will conclude my remarks. On the other hand, I was quite rudely interrupted in the middle of my remarks. I had a serious question asked by the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Has the minister concluded her response?

Hon Ms Churley: In short, I think the questions that the member has asked today are the same kinds of questions that are on a lot of members' minds in this chamber. I look forward to coming back in July and giving people more information about the project team and what it's doing, and then later on being able to come back and give more details about the consultation process and the kinds of issues that are of concern to everybody, which we'll be looking at over the summer.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. There's a point of order to deal with.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St Catharines.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'd like the House to come to order and I can deal with a point of order concerning the member for Brampton South.

It is not possible to file dissatisfaction with the response to a supplementary. However, the member, with the cooperation of his colleague the member for York Centre, will be allowed to share the five-minute time which is allotted for his dissatisfaction. It will be necessary for the member for York Centre to file the necessary document with the table. Finally, our normal procedure is that dissatisfaction is raised after the time for oral questions has expired so that we don't utilize the time allotted for oral questions.

PETITIONS

NATURAL RESOURCES LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to present a petition which has been signed by over 800 of my constituents.

"We, the undersigned, do hereby oppose the introduction of the MNR-proposed new Trees Act to cover northern Ontario and any restrictions under the private woodlands strategy that would infringe on personal property rights."

I submit this petition and add my signature.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that contains 137 names from communities such as Hillsburgh, Erin, Bellwood, Orton, Fergus, Elora, Alma, Georgetown, Acton and Mount Forest, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations;

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a quick-fix solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my name as well to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition circulated and sponsored by the municipal councils of the county of Middlesex and signed by residents of Kerwood, Delaware, Parkhill and Ailsa Craig, 140 citizens of Middlesex in all, who oppose the implementation of the Brant report, request a reduced annexation and also request the preservation of agricultural land and the rural way of life. I have signed my name to this petition.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition with some 225 names on it. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Matthew Morten died tragically at his residence at York University as a result of a severed bronchial artery caused by a shard of glass;

"Whereas the glass which caused Matthew's death broke free from the door of his residence and was not safety glass;

"Whereas the regional coroner from Metropolitan Toronto has refused the family's request for an inquest and has indicated that it was economically unsound to make universities replace non-safety glass, although a recommendation has been sent to universities by the coroner asking only that they consider replacing such glass;

"Whereas there are other issues which should also be addressed, including the late response of the ambulance because it became lost on campus and the inability of the attendants to carry Matthew out on a stretcher due to the narrowness of the stairs;

"Whereas ignoring the abovementioned circumstances may lead to another death or serious injury;

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

"That an inquest into the death of Matthew Morten be ordered immediately to ensure that the safety of other Ontario students is safeguarded."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

EASTERN HABITAT JOINT VENTURE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition signed by 128 constituents and it reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the request of the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture to cross the township road known as Aultsville Road with a culvert from the Riley marsh on the east to the cedar grove on the west to create the Aultsville marsh.

"We deplore and reject any further tampering with the land and water surfaces in Osnabruck township. We have grave concerns in accepting US funds which will inevitably lead to US controls."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

1520

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I present a petition today on behalf of 250 of my constituents, 19 names from Algoma and 17 names from the rest of Ontario concerning the present constitutional discussions that are ongoing. These folks are asking the Premier to call for a referendum on any final offer of a constitutional package to the government of Quebec. I have not affixed my name to the petition.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition signed by some 50 people which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land in King township and turn it into Metro and York region's megadump."

I have signed my signature in support of that petition, Mr Speaker.

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I wish to table a petition signed by members of the Oakville Horticultural Society in my riding of Oakville South, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are very conscious of the difficult financial situation in which the government finds itself; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is currently promoting, as one of its biggest and best attractions, the Royal Botanical Gardens, the biggest lilac collection in the world, to bring Canadian and American tourism dollars to this province; and

"Whereas the Royal Botanical Gardens is the major tourism attraction in the bay area, whose image and that of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation will be badly tarnished if the Royal Botanical Gardens cannot afford to maintain the quality for which it is famed; and

"Whereas the Royal Botanical Gardens has struggled for a years on a budget less than half of that of the other most prestigious botanical gardens, such as Chicago, Missouri and Montreal, all of which are far smaller, and yet it has attained international status and is a leader in environmental concerns,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to give your utmost support to ensuring a level of funding that will enable the Royal Botanical Gardens to continue its role as a world-class, major cultural and tourism attraction."

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to present a petition on behalf of one of my colleagues, opposing the introduction of a new tax on real estate gains. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

It's signed by 28 constituents in Toronto.

COURT RULING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition from citizens of the communities of Brampton, Flamborough, Hamilton, Welland and Grimsby addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, reading as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, in support of the mother of Debra Pauline Williams Ellul, draw to the attention of the House the following:

"That the right to appeal the decision made in Debra Williams Ellul murder acquitting Guy Ellul of all charges be granted based on the fact that the decision not to allow the appeal does not accurately reflect the public's abhorrence and unacceptability of the outcome of this trial."

I've signed my name to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

Mr Speaker, I have affixed my name to this petition.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition signed by a number of constituents in my riding, and speaking with my colleague from Durham East, he's got similar concerns around Wilmot Creek.

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues that surround land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set out by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on resale of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents in long-term leases where they fall under the rent review legislation,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report on land-leased communities and propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals living in land-leased communities."

I affix my name to this.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition concerning the John Brant report in the London area which reads as follows:

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have signed the petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the proposed changes to the labour legislation will increase potential job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery of a sound economic environment; and

"Whereas a recent public opinion poll showed that 83% of Ontario citizens support the withdrawal of these proposed changes;

"That the government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to existing the labour legislation."

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition.

"Whereas the volunteer firefighters of the town of Innisfil have worked tirelessly over the years to protect our lives, our homes and our communities from the ravages of fire; and

"Whereas the volunteer firefighters are usually local business people who selflessly devote their time to saving lives and properties around the clock, even disrupting their own regular working hours; and

"Whereas the town of Innisfil has opted to reduce the quality of fire services to the community by deciding to reduce the pay of firefighters by reducing the funds reserved for volunteer firefighting, and by reducing the funding, gives cause to deterioration of existing fire protection,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to help reinstate full funding at previous years' levels to the volunteer firefighters of the town of Innisfil."

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have two petitions I would like to present. One is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario, believe the Constitution of any genuinely democratic society truly belongs to its people and that our views and any changes to Canada's Constitution must be heard, and final approval of such changes must be given by the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas up to this time there has been very limited opportunity for input from grass-roots Ontarians;

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

"We request you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity for the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution and/or any amendments thereto will mean to each of us, and then make provision for a final 'say' by the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

It's signed by many constituents from my area and I have affixed my signature to it.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have a second petition. This is from another group within my area and it deals with asking the House to repeal the French Language Services Act, Bill 8, at the earliest possible moment. As I've stated in previous petitions I've presented in this particular case, I am presenting it on behalf of these constituents who have signed it but I do not agree with the views they have expressed.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here by some constituents in my riding opposing the introduction of any new tax on real estate gains.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with any additional tax on real estate gains."

I've put my name on this.

CHILD CARE

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition signed by 278 people from Prescott-Russell objecting to the child care reforms of Ontario.

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

"(1) Enhance the current child care system by concentrating the available resources for low-income families;

"(2) Abandon initiatives towards a universal child care system;

"(3) Guarantee that future child care initiatives will give equal recognition to traditional child care options."

I have affixed my signature.

1530

LANDFILL SITE

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Another petition from the good people of Georgina: They are called Georgina Against Garbage, GAG:

"We absolutely reject the notion of the establishment of a garbage dump for Metropolitan Toronto's waste in Georgina.

"We, the residents of Georgina, request that our elected representatives and our provincial Ministry of the Environment repeal Bill 143 in its entirety, consider all alternatives to site selection in York region, directly consult with all the residents of Georgina in York region with regard to their wishes, possibly by referendum" -- good idea -- "and immediately cease the process of site selection in York region."

Signed by me and submitted in good faith.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too would like to present a petition, signed by the ratepayers and parents, staff and students of the Metropolitan Separate School Board, concerned about the way in which Catholic education is funded in Metropolitan Toronto. The petition requests that this Legislature "act now to restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are appropriated so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Deferred vote on government notice of motion number 11 on amendments to the standing orders.

1537

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 70

Akande, Allen, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carr, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Marland, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Mills, Morrow, North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Villeneuve, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 22

Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Conway, Curling, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Kwinter, Mahoney, McClelland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Scott, Sola, Sorbara, Sullivan.

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Laughren moved government notice of motion number 9:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing July 1, 1992, and ending October 31, 1992, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer): I will be very brief in my opening remarks because I know there are members opposite who want to engage in a fairly fulsome debate on this motion.

I believe most members understand that a motion of supply is what allows the government of the day, regardless of the government, to pay salaries and other ongoing expenses of government. As a matter of fact, since the previous authority ends on July 1, it is important that this motion of supply be dealt with expeditiously.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: Most members of the assembly, I believe, understand that payments to hospitals, doctors and municipalities, family benefits recipients, school boards, suppliers' accounts, and civil servants' salaries cannot be paid without such a motion of supply.

There are at the same time some statutory payments that can be made. Those include interest on the public debt, loans to the Ontario Development Corp and all payments from special purpose accounts. Those can be paid without a motion of supply, but the previous category cannot be made without a motion of supply being passed by this assembly.

Most members, I think, will understand that the special warrants that have been issued will be exhausted by July 1 of this year. Traditionally there is an attempt to have the motion of supply in place at least five days before the previous authorization -- in this case, special warrants -- runs out in order to ensure that payments can be issued in time to meet obligations. It's going to be very tight as it is, and I would urge all members of the assembly to consider that as we engage in the debate to follow.

The Speaker: Comments and/or questions.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a speech, not a comment or question.

The Speaker: The first item of business is comments and questions. Any members? Further debate?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Treasurer's remarks. Historically he knows that the supply motion is a very important one for this Parliament. It gives all members an opportunity to comment on spending habits of the government and the various programs that government has brought forward, not only over the course of the past six months but on into the period for which supply is provided.

I would have expected more from the Treasurer than simply a recitation of what some speechwriter in the Treasury had provided for him. I would have expected him to stand up at least for a few minutes and defend his spending habits. He recently had a budget which proclaimed that the recession would be over in the springtime. The recession hasn't ended for the vast majority of people in this province. The unemployment figures are higher than ever. The spending in the budget is higher than ever, the deficit is as high as it's ever been, yet the Treasurer in a supply motion stands up and reads some drivel prepared by some lowly official in the treasury.

There is going to be a time, whether in a budget debate which we have not had yet or in the debating of bills which have not yet come before this Parliament or on some other occasion, when the Treasurer is going to stand up and defend what his government has done and is doing on the fiscal side. But just for now, in the few seconds available to me, let me say that the Treasurer has broken faith with the people of Ontario. He said unequivocally in his budget that the recession would be coming to an end in the springtime. He said, "We're going to see new economic growth." Every single indicator has shown to us, to everyone in the province and everyone in the world, that Ontario is deeply mired in a recession, and one of the reasons is that we are deeply mired in unfortunate socialist policies from the NDP government.

The Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I don't think I'm going to be quite as harsh, but equally to the point. Considering the performance of the economy during the past few months since the Treasurer announced his budget, I would have thought there would be some comment, at least some concern this government has, with respect to the economic indicators. Clearly there was some sense of promise or intrigue, at least on this side of the House, speaking for my party, that the Treasurer was talking about some sort of pickup in the spring. Clearly the Treasurer also suggested that job creation would be happening some time in the spring as well.

There are very few, I think, out there in the private sector and the taxpaying public who would argue that there has been an improvement or an increase this spring, that unemployment rates have decreased or anything along those lines. So it seems to me that, similar to the last budget this Treasurer brought down, his guesstimates, if I could use them as that, have been less than accurate. I have a very sneaking suspicion and unsettling thought that potentially this budget is going to be as successful at estimating or guesstimating the potential growth and turnaround in the private sector.

I would think the members opposite in the back benches would also suggest the same. I would have thought they would have gone back to their taxpaying public and maybe mentioned a few of the comments the Treasurer made during that announcement of the budget. Those comments were about turnaround, job creation, levelling off etc. That clearly has not happened. I looked to the Treasurer today to possibly outline the rationale for why it didn't turn around or when he thinks it will turn around. There's a great feeling of discomfort out there. From what the Treasurer spoke about in his last budget, he felt optimistic in a small sense. I don't see the optimism today and I felt it was incumbent on the Treasurer to outline exactly why he still feels so optimistic.

1550

The Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to say that I intend to support the Treasurer in this motion. One of the reasons I want to support the Treasurer -- because I come back after the weekend and I look at the minister of highways and I want to say to both of them: I was home this weekend and I was told by a couple of parents of young teenagers that they went to motor vehicle registration offices in my constituency and they were told, particularly in the town of Deep River -- a 16-year-old was told she would have to wait at least three months just to get a test for a government licence. I want to say to the Treasurer and the minister of highways that that's totally unacceptable.

I'm going to support this motion because I expect that the minister of finance is going to get together with his colleague the minister of highways and look at some of these government monopolies. If the government of Ontario can't run it any better than that, for whatever reason -- and there are undoubtedly budgetary pressures -- I say to both ministers: When I've now got, as I've had in the last few days, not one but several people -- people who are good, active members in their own constituencies -- coming to me and saying, "Are you aware, local member, that you cannot get a driver's test at the government of Ontario office in the county of Renfrew without waiting at least three months?" that is totally unacceptable. I don't know what's causing it, but I'm telling you I hope that some of the moneys in this supply motion go to communities like Pembroke and Deep River and Barry's Bay and Picton.

My friend the member from Quinte has been making this point in here as well. Young people and not-so-young people are not prepared to stand in line at some kind of a government monopoly and be told they're going to have to wait up to three months to get something as vital as a driver's licence and a test for same. So I'll support the motion in the hope that something can be done, and done soon, about what is clearly a totally unacceptable situation.

The Speaker: The member for Markham.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): There are two issues I'd like to table for the benefit of the honourable Treasurer and the Minister --

The Speaker: Would the member for Markham take his seat for a minute. It's the error of the Speaker. I do try to go around. We've had three opposition members, and so I should have looked to the government bench to see if there was at least one person who wished to participate. Indeed the member for Chatham-Kent will be recognized.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You recognized the member for Markham, and it was his turn to speak after the Liberals.

The Speaker: I would ask the indulgence of the member for Etobicoke West. It is our practice to try to provide a balance during these opportunities for questions and comments. I had recognized three opposition members, and I'm now recognizing the member for Chatham-Kent for two minutes.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I wanted to mention my own community, and I will be supporting the Treasurer's bill as we've seen the improvements in Navistar, in making sure that they are looking at more jobs that are provided in Navistar. As a matter of fact, in our community I was just working on the jobs training program with a number of employers that are looking forward to receiving the money.

I look at a number of the initiatives that a number of ministries have done in my own community to help those citizens out where previous governments have neglected to help them and make sure the achievements were there. I know, just in working with some small business people who are looking at investing, in opening up programs in our community, which are very important, especially when we are one of the hardest hit in this recession as we've seen what the policies of the federal and Liberal government have done to my own riding; just in the past weekend five more retail sectors have opened up their doors in our community to make sure this thing happened. I know they look to the government to make sure we become accountable in our spending.

One of the important things we've been trying to do, and I know the Treasurer has been trying to do and he would say it, is to be fiscally responsible for our taxpayers and our citizens around here. It's very important that we as citizens understand. I know my own community has gathered around to try to help the Treasurer come up with more creative ideas on how we can make the dollar last a little longer and how we can make it go a little further. I know they've been working very positively along with me in making sure the initiatives of this government keep taxes under control, because they are the taxpayers of the province.

But I listened to the opposition, and they wonder when the government members are going to stand up. We're looking at positive results, and a lot of us do work with the Treasurer for positive results in our communities and to make sure those initiatives are there and that the taxpayers receive the best quality for the same and less buck.

The Speaker: The Treasurer has up to two minutes for a response.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do understand the angst of the members opposite today, but that's the way our parliamentary democracy works. I wanted to assure the member from York North that the reason I didn't make a long speech in the opening was to give members opposite more time to engage in the debate themselves. I can recall being in opposition and watching ministers take up a lot of time, and I've always felt that it's more appropriate to allow members of the opposition to have their full say on debates such as this. A reasonable amount of time is embodied in those rules, as the member for York North full well knows.

Mr Sorbara: You can't even get the riding right. It's York Centre, and you've spoken for an hour here in opposition.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Etobicoke West was wondering about economic forecasts and exactly how the economy is doing. I think most of us have been waiting for some time now to see the economy turn around. I don't have any sense of guilt about the treasury's forecast being out of whack. You tell me what economic forecaster predicted that the Ontario economy was in as much difficulty as it was two years ago -- no one. Absolutely no one was forecasting that, and now everyone is forecasting that we are turning around and an economic recovery is about to begin. All we can hope is that we are indeed coming out of the recession and that Ontario is looking forward to better days ahead.

The Speaker: Further debate? The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I welcome the last opportunity to be able to speak in this House in the circumstances we face today, those circumstances being that the government of Ontario, through the Premier of Ontario, has made a significant change in the rules that govern the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. In over 15 years in this Legislature I cannot recall an issue which was more fundamentally important to the democratic system than the issue which was voted upon this afternoon.

I resent, first of all, the fact that I did not have an opportunity to speak in that debate, that in fact there was some kind of agreement that there would be a vote that would take place this afternoon in the Legislative Assembly. I did have a chance to hear some of the other addresses, including those of the member for York Centre and the member for Welland-Thorold, two of the people whom I recall spoke in this debate. Many others spoke in the previous resolution that came forward, and I was impressed with the depth of feeling of some of the people who spoke on this issue and the knowledge of the importance of this issue to those of us who are in this House.

You make a judgement on people and on governments based not on what they do when they are under public scrutiny, when they can be caught, but what governments and what individuals do when no one is looking. Clearly no one is looking as this government has passed a resolution this afternoon to significantly diminish the role of the opposition and significantly diminish the role of individual members of the Legislative Assembly.

The New Democratic Party and particularly the Premier of this province should be ashamed of the rule changes that were brought before this House. In my years in politics and my years in this House I've had an admiration for many people in the New Democratic Party, particularly when they were in the opposition but even as they have extended themselves into government, governing at a difficult time in Ontario. But I used to watch with admiration people such as Jim Renwick, who would give eloquent speeches in this House on fundamental rights and freedoms and who always recognized the importance of this assembly as an assembly of individuals elected by the people of the province and the role that they should play. I listened to Patrick Lawlor, the former member for Lakeshore, make the same kind of speeches. Indeed, I enjoyed lengthy orations by both the member for Riverdale at that time, Jim Renwick, and the member for Lakeshore at that time, Patrick Lawlor.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. There's only one person who has the floor, and it's the member for St Catharines.

1600

Mr Bradley: This House was graced with a number of speeches which I think made an important contribution to the debate before this House. They were not speeches which were limited by Bob Rae to 30 minutes in this House. The man who stood for democracy for so long, the man who stood for the rights of the opposition for so long in this House on this side, has the audacity to come into this House and bring forward a resolution to limit the time I or anybody else can speak in this House. He should be ashamed of that, and so should the people who are supporting him in this House. He would be the last person in opposition to accept this, yet now he is bringing into his own hands, into the corner office, the real power of government, the executive power of government. We see diminished now the power of each individual who is elected democratically by people in Ontario.

Needless to say, I am angered by what Bob Rae has done. I feel betrayed by what Bob Rae has done to this House and to the people of Ontario because I always believed that even if I didn't agree with the policies of the New Democratic Party on some occasions, and even if I didn't agree with the pronouncements it would make from time to time in this House, it was always a party that stood for integrity, it was always a party that stood for the little person in our society, for the underdog in our society.

What I see ramrodded through this House by majority vote -- and the government is entitled by its majority to do so and I would never deny that; I'm not one of these people who advances the 37.5%. Those are the rules which govern elections in Ontario, so this government is as entitled as any other government to put through whatever legislation it sees fit. Why I am angry this afternoon is that Bob Rae was the person who stood for democratic rights, Bob Rae was the person who stood for the role of the opposition in this Legislature, yet he is the person responsible. You can say it's the government House leader, but everybody knows it's the Premier of this province who calls the shot finally, and it's the Premier of this province who is personally responsible for the Legislature and for the bills that go through this Legislature -- he and those who are unelected and advise him.

I don't know how members of the government caucus who believe so much in democracy, who believe in the role of the individual member, who believe in the role of the opposition, could possibly support this even behind the closed doors of the government caucus, where I understand there can be some debate; that it would come into this House and they would vote for this resolution.

I really have to ask myself, why should I stay in the Legislative Assembly when you have rules such as this which really make me a glorified social worker? Yes, I can do my constituency work back in the constituency. I can get the birth certificates and everybody will say: "Isn't it nice? I got my birth certificate early," or I've assisted with this problem or that problem. But what has happened is that the role of this place has been significantly diminished by Bob Rae and his government, and I think the people of this province should be furious about that.

As I indicated earlier, it's when no one is looking that you make your best judgements on governments, and no one is looking. What the government has going for it in this resolution that was before the House and voted upon is the fact that nobody cares except members of this House. Members of the news media are naturally not going to be interested in this.

Yes, there were a few stories about it. Most of the stories were, "Oh, aren't they a bunch of little children fighting back and forth" and "Shouldn't they all be held in the Legislature all summer" or words to that effect; not a careful analysis of the changes and the ramifications of those changes for our society in Ontario, not an analysis of the fact that we are placing in the hands of the advisers to the Premier -- unelected people -- vast new powers because we're diminishing the powers of those of us in this House. None of that. All we got was, "Oh, they're being like children. They didn't show up for work. They're reading the bills at great length. They're ringing the bells. Aren't they silly people?" never recognizing that the only tool the opposition had to fight this dastardly resolution that was pushed through the House this afternoon was the tactics that were used by the opposition.

I am a person in this House who is opposed to that. I don't like the bell-ringing. I don't like the fact that any of us would read petitions all afternoon or that we would have bills read all afternoon. I prefer legitimate debate. If you cannot sustain opposition to the government through legitimate debate, as lengthy as that might be -- as long as it is relevant debate -- then I don't think you're playing your role properly as an opposition.

It wasn't as though those of us in opposition wanted to proceed with those kinds of measures. The Conservative Party did not want to read bills all afternoon, the Liberal Party did not want to call for adjournments from time to time, but it was the only tool we had to fight this piece of legislation, because we knew the government was not going to fight this legislation, and there were smirks on the faces of some people this afternoon as they passed it, self-satisfied smirks. In fairness -- I want to be fair -- there were a lot of people on the other side who weren't smiling when that resolution went through the House, because they recognize the ramifications of that particular resolution.

What is annoying to those of us in opposition as well is the way it was brought in. I recognize that oppositions are never going to be interested in changing rules that would diminish their powers. I recognize that governments become impatient with opposition. I understand those things, but in the past, even if there has been a resolution tabled, there has been give and take and finally a package brought forward which is a consensus of members of this House, and the rules have worked relatively well in those circumstances.

In this case, on Thursday afternoon, at the last minute, the government House leader puts in a resolution at the table that nobody knows about until we read it in the Globe and Mail and see Richard Mackie's article, which tells us not only what the government thinks but what the government House leader says the opposition will say and think. We're confronted with this on a Monday, and people wonder why the House, which is never all that friendly, I suppose, in terms of question period at least, is even more cantankerous than ever.

I'll tell you why. It's the sneaky, snide way in which these rules were put before the Legislative Assembly. If there had been some consensus, if there had been some reasonable dialogue, the opposition would recognize that there are things that had to be given up, that it couldn't be able to read petitions for ever -- not that we can, because that's been changed -- that you couldn't ring the bells for ever, that you could not read a bill which lasted all afternoon; that those kinds of things would be eliminated, and I think people on all sides of the House would have been pleased to see that.

But for Bob Rae to tell me that I have 30 minutes in this House to speak, 30 minutes if I'm an individual member -- 90 for a leadoff member, and I recognize that -- but 30 minutes for members to speak in this House, and Bob Rae's going to tell me that, it offends me to no end to have him tell me that that is all I can speak in the Legislative Assembly.

I do not intend to sit down at the end of 30 minutes. If I feel my remarks are not complete I will not sit down, and for the first time in 15 years in this House I will be ejected from this Legislature, named by the Speaker. That's something I would never be proud of. One of the things I can say I am proud of over the years is never having been thrown out of the House; that while I have interjected, while I have engaged in debate, while I have been angered, I have never been thrown out of this House. But I must say to you that if I ever am confronting a situation where I am told after 30 minutes that I must sit down because of Bob Rae's new rules, I intend to continue speaking until such time as the Sergeant at Arms has to escort me from this House.

And I'm doing that not on behalf of myself but on behalf of the people of my constituency who elect me -- the words is "elect" me -- to serve in this House, not some appointed person who sits under the gallery beside the Speaker. That's where the seat of power is in this House now. It sits where the Premier is and it sits where the advisers to the Premier are, not where you people are, not where we are sitting, and that's the fundamental change that's taking place.

If you're ever in opposition again -- and I'm not one who's presumptuous enough to say that it's automatic that you're out. A lot of people seem to think that. I don't automatically assume anything. But if you people are confronted with that, you would then recognize how diminished the power is of individual members of the opposition. I contend as well, as the member for Welland-Thorold so eloquently indicated not long ago in this debate in I thought a logical and reasonable way, that the role of individual members of this House would be adversely affected.

1610

I want to indicate as well what I'm concerned about. First of all, the government House leader said: "The reason we brought these new rules in is because you people are obstructionist. You won't let us proceed with our legislative timetable, with our legislative agenda." I ask you, where were the bills? If there were bills before the House, we have to deal with those bills. He said back in December of this year that the opposition was dealing with certain budget bills from the last budget, not this budget, and he blamed the opposition for this happening. I can tell you, as one who was involved in those negotiations, the reason the government House leader wanted out was a question asked by the member for Kenora, who implicated through that question some assistants to the Attorney General of this province in an affair that was known as the Martel affair.

I saw the look on the face of the government House leader and how eager he was to get out of this place. The government had the option to bring the House back in January. It would have been legitimate if they felt that program was important. It's a bogus suggestion put forward that somehow the opposition is obstructionist. If the government really wanted its agenda to proceed, it would put the bills on Orders and Notices and then we could deal with those bills. There are some bills I looked at that would go through this House relatively quickly that I think there was consensus on and that members of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party agreed upon. It was good legislation for Ontario. I think people would have said it was good legislation, but those bills were not brought forward. Very contentious bills were brought forward that would naturally provoke many hours of debate.

I'm concerned about the entire package, and I'm concerned about certain aspects: First of all, this House is not going to sit as often as it used to. Surely what people should want out of their legislators is to have them at work here: Not cutting ribbons in the constituency, not going to dinners in the constituency, not worrying about birth certificates coming to Toronto but dealing carefully with legislation.

I say to the member for Cochrane South, go back into the library and read a column Jonathan Manthorpe wrote in 1975 on the role of constituency offices. Essentially the contention he made, which is one that has been repeated by many people, is that we have become glorified social workers, that we don't deal with legislation and that committees don't carefully scrutinize estimates to the point where we can make a real difference.

Speaking of committees, the standing committee on public accounts, always considered to be the one committee in the Legislature which was relatively non-partisan, in effect is shut down today because now the government will not allow anything other than its own agenda to proceed in the public accounts committee. I can remember when there were government members who got into a lot of trouble when the Tories were in power, who voted against their own government in that committee because there was a feeling that it had that kind of non-partisan thing to it -- not the other committees; I recognize that.

All of us play a partisan role. The Premier of this province says on many occasions that there are few occasions in the House where people are non-partisan.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: There is only one person who has the floor.

Mr Bradley: The public accounts committee is a special case in the House and always has been. That is why the tradition in the province has been -- it isn't in every province -- that the Chair of that committee is a member of the opposition. I believe the Vice-Chair of that committee is a member of the opposition as well. I've been proud of some of the work I've seen done by the public accounts committee over the years. We have a situation now where the orders have come from the Premier's office -- that's where they always come from, make no mistake -- and that somehow the committee shall deal only with the agenda that members of the New Democratic Party want.

I understand that when there's legislation before a committee, because you want to be able to get your legislation through. I don't like it, but it's certainly understandable.

I remember the former member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, from 1981 to 1985, whose name the member for Renfrew North may be able to help me with.

Mr Conway: Alan Robinson.

Mr Bradley: Alan Robinson got into considerable trouble with his own Premier for voting against his own party on that committee. Jim Taylor, another person who had a mind of his own, was prepared to be independent-minded and voted against his party because he understood that the government required that kind of scrutiny. Yet we're seeing that committee shut down today.

What is most appalling is that this is happening under the regime of the New Democratic Party, which I always thought, of all parties in the Legislature and in politics in Canada, would be the last party to implement these kinds of changes. It is most unfortunate.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Didn't you change the rules?

Mr Bradley: The rules, of course, were changed previously by consensus in the Legislature. The member for Lake Nipigon asks, if the rules were changed, did not previous governments change the rules? They were changed in discussion and with consensus, not ramrodded through the House by the government House leader and a legitimate majority, because it is legitimate that a majority can pass whatever it wants. My quarrel is not with the fact that the majority rules; my quarrel is with what this government is doing with its majority.

Now we see the shortening of the legislative timetable. That means the government is less accountable, not only for those of us in opposition to challenge the government, as members of the opposition, and keep the government on its toes -- because we can do so, essentially, only through question period -- but also for members of the government.

I am pleased that on many occasions I see questions offered by backbench members of the government which are not setup questions, but good questions. There are both and there always have been both, but I've seen some questions that have been asked by members of the government who are concerned, legitimately, about an issue of personal concern to themselves or about their ridings.

That role is going to be diminished because this government does not want to sit as many days out of the year. I think we should be sitting more days out of the year, so there's more extensive and detailed debate and analysis, rather than fewer days so we simply rush things through this House.

I've already objected with some vehemence to the amount of time a person can speak. The member for Welland-Thorold in recent years has become the most famous in this House for the length of his debate on the auto insurance bill. I well recall right in front of where I'm standing, just to my left, the bear-hug of the now Premier of the province of Ontario for the member for Welland-Thorold -- it's been a long time since that has happened, I'm sure -- the bear-hug that took place, and the round of applause that came from members of the New Democratic Party as the member for Welland-Thorold, Peter Kormos, stood in this House for -- I believe it was -- 17 hours to debate a piece of legislation about which he felt very strongly.

This was something he had all his life committed himself to as an individual and as a member of the New Democratic Party, because he knew all those years that when he ran in an election, and his predecessor, Mel Swart, former MPP for Welland-Thorold as well -- MLA he would want me to say were he watching this afternoon -- he had fought for government auto insurance.

I do not say the government does not have a reason to change its mind. It can do so; I'm not objecting to that. The point I make is that there was a member of this Legislature who cared enough about that issue, who felt so strongly about it and about its implications for the province of Ontario that he was prepared to stand in this House and sustain debate for some 17 hours.

It wasn't a matter of ringing bells. It wasn't a matter of reading petitions on that occasion. It wasn't a matter of reading a long bill. It was a matter of engaging in relevant debate and I think it's important that it remain within this House. Bob Rae has removed the right from me and from members on that side and this side of the House to engage in the kind of detailed debate that I think is exceedingly important.

What else is important is that, again, the public, because the public does not sit in here each day and does not know the rules of the House, perhaps would not understand the time allocation portion of that package which now allows a minister of the crown -- not the House, not the Speaker -- to come in and say: "I have this controversial bill which is extremely important for the future of the province of Ontario, which has very significant ramifications, economically, socially or perhaps environmentally, and I'll tell you how long you're going to debate it. You're going to debate it for as long as I want you to debate it and it's going to be in committee for as long as I want it to be in committee, regardless of what the Speaker says and what members of the House say."

1620

That used to be done by consensus. That used to be the House leaders sitting down and trying to determine what amount of debate might be important for that bill. There was a good exchange of viewpoint that would take place and then the bill would eventually pass the House.

Unfortunately, that's replaced now. Now one of Bob Rae's ministers will get up and say, "You have this bill and this is how long you will have to debate it," and they endeavoured to take away from the Speaker the right on a closure motion to say whether significant debate had taken place or not. Yes, it will be much more efficient. I've read the editorials and the House leader was very clever -- if nothing else, the House leader is clever -- and he said, "This is streamlining and modernizing the rules of the House." It may be streamlining in his view and it may be modernizing, but it is diminishing significantly the democratic role that this House has to play.

When we go to people in the future and ask them to run for the Legislature, when we have to explain to them what role they will play, unless they're sitting in the cabinet, unless they're sitting on the executive council or better yet, I suppose, unless they're prepared to accept an appointed position as one of the advisers to the Premier, then I don't know whether I could counsel someone to run for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario because the role we will play as members will be much diminished over the next several months and perhaps years.

It's a sad day. It's sad because I looked up in the gallery and the eyes were glazed over or the people simply said, "Why don't you people behave yourselves and it would be a better House and the tone of the House would be better?" and so on. They just didn't care what was happening because in many cases their editors wouldn't care. Imagine filing a story on procedural rules, unless there's a dust-up, unless there's something happening in the House, like until such time as the Legislature couldn't sit one morning because there wasn't a quorum. Well, that's news then: "We can put that in and everybody can say, 'Aren't they all silly? The government is inept because it can't get in enough members when the opposition are playing this game.'" They can simply dump on all of us for that. Yet what is important about it is the fact that we were simply trying to bring to the attention of members of the news media and the people of Ontario the importance of the change in these rules.

I cannot think of a day which has been more difficult for me than this day when these rule changes have taken place in this House. I have respected this House over the years. I've respected members of all three parties. I've enjoyed the debate which has been engaged in by members of all the parties. I think that some of the work that has been done in committees, particularly the select committees, has been excellent and members of all parties can take some credit for that.

But I do not know why, in the confines of the government caucus room, there wouldn't be more people challenging the moving from legislative power to executive power in the province of Ontario. It's not that you necessarily elect the smartest people in Ontario to any elected body. Very often the people who have all the qualifications, who are noted for their intellectual prowess and so on, sit and advise the Premier or they advise the government or the people in the civil service, and they have a lot of respect from people. They have a lot of respect from me. But those of us who sit in the Legislature are democratically elected. We are here to reflect the viewpoints or at least take into account the viewpoints of people who vote in an election and that's the essence of democracy. What this government has done has made a significant shift from the power of elected people to the power of appointed people.

The member for Welland-Thorold appeared on a TV program called "Haeck from Queen's Park," which uses the name of the member for St Catharines-Brock, Cristel Haeck, and that's the name of her cable TV show. He was quite colourful in the comments he made. In fact, a lot of people taped that program because he made some good points. Perhaps I wouldn't use words as extreme as he did. He used derogatory words to describe those "instant experts from Toronto," as he called those who advised the government on its policies. He pointed out the problems with that kind of control being in the hands of those people.

One of the things the government did -- it did it and it's over with now and it can sustain it -- was to take away the $100 that went along with the Ontario scholarship. Do you know who proposes those kinds of things? It isn't anybody who's elected who proposes a reward for those who have worked hard and recognition for those people. It is people who are in non-elected positions who provide that kind of advice and then subject that advice to scrutiny by those of us who are in the House, whether on the government or opposition side.

The shift has taken place. I really wonder how James Renwick, a distinguished member of this House, would ever accept the rule changes that have taken place. I'll tell you something, when Jim Renwick spoke in this House, we had two thirds, three quarters or a full House to listen to him speak, because he had something to say, because he was eloquent and compelling in his speaking. He went on at great length. He could speak for two hours and people would not leave this House. Or Patrick Lawlor -- I remember him sitting to my left down there -- with his great sense of humour, his poetry and again his compelling speeches. Or Stephen Lewis, who characterized many of the problems in the province in such a way as to draw public attention; he was an extremely eloquent individual who spoke at length. Or Donald MacDonald, now the chairman of the Commission on Election Finances, who made some great speeches over those years.

The reason I mention members of the New Democratic Party is that unbelievably it's the New Democratic Party which has rammed through these changes by putting the gun to the heads of the opposition, to the point where even some of the Conservatives walked into the House to vote for this. They did so quite obviously because they don't believe this government will be in for ever and those rules might be applied the other way in the future. But I don't think it will help our democracy if that takes place.

When we deal with issues of this kind, I guess there's a sense of frustration when the media isn't interested, when the public really isn't interested and is prepared to dismiss the members of an elected body as a bunch of clowns or people who really don't have their interests at heart. Yet when you take away the powers we have, when you take away the role we have played over the years, when you take away our voice in an elected assembly, you diminish this assembly so much.

I suppose people will still come here; less often, because the government wants to sit less often and the rules will be that this House will not sit as much as it has in the past. We will find that the debates won't be the same. The debates won't be as interesting, as compelling, as comprehensive as they should be. Even if the government doesn't change its mind when it is bringing its legislation or its resolutions forward, what is important is that those arguments have been put forward by members of the opposition and rebutted appropriately by members of the government. That's the essence of debate. That's what's important about this chamber, yet this chamber will never be the same after the rules which have passed this afternoon with the majority that Bob Rae has in this province.

I tried to ask him a question in the House. He pawned it off on the member for Windsor-Riverside, the government House leader. I asked it directly of the Premier because of his role in the Canadian political scene. I read in the Globe and Mail this morning that he is putting Canada first and that he's always been a person who has cared about democracy, his country and his province. That's why I asked the question specifically of the Premier, because I wanted him to account for why he would change the rules in this House: a person who had fought so vigorously in opposition against what he felt was wrong and for what he felt was right, a person who had a reputation -- as the member for St George-St David has told me on many occasions, and he's always admired the Premier as well -- for being a civil libertarian or a person who is prepared to defend the interests of the underdog. That's why I directed the question not to the House leader, but to the Premier. I think it was significant that the Premier was embarrassed enough to pass that over to the government House leader, and it's extremely disappointing to me to see that happen.

1630

The rules will change; the House will not be the same -- a House, by the way, which did not reconvene until April 6. The government House leader said, "Well, we can't get anything done in this House," and then instead of bringing it back on March 9, he brought it back April 6, with a very narrow time line to deal with the legislation and other matters that must come before this House.

I suggest, and others may refute this, that it was a very calculated way of doing things, calculated to ensure that there would be some reason drummed up to be able to change the rules of the Legislature. Those rule changes came, you'll note, just before a very controversial piece of legislation, the new amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, would come before the House, legislation in which we'd want to bring about a debate where a lot of government members would want to be involved and a lot of opposition members would want to be involved in probing that piece of legislation. I don't think it was a coincidence that this happened.

I know there are other matters in interim supply that must be dealt with in this Legislature, and I intend to deal with some of them. By the way, I do not feel confined to end this debate this afternoon. I don't know whether I will or not, but I don't feel any obligation to do so. I hear that there's some kind of agreement. I wonder what an agreement means now, if the opposition has no power. You can be certain that where unanimous consents are asked, there are going to be far fewer unanimous consents.

I remember that the Minister of Agriculture and Food was in a bind over a piece of legislation he had and he asked for unanimous consent. In the midst of the turmoil of the House, he asked for unanimous consent to undo something he had done or to make an addition or else his bill would not have been able to proceed, and the opposition said yes. I happen to like the Minister of Agriculture and Food and his approach to the House, by the way. While I don't always agree with everything he might have to say in the House, I agree with many of those things, and I think he has, for a new member particularly, a good view of how this House works.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton is interested in how this House works. He's now assumed one of the big three positions, as I call them, that we have with Speaker, Deputy Speaker and First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House, and he brought forward some suggestions on how the House might be improved. I can't speak for him, but I imagine he would have been embarrassed that in the midst of his resolution coming forward before the House in private members' hour and, subsequent to that, some of the other ideas he had brought forward, that the rug would be pulled out from under him by the government House leader, who had his own agenda for this House, and the Premier, who had his own agenda, which was brought about through the government House leader.

It's more in -- no, I can't say it's more in sadness than anger, because I am angry this afternoon, as I have been since this resolution was brought in, even the modified resolution, because the modifications were so minuscule as to be insignificant.

The member for York Centre said in response to something that happened in the House that it had been characterized as an agreement between the three parties. He pointed out that it was not an agreement but a humiliating defeat for the opposition. I suggest it was not only a humiliating defeat for the opposition; rather, it was a humiliating defeat for all members of this House, for our democratic system and for the people we represent.

Enough of that subject. It won't be heard much more because no one will care. You will not see columns written about it, you will not see television documentaries, you'll hear little on the radio about it, but it is one of the most important things that has happened in this House since the New Democratic Party got power.

I want to raise a few issues. In fairness, I'll try to be relatively brief. It'll be difficult because there are a lot of issues. Another thing I want to say about this, by the way, is that this debate was always the opportunity for those of us in this House who wanted to talk at some length about various issues in our ridings where people had said to us, "Would you raise that in the House?" There's not a chance in question period. You don't get many questions: two or three, perhaps, and the leaders' questions because that is all the time allows for and the Speaker tries to be as fair as possible in allocating that time. Both sides are responsible when that time is shortened, as our side has been sometimes and the other side at other times.

They ask us to raise issues of importance to us locally or provincially. I'm going to try to raise some which I think are important in terms of what this government stood for in opposition, what I always thought it stood for, what I was proud of the New Democratic Party for and what it stands for today.

I've asked a question of the Premier about polling. The previous governments that have been in power have conducted polls at public expense and have not released the results of those polls as quickly as they might. I always thought the Premier was going to be different. The argument you've heard me make in this House, and perhaps outside this House on many occasions, when I've been critical of the government, is not that it's worse than the previous governments, but that the Premier suggested it was going to be substantially different. Yet when I asked the Premier in the House, "Are you going to stop polling or are you, at the very least, going to release the results to all members of the House at the same time?" he said, "No, I'm going to continue to poll at government expense; I'm not going to share it with the opposition, even though when I was in opposition I knew where I stood on all these issues." One of the things I used to think about the New Democratic Party, even if I may not have agreed with some of the positions it had, was that it stood for those positions, it was strong on those positions.

I watched the results of the convention. I was always under the impression that at an NDP convention, perhaps unlike the Tories' or the Liberals', the resolutions that were passed were party policy and that the government was obligated to implement those policies. That's obviously not the case. I was mistaken, but I genuinely thought that was the case. I had been led to believe over the years, by watching the NDP in opposition, that it really meant something to have a convention, that it was some vigorous debate on certain issues, but obviously that isn't the case. So the NDP, which was going to be substantially different, has not been significantly different from the two other political parties.

I almost wonder whether to raise this issue, because it annoys the Premier to a great extent and he's got a lot of difficult things on his mind at present. As I said, I read in the Globe and Mail that he was putting Canada first, and there was quite a complimentary article on his role to be played at the federal-provincial conference.

But I look at the use of the OPP, and the Premier says he's not guilty of this. We look at the government and how it's handled this. Stephen Lewis, particularly when he was in opposition, I thought, used to get a brown envelope a day from someone in government or someone in a sensitive position and he could raise an issue that would be important to everybody. As I recall, the Tories did not send the OPP after those people. Probably internally the deputy minister was annoyed, but we have a circumstance where on at least two occasions the Ontario Provincial Police have conducted an investigation of the former leader, the member for Bruce, and the member for Halton Centre.

This is scary when you think of it: Public servants feel compelled to release certain information that they think is in the public interest to release and the OPP show up at the offices. It sends two messages. First of all, it's a bit intimidating to the opposition, but we know we have a certain protection in this House. What is even more significant is that it intimidates members of the public service who then, even though they may feel compelled to share information with the public through the opposition or through the news media, will certainly be very reluctant to do so if they feel that the Ontario Provincial Police are going to be investigating them.

1640

I look at the issue of Sunday shopping. It's an issue which divides the House considerably. I have, since I served on municipal council, been opposed to Sunday shopping, to shopping on the holidays. I know not everybody agrees with me, and I know public opinion has shifted considerably over the years. I guess if I were to look at public opinion polls when I was making my decision on how to vote on any issue, I would vote in favour of Sunday shopping. But I've always felt, as I think the Premier used to feel, that it's important that we not compel a large segment of our population -- retail workers -- to work on Sundays. Today it's still largely a female workforce in the retail sector. Many people whose husbands may work five days a week in an industrial or business setting are out on Saturday doing their shopping, doing other things that they have to do on that day, business they have to conduct. The one time people could sit down together across the table from one another as a family and speak to each other was Sunday, the common pause day. I feel bad for those people who have to work that day. You know, we can pass all the legislation in this House we want to, saying they don't have to work and trying to protect them -- and we should do that -- but ultimately there are ways that businesses have of making them work.

In addition to this, I feel sorry for small business people who own a family business and work, as it is, six days a week. They're in the store themselves, maybe the husband and the wife and maybe some of the kids or a brother or a sister or something like that. If the mall is open, even with the new legislation passed there's going to be a feeling that they must stay open. So those people are going to work not because they wish to; they are going to be forced to work on a Sunday.

I think there's a value to a common pause day. Perhaps this speech will come later on. I don't feel it will make a measurable difference in our economy. There are six days a week to shop or seven days a week to shop and the same amount of money in your wallet. All it's going to mean is that you're going to spend it over seven days instead of six days.

The only arguments I've seen advanced that have some validity -- and I think they're outweighed by the other arguments that I've advanced today -- relate to cross-border shopping. I think cross-border shopping, by and large, is done because of the price and availability of certain products that may not be available over here and that the measurable effect is very small in terms of the number of people who will head over the border only because it's open Sunday and not otherwise.

I saw on the weekend that some banks felt compelled to be open, and soon we'll be just like the United States.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's only convenience, Jim.

Mr Bradley: Convenience is the only argument that is put forward, and I cannot argue against that. It is more convenient for shoppers to shop seven days a week than six.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one member has the floor.

Mr Bradley: Well, the member was agreeing, so I can certainly be tolerant of that.

There are certain other issues that on a regional basis are important. The member for Niagara South is in the House this afternoon, and she has a concern, as all of us in the Niagara Peninsula do, about the future of the Fort Erie Race Track.

I have a concern, and again it's an old CCF viewpoint of this world, I guess, as I have on Sunday shopping. It is -- and I won't get into this in great detail -- that I happen to believe that casino gambling is going to have a devastating effect on Ontario as well. But it's unfair to raise that issue alone. I only raise it in the context of the racetrack.

Fort Erie Race Track, as the member for Niagara South and others have pointed out to me, employs over 4,000 people directly or indirectly. In our society, not everyone is equal. In our society, not everyone has the same qualifications or abilities. There are many people who work at the racetrack who would not have an opportunity to work anywhere else, who like the animals they work with, who like the job they have. They are people who in the marketplace, the workplace, are not going to be able to acquire employment easily. That's why it's so important that Fort Erie Race Track remain viable.

Members from the government side and the opposition side and people at the municipal level are working hard to see that that is the case, that it does remain as a viable operation. It's exceedingly important to Fort Erie, to the Niagara region, in terms of the tax dollars that it brings in, in terms of the tourist dollars that it brings in, in terms of the employment that it provides. I urge the government, and I support the efforts, to ensure that track stays open.

I hope casino gambling does not draw away the people who are going there. I recognize that gambling takes place at a racetrack, but there's also a sport there. There are also horses. It's a different atmosphere. So I'm concerned about that. I know the CCF used to stand foursquare against it. Mr Temple, who was a strong CCFer and a person with strong views on this, felt it was an important issue.

I look at Project X. Project X is something that came about as a result of pressure from the development industry, largely, to change the way government deals with environmental assessment and approvals. I've often said, and some people have heard me interject in the House, "Only the Republicans can end the Vietnam war." Only the Tories could give a lot of power to certain groups within our society that Tories weren't associated with and only the NDP can do certain things as well, I guess, in our society.

When I was the Minister of the Environment, the Treasurer and I had a different point of view on this issue. The Treasurer, publicly, indicated clearly that he felt the processes we had in Ontario took too long, that the Environmental Assessment Act and the environmental approvals regime was such that the economy of the province was hurt by it.

I recall, when a paper was leaked to the press which showed that the government might try to address this perceived problem on the part of the Treasurer, there was weeping and gnashing of teeth on the part of the NDP and a good segment of the environmental community. Yet standing in the House just a few weeks ago was the Minister of Municipal Affairs side by side with the Minister of the Environment announcing that in fact Project X was going to be implemented. I thought, where are the environmental writers today? Where are the people who used to carefully scrutinize everything the government did in those days -- the heady days, I guess, of the environment? Where were the people who thought Jack Layton would make a big difference, for instance, if he were elected mayor of Toronto, because Jack Layton was concerned about the environment? Who were the environmentalists and where were the environmental writers when that happened? They were silent. There was nothing written about it. You got away with it.

It gets back to my original point of making a judgement of a government based not on when there's careful public scrutiny and everybody's watching but on what a government does when it can get away with it. You just got away with it. A lot of members over there, I know, got elected on strong environmental platforms, cared passionately about the environment. Yet I don't know if any of those people spoke up against that particular change, the ramifications of which are great for this province. If the Liberal Party or Conservative Party had done that, we would have been accused of being beholden to the development industry and that's why we did it.

Yet when your government does it, the main beneficiary is the development industry and no one says anything about Marco Muzzo or the development industry or anything like that. We used to hear those questions daily, on this side of the House, from now-Premier Rae and the Minister of the Environment, when she was on this side, and so on. I lament the fact that there's simply not the interest in the environment that there was a while ago. It certainly let you off the hook, but it doesn't help the environment when that is the case.

1650

I also want to deal with a couple of other issues that I think are important to people in my constituency and across the province. It's difficult sometimes to speak in this House. You're almost afraid in politics today to speak about anything because you must be politically correct, and that certainly has confined the debate. It's helped in some ways in that some of the things that were said in the past should not have been said. Also, politically correct language has been better for debate in some cases, but it has also forced many of us to pull our punches.

In my community, I think most of the people would want to see the police have the kind of power they need to carry out the responsibilities of dealing with crime. People believe the victims of crime, and not those who perpetrate crime, should receive the sympathy. Yet I see the government -- governments plural, not just this government -- taking more and more powers away from the police. They must always be beholden to elected people and to civilian administration. I think everyone would agree with that in this House. But I watch as we take more and more power away from the police and they can't carry out their responsibilities as well as they should.

People all over the province, regardless of their own background, care more about the crime being committed against them than they do about ethnic backgrounds or anything of that nature when people are carrying out crime. I'm concerned when we start to take away those powers from the courts and from the police. There should be a prize for being good in this world and a penalty for being bad, yet a lot of people aren't drawing that conclusion from what's happening in Ontario today or in other jurisdictions today.

I'm not one who calls for an agenda which would give the police all power. I am a person, however, who says when a young girl in my constituency, Kristen French -- I sat beside her parents at the Holy Cross graduation on Friday night, and Kristen French's parents were there to present a memorial scholarship in her name. Members of the House know that Kristen was the girl who was brutally murdered; kidnapped in broad daylight in a churchyard on her way home from school in her own neighbourhood in St Catharines and kept for some 13 days and then murdered and her body simply dumped on the side of the road. I thought how difficult it was for Mr and Mrs French to go to the stage to make that presentation in the name of their child. Their child had been dead only a matter of several weeks.

I remember going to the funeral, because I know the French family and I know the people she went to school with, and seeing the police sitting in a row behind where I was sitting and there were tears in the eyes of people who are police. You always think of police as big, tough people. There were men and women in the police force there who had very red eyes. They're the people who are first on the scene, and they are not pretty sights they have to see.

Perhaps if we can understand their frustration: Those of us who are elected people recognize the restrictions that must be placed on police forces, but those people feel an obligation to find the killer, the kidnapper, the kind of people who perpetrate these crimes, and they become concerned when they are portrayed as the enemy instead of those who want to solve the problems of our society.

I say this in a balanced way today, but if I were to express the viewpoint of my constituents on issues of this kind, I would suggest to you it would probably be much more extreme than the terminology I have selected for the Legislature this afternoon. I hope we keep that in mind as we try to balance the role of police and authority with those who commit crime or those who are sometimes on the receiving end of the work done by police.

I want to talk about Alzheimer's disease and its effect on people in my own riding as well. I've had telephone calls from people in total anguish, and it's usually about a parent or a spouse who is afflicted with Alzheimer's disease. It has not happened in my immediate or extended family, so I can't say I know on a personal basis what it's like, but those who have described it to me say it's an awful burden on the family itself and naturally on the person who is a victim of the disease.

I think we'll have to recognize that more and more we'll have to put resources into that area. That will mean one of three things: The government will have to borrow more money, which it obviously would not want to do; it will have to raise taxes, or it will have to find something else we have to do without. That's what's so very difficult about governing, particularly today when there is not a lot of money around. The government has to make those choices and the opposition will be there to remind it of its past views and why that may not be a good decision. Those kinds of decisions will have to be made. Tough decisions will have to be made by governments today and in the future.

Alzheimer's disease is something that's going to require an awful lot of funding because it's just impossible for an elderly spouse to deal with a person with Alzheimer's. Semi-institutionalization, if I can use it in the harshest terminology, is often what is required, and we know that is extremely expensive.

As I look down a little list I jotted down, I want to speak as well about violence in the school system. I was a teacher for 10 years and I well recall what it was like in the schools in those days. I admire the people who are in schools today, the teachers who are in the front line facing very difficult circumstances.

I notice that in Scarborough -- there are some members from Scarborough in the House today -- they need the panic button now for teachers who are facing some threat of assault or some other kind of threat.

I think we have to take a long look at how far the pendulum has swung in favour of the rights of individuals who are in the system and how far it has swung away from those who are there to teach and to maintain discipline. We have, some have told me, essentially a generation out of control. I think that's too strong in my own terminology. I'd say it's a generation without fear, a generation that does not fear authority, does not fear adults, does not fear laws. I don't use the word "fear" in any sense other than "a healthy respect for."

I admire teachers who will take a stand today, because it's easier to turn your head the other way than it is to confront a student in circumstances where that student may be able to get back at a teacher. The calling of lawyers into these circumstances is fairly commonplace now. I've seen the careers of dedicated teachers destroyed by those who have been prepared to vilify them to get back at them. I think our society has to look very carefully at how far we are prepared to go to accommodate those who want to buck the system as opposed to those who are prepared to be a positive part of the system.

I've often felt that if you have 30 students in a classroom, there are 28 students who are not troublemakers, who deserve a good education. That should not be sacrificed at the hands of a couple of people who are prepared to be disruptive and not face the penalties the system once provided.

I could talk about educational finance. I won't, because I think that's a question for another day, except to remind the government that it had promised that 60% of the cost of education would be paid for by the government of Ontario. The reason I mention that is that many of the leaders of the teachers' unions have, at the very least, been tolerant if not openly supportive of the NDP. I hope all the people who have been activists in the past and who have appropriately criticized the Liberal and Conservative governments will have that same degree of interest in the subjects that were so dear to their hearts.

1700

I read in a union newspaper the other day somebody who used to be adamantly opposed to Sunday shopping conceding that perhaps the day of Sunday shopping had come. I would prefer that they be as critical of an NDP government as of a Liberal government or a Conservative government for that stance. There are some people in the trade union movement who have been that way, but there are others who have not been, and my friends who serve in the union movement will know that. They know those who, as I said, have shoe polish on their tongues from the boots that are pretty clean and those who do not, who have said, "I still support the New Democratic Party because I think overall the New Democratic Party will serve what I want, but I'm prepared to be critical when I think it's wrong."

Mr Hope: They kick you too.

Mr Bradley: The member for Chatham-Kent will tell me that there are some people who are prepared to do that and some people who are not.

Mr Conway: Tell us about the OSSTF.

Mr Bradley: The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation is another. They were very adamant in their opposition to the Conservative Party at one time and the Liberal Party at one time. What I used to say as a teacher -- and this is not agreed with by many members in the government -- and I was a member of the union and a member of the executive of the union, was that I didn't think we should support any political party. It could as easily have been the Liberal Party in those days. They were extremely critical of the Conservative Party. Bette Stephenson was the minister at that time and I said, "The problem is that you're going to cut off your communication with Dr Stephenson."

I remember chastising a New Democrat, Malcolm Buchanan -- who must be blushing many times today -- who was quite left-wing, to say the least, and would certainly have been vocal at your convention. I chastised him because in 1982 the OSSTF openly supported Bob Rae in a by-election. That had been the first time -- and I know it's tradition in other unions -- that a teachers' federation had openly supported a political party or a specific politician. They had always made their point previously and had been very effective, I thought, because they had attempted to persuade people in all three parties of the justice of their case. I thought they lost their innocence the day they did that.

When they're on your side you're happy, quite obviously. I'm talking about the leadership, because many of my campaign workers are members of the teaching profession who don't adhere to what their leadership tells them. But the problem is that come next election, if the OSSTF is unhappy with this government, who will do its bidding? That's the problem when you associate yourself with one political party in very close way as opposed to some distance.

I want to deal very briefly as well with the issue of the environment, only to lament the fact that we do not have the kind of interest and attention in the environment that was there for a number of years.

Mr Conway: CBC Radio talks of nothing else.

Mr Bradley: I used to listen to Radio Noon and that was a torture, because they had Christopher Thomas and Rodney Palmer, the producer, and they always had something; somebody who was going to die of something would be on Radio Noon. The talk show and "our phone-in show from..." would be on some very important environmental issue. Certain people always managed to get through to that program. Norm Rubin used to get through if it was on something to do with energy, and they had a variety of people who somehow used to get through to that program.

I well recall in the last campaign, when I was on with Margaret Marland of the Conservatives and Ruth Grier of the NDP and a person from the Green Party, someone said, "There were four candidates on against you," because they had listed Christopher Thomas as being quite biting in the questions he asked.

But let me tell you what they're talking about on Radio Noon today. A couple of weeks ago I was listening and I thought, "Some important environmental questions before us today." Would it be the spraying of trees? Would it be a pulp mill in northwestern Ontario? Would it be toxic substances going into the ground? No. They wanted to know, would you phone in if you could identify a bird by the sound it made. So from all over Ontario, they were phoning to say, "I think that's a blue jay, I think that's a robin," and this was the level of debate taking place on the people's network.

The next day they'll have, "Successful fishing: Phone in and tell us your best fishing story." I can recall when the previous government was in power, there'd be a story on fish all right, a phone-in on fish: toxic fish. How much Mirex is in the fish, and what is the Minister of the Environment doing about it? But I know they're impartial, I know my friends on Metro Morning, who had the Minister of Health on for an hour, without an opposition member on --

Mr Conway: But they had Carolann Wright as a community spokesperson.

Mr Bradley: Carolann Wright as a community spokesperson, Olivia Chow on in the morning. I know they are totally unbiased. That is not a nest of New Democrats on Metro Morning.

I remember when Bob Rae was out in Whistler, BC, and --

Mr Conway: As Premier.

Mr Bradley: As Premier, at the premiers' conference, and there was an evaluation of this from Joe Coté: How could Bob do such a great job for the province of Ontario? Was he really the star of the show? It went back and forth like this. Then the revelation: Do you know that those demonstrators demonstrated against Premier Johnston of BC, but they loved Bob Rae?

Mr Stockwell: Who were they?

Mr Bradley: Indeed, who were they? Of course, it was organized by the New Democratic Party.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You could have switched channels. You don't have to listen to that.

Mr Bradley: In fairness, the member for Lake Nipigon makes a very good point, because those who used to assist me when I was in the ministry used to ask, "Why do you torture yourself listening to them?" It's probably advice I should listen to, I should probably listen to the member for Lake Nipigon in that regard, but I thought a network paid for by all the people in this country should have some semblance of neutrality, political balance.

Another example: We all recall the tragic mine disaster in Nova Scotia. I wondered, who will the CBC have on Commentary? Who will they have on commenting on this? Will it be a person from Dalhousie? Will it be a person from St Mary's, expert in the field? Will it be a newsperson who's objective in this? You know who it is? Jeremy Akerman.

Interjection: Who?

Mr Bradley: Jeremy Akerman, former NDP member of the Legislature in Nova Scotia. Surprise, he blamed the federal Tories and the provincial Tories. This is who the CBC found to comment.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): You should read the Globe and Mail.

Mr Bradley: Read the Globe and Mail. Indeed, sir. If I want to know your position, I do so, every time.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Where, in the ROB section?

Mr Bradley: Yes, that's right.

Anyway, I simply want to say that where this was going was on the environment. I wish we had all those sharp-pencilled news media people who were interested in the environment before interested in it once again. I wish the environmental groups which would have denounced a Liberal or Conservative government for some of the things that are happening or not happening in the environment today would be so vociferous today, not for any political gain but for a sense of the environment.

If you've been the Minister of the Environment, and many people have been in Ontario, you have a certain affinity for it. My colleagues were annoyed with me most of the time for being so --

Mr Conway: Truculent.

Mr Bradley: Truculent is perhaps the word used.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Persistent.

Mr Bradley: Persistent.

Mr Conway: Unilateral.

Mr Bradley: Unilateral; uncompromising on all of these issues.

I understand how an Environment minister feels. I lament the fact that neither the news media nor the environment groups seem to be very interested in pursuing these matters, or perhaps they simply can't get the kind of attention they once could. One has to wonder whether some of them are New Democrats first and environmentalists second. Others are not, I can assure you. I've watched them.

1710

I also want to deal with the matter of patronage. The reason I want to deal with patronage is this: I want to underline for my friends on the government side once again my view of patronage. I understand you are appointing New Democrats left and right. You are entitled to do so because you won the election. I understand as well that on many agencies, boards and commissions you might well want people who have a viewpoint which is closer to yours than to that of other political parties. I understand that. My objection is to hypocrisy. My objection is to portraying the new system as producing results different from what the old system produced.

I walk in once in a while to the committee on patronage -- I'm now the deputy House leader so I have other duties to perform -- the agencies, boards and commissions committee, or the standing committee on government agencies, and watch defeated NDP candidates or strong campaign workers being appointed to things.

If Bob Rae would say, "I won; I'm going to turn the province around; I'm going to put all these people who helped me get elected and who adhere to my point of view in these positions," I would say: "You're perpetuating a patronage system. You're not doing what everybody expected you were going to do, Bob Rae, but at least you're being honest and upfront."

What happens is they pretend they have a different system. The Premier stands up in this House with all the piety he can muster and tells you how everybody has access these days, yet I look at all of these names that come forward and see so many New Democrats. I just hope that when you appoint them they are people of quality and competence because I saw a number of people when we were in power -- the member for Etobicoke West will not agree with this, but when the Liberal government was in power, we appointed a number of people of competence from the New Democratic Party to various positions.

Mr Stockwell: The biggest mistake you ever made.

Mr Bradley: He says it's the biggest mistake we ever made.

There were many people who were appointed to those positions. Today we see a situation where whichever government comes next, when you people are finished ruling, whenever that is, will not have to worry about the issue of patronage being raised because you have set a new standard in patronage appointments in Ontario.

There's Ish from the riding of Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: The first person they appointed.

Mr Bradley: The first person appointed was Ish.

The member for Cornwall would know that his opponent was appointed the other day. They had the bagman from up in Simcoe. He came before them. I said, "Were you not the bagman?" Yes, he was. At least you should try to disguise them as somebody who just has a leaning towards the NDP. But no, we have the bagmen and the ex-candidates.

Mr Conway: Jimmy, have you been hearing about this in the media?

Mr Bradley: No, and I've been looking. One of the things I lament as well is that I would have thought these would have been stories in the news media. I remember when they used to be featured, if any Tory or Liberal was appointed to something, or Mulroney appointed somebody. Now we don't seem to see much about that.

Why? Because Bob Rae has a new system. It's a brand-new system in Ontario and everybody has access. They bring out this nice new book. "We have this nice new book" -- they say -- "and everybody can look through it." Well, everybody can look through it but not everybody can get appointed. That's the other problem.

I should talk about hospitals in my area.

Interjection: Are you going to let the patronage thing die?

Mr Bradley: I'm going to let the patronage thing die for now. There are many people who have been appointed, I understand, but I wanted to deal with the question of hypocrisy. I want to deal with a couple of things, because as I say, this is the last chance in my career in this House that I'll have to speak this long on anything.

The St Catharines General Hospital had its approval for an emergency ward, which would be modernized and streamlined, as the government House leader describes the new rules of this House. It had eight levels of approval, all set to go, a needed facility and the Minister of Health comes in and pulls the rug out and says, "You've got to determine whether you actually need this or not." They spent eight years determining that need. We must proceed with that. We need the green light on that. The funds have already been allocated within the budget.

Over at Hotel Dieu Hospital, we have the renal dialysis ward. The member for Lincoln, the member for Niagara Falls, the member for St Catharines-Brock and I toured it. The situation is appalling. The amount of room in the hallway for this entire ward would be about half as wide as the aisle between the government and the opposition. It would take you 15 minutes to get from one end of it to the other and it's not that long a ward.

The situation I've described in this House in some detail, with each of the details provided to me by patients, is appalling. Yet with all the allocation that's out there -- and I'm not asking for new money; there's an allocation for this purpose -- the Hotel Dieu Hospital has been unable to secure the necessary funds to assist patients. These are all patients in the Niagara Peninsula who are confronted with kidney disease and require dialysis daily or three or four times a week.

Again, had I ever thought that would be the case with an NDP government in power? Never. I remember the member for Windsor-Riverside was a tough opponent, a tough opposition critic, as was Ross McClellan when he was over here. They would never have tolerated this circumstance, yet we see that multiplied across Ontario today. I hope the government will see fit to provide that funding from its allocation which is already there to assist those people.

I also want to deal with the Port Weller Dry Docks. The government proceeded with a project. Here I want to compliment the government, as I will compliment the Minister of Transportation in just a moment. He was there. The Minister of Transportation was there. The Pelee Island ferry was completed on time, within budget and competently done at Port Weller Dry Docks. The minister and his wife were there, his wife officially christened it and it was good news for the city of St Catharines.

That was a project that was on its way to being announced at the time. The government didn't have to proceed with it, even though the previous cabinet had decided to proceed with constructing it at Port Weller Dry Docks. This government didn't have to do that, but it followed through on that commitment and as a result we have a good ship and some employment provided.

1720

They need assistance now with a wall. They need a wall that's going to be costly, and they need provincial assistance and federal assistance for a wall that will allow them to repair a ship and build a ship at the same time. I hope the provincial government will give serious consideration to the funding for that. In addition to this, if Wolfe Island needs a ferry boat, we'll be happy to build that at Port Weller Dry Docks. The minister now knows what kind of job they will do.

He was also in our community to officially announce -- it was the seventh time, I admit that -- the moving of the Ministry of Transportation to St Catharines. He was a delightful person there, charming as always, in St Catharines.

Mr Conway: Who was this?

Mr Bradley: The Minister of Transportation.

Mr Conway: Did he make any sense, though, when he spoke?

Mr Scott: In either official language.

Mr Bradley: Whether he made any sense or not is for others to judge, but he was cordial and charming and he did confirm what I had announced in 1990, that the Ministry of Transportation and 1,400 jobs were moving to St Catharines. Unfortunately, I wonder if that would have been the case if we had not had the announcement of the loss of some 3,000 jobs from General Motors.

Probably the most difficult announcement that ever faced St Catharines was the announcement by General Motors that it would be closing its foundry, losing 2,300 jobs; that another 750 people were laid off indefinitely as of March 1; that in addition, one of the lines in the engine plant would be terminated and another 100 jobs, or more, would be lost. It was the worst news to hit St Catharines in a long time.

I have introduced for consideration of this House the following resolution in support of Local 199 of the Canadian Auto Workers, which is spearheading the save-the-foundry campaign, the Fight Back campaign, and it reads as follows:

"That, in the opinion of this House, since General Motors announced its intention on February 24 of this year to close its St Catharines foundry, eliminating over 2,000 employment positions in addition to 750 women and men who were to be laid off indefinitely as of March 1 and over 100 people who will lose their jobs as a result of the decision to discontinue the 3.1-litre V-6 engine; and

"Since the St Catharines General Motors foundry is a cost-competitive, world-class, high-quality operation with a highly skilled and motivated work force; and

"Since the loss of these jobs will mean the loss of $130 million in wages and salaries to the economy of the Niagara region and the province of Ontario; and

"Since the implications for businesses and industries that service and supply the auto sector are extremely negative and serious; and

"Since whenever a production line and a significant part of a plant shuts down, the fixed costs of maintaining the rest of the operation increase and the quality of components from elsewhere cannot be guaranteed,

"The Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge General Motors to continue the operation of its foundry in St Catharines."

I introduced that on June 9, 1992, because my turn for the private members' hour was coming about.

I hope members of this assembly will unanimously support that. I suspect they will. Anybody who has experienced in his community the layoffs has to know that it's the individual people who are affected by it. It's not just the numbers. It's not over 3,000 people; it's not just a statistic. It's men and women I know, it's their kids, it's their grandchildren, it's people who are starting out in life, people who are older and nearing retirement, and all of them are affected by this. There are tears that are shed on that day. There's anger and anguish that takes place, and for the community it's a major blow to lose 3,000 jobs. That's why the CAW is leading the fight to try to persuade General Motors to change its mind, to maintain the foundry operation in St Catharines. I believe it's incumbent upon those of us in this Legislature to ensure that within our own power we do everything possible to keep the automotive industry, the most important industry in Ontario, in operation.

We do not have all the powers. The federal government deals with international trade. I happen to think they made a drastic error in changing the free trade agreement, because there were provisions changed that affected the automotive industry. I read into the record in this House a column written by Jim Peterson, the federal member for Willowdale and the Liberal critic for Industry, Science and Technology, who talked about the kind of quotas that will be needed to maintain our operations here in Ontario and in Canada. I hoped the federal government would play its positive role in that regard.

In Ontario we have a role to play as well. Part of it means avoiding taxes such as the so-called gas guzzler tax, the one I refer to because I genuinely believe it's ultimately a tax on auto workers. It is portrayed as an environmental tax and it's about as much an environmental tax as the tire tax our government brought in. The money is not designated for the environment. I happen to believe, as I've said in this House on many occasions, that there's a way to help the environment and auto workers in our province: encourage as many people as possible to replace their old clunker of a car with a new vehicle; get as many people as possible to buy a new vehicle.

There are about three things we can do here: One is not to proceed with this tax on auto workers, a specific tax on cars in the province. We eliminate that. Second, for a period of time -- not for ever -- we eliminate the provincial sales tax on vehicles sold in the province. The Treasurer cannot sustain losing that revenue for ever, but for a period of about six to nine months it could be helpful in spurring the economy and getting people into new vehicles. The third thing we can do is try as well as we can, and we know how difficult it is, to control hydro rates in Ontario -- power rates. A friend of mine in the industry told me that by the year 2000 we would have no forge shops, no electoplating, no foundries -- nothing that required great amounts of electricity in Ontario, because we are no longer cost-competitive in terms of electrical power rates.

I'm not going to blame anybody this afternoon. I simply say we have to be able to address that issue. The Minister of Transportation is a strong environmentalist. I well recall his views on spraying trees in the north and on Kimberly-Clark in his own riding. I well recall his strong environmental stand on both of those and how practical he was in those days.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Kimberly-Clark isn't in his riding.

Mr Bradley: It is. Terrace Bay is in his riding.

When he was in the House -- and a lot of people admired him for this -- when I was trying to put this oppressive, some people thought, control order on Kimberly-Clark, the member for Lake Nipigon said the company had done more than its fair share because he knew how much had been done up there. His leader didn't say that; his leader was asking other questions, but the member for Lake Nipigon knew what that industry meant to his community. And I know what the auto industry means to my community and to other communities in the province.

I think the environment can benefit, because when people purchase new vehicles the pollution control equipment is far superior to what it was in the old vehicle, and second, the new vehicles are much more fuel-efficient. I hope we will rally around the auto industry in this province and create an atmosphere for investment which will encourage people to keep their investment here and encourage new people, new companies to invest their dollars here to produce jobs in the future.

Much as I would like to continue all afternoon and well into tomorrow on matters of importance to my constituency, I believe it would be fair because the Conservatives obviously want to have something to say and make a contribution. No doubt they will be doing so in just a moment or two.

Mr Conway: Jim, a last word about Ed Philip, talking about --

Mr Bradley: The member for Renfrew North has asked me -- and this is not all that relevant, but some people think the ratings of cabinet ministers are important -- mid-term report cards.

Interjection.

1730

Mr Bradley: No, I'm not going to be negative today. I simply want to compliment my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, for getting the highest rating.

"Dr Philip, PhD" --

Mr Stockwell: Doctor of what?

Mr Conway: Sometime ophthalmologist.

Mr Bradley: Says: "Worked hard to get the best deal possible for de Havilland workers. Carries clout in cabinet. Given big bucks to help Ontario firms be more competitive in an effort to spur investment."

I simply want to congratulate a man who is known for his modesty over the years and known for his hard work on receiving the highest rating of any minister in the cabinet. I should say this, he shared it with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr Conway: The party animal.

Mr Bradley: "The self-described 'party animal' has been working hard to bring Ontario into the '90s. She okayed beer sales at Maple Leaf Gardens and will bring casinos to the province. Party on."

I want to congratulate those two ministers because I think the opposition sometimes tends to be negative. I want to congratulate those two individuals on receiving the high rating they have.

I don't know if the Conservatives now have their speaker in line, ready to go: the member for Etobicoke West, who I'm sure will be much more refined in the way he speaks this afternoon, will pull his punches and will be kinder to the governing party than I have been.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak. I want to say that I lament the fact that this is the last chance any of us will have to speak in this House and to deal with a variety of issues the way we have this afternoon.

The loser, as I have mentioned -- as members of this House will know -- is not necessarily even the members of this House, but the democratic system and the people of Ontario whom we represent. The winners with the new government rules are those who reside in the Premier's office, the advisers to the Premier, who are not elected but are certainly better paid even than the cabinet ministers.

I lament that fact. I hope this House can be relevant in the future, but unless the government recants, unless it reconsiders, my fear is that this day this House has diminished more than any of the 15 years that I've been in this Legislature.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I would like to congratulate the honourable member who has just been debating for many of the cogent points he brought to this debate. I sincerely hope the government was listening carefully to his dissertation, because indeed it is a sad day for this House.

One of the wonderful things about interim supply is that you get to speak about the whole track record of this government, and it is indeed a very sad track record. This is the government of Bob Rae, who in opposition was always championing the underdog and now has forgotten about them. This is a Premier who sends in the police, the OPP, to investigate anybody who knows anything about what the government is doing.

We've got a government which is spending $1 million a year to put in a telephone service which is pure propaganda. We know they've spent $50,000 to develop a new union song. The same minister who's cutting off funds to the Art Gallery of Ontario is giving money to develop a union song. They must be nuts.

While we wallow in a $10-billion deficit, no wonder this government is going down. We really have to look at a government which is paying off the unions for their support over the years. We're seeing a government that is not prepared to bring forward any impact studies as to what the labour law changes are going to do to us. This is a government which is absolutely without any guts. They're spending $75 million on creating not one single new day care space. They're wasting taxpayers' money.

Mr Hope: It's always my pleasure to stand up after the member for St Catharines. I was reading his resolution and I noticed during his discussion he talked about getting rid of your old car and purchasing a new car. Out of that, to keep on a little positive note here, I'm going to ask you, do these have to be North American-produced cars or can they be imported vehicles? I wish you to be careful on your answer of this one because there are some people out there you represent.

I know the member for St Catharines always talks about Local 199 of the Canadian Auto Workers. Yes, they are a very vocal group. I've had the experience, since I was 20, to be identified with some members from that local union. When he brings forward this resolution, I think it's a very positive resolution as he spoke about it. It is one of the best unions that represents in St Catharines. We've always been a union that's been very forthright. But during his speech he never indicated anything about his support for the reforms to the labour relations law that would help a lot of the independent parts suppliers he represents in St Catharines.

I noticed he brought up the issue of St Catharines and a dialysis machine. I would agree that those concerns have been expressed for quite some time now; they're not new experiences. As we all try to understand what is currently going on in our economic climate -- and I would agree with him; I would like to see a kidney dialysis machine in my own community because we have to travel an hour to Windsor or an hour to London and it puts us in a very difficult position.

I'd just like to get a little clarity on the provincial sales tax and on these cars. Are we going to help take all cars off the road and only produce North American products? With that answer, I would ask him what his position is with regard to small parts suppliers and the ones that provide glass for these automobiles.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It's too bad in a way that for so many members -- this really goes back to 1987 when we came in with a very large majority and a lot of new people came in, and then in the last election with the New Democratic Party a lot of new people. I think one of the things that in a collective sense we miss is a sense of this place.

The speech we've heard this afternoon from my friend and colleague the member for St Catharines I think really does speak to the strength of this legislative body and the kinds of things that make it strong, that the real problem we face when we make the kinds of changes we have been making today to the rules is that when we diminish the role of an individual member and when we thereby diminish in a collective sense the role of this chamber, we really are making ourselves increasingly less relevant to what is going on politically in the province.

I sat as a member of the government when the member for Welland-Thorold rose and spoke for 17 hours. We've spoken often about that, particularly to the New Democratic members, and we underline that that was a painful experience for all of us in government. But I think we all recognize that it was important within the rules of the House that members were able, in effect, to express their opposition and to use those rules to express the feelings and the thoughts they had.

What is so clear by what has happened today -- and I think the passion that came from the member for St Catharines -- is that we've diminished that role. We have really made ourselves less relevant to the debates and the issues we're going to be facing in the months and years ahead. I think that's something I would ask all members to think seriously about and to see if we can't change what was done today.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to rise and add my brief comments. We often disagree a little bit with the member on different issues, but I think we heard today a reason why sometimes the speeches are so important in here. On all the interim supply bills he gets a chance to get on the record the feelings from the people, whether they be the local auto workers who are in there or the people at the hospitals or the police. I think some of the reasons we're so upset with some of the rule changes is because he does it speaking on behalf of the people in his riding.

1740

While we sometimes disagree on what the philosophies are on different issues, I think it's important that members here remember to reflect on what the people of their riding are saying. We were all elected not to represent our own interests -- although that's difficult to do sometimes because obviously, as politicians, we believe our philosophies and ideas are important -- but I think if there's something we should learn from this, it's that we should be spending a great deal of time trying to get the ideas and the concerns of our constituents out here on the floor.

As I said before in a lot of these debates, regardless of what happens at the end of the day, the government will do whatever it chooses on any issue. But the most important thing is that the people of the province, through this Legislature, will have their input on the major issues facing us today.

I'm going to get a chance to speak a little bit on this bill a little bit further on, but I believe it's important that we reflect upon the will and the feelings of the people of our ridings on all the issues, like the previous speaker did.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for St Catharines has two minutes in response.

Mr Bradley: In response, first of all I want to deal with the issue of the House, which I think is an important one, and the role the opposition and the government play.

You saw an example of that today. I was able to stand up in the House today and give a statement on the Fort Erie Race Track. That doesn't mean I have a stronger feeling about it than the member who represents Fort Erie, who is a member of the cabinet. But she doesn't have that same opportunity to stand up and be critical as I would have, because as opposition you have that chance to do so.

Even within our own communities we will have members who, within the confines of the government caucus, put forth a very strong case. Those of us in opposition, on the other hand, have a chance publicly to be critical of the government and put some pressure on. So the combination of government members and opposition members often works to the benefit of the community, and that's why we both have a role to play, although the opposition generally tends to get more publicity. That's certainly not the case in my case, I can tell you, but it tends to get a lot more publicity because we're being critical.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for Chatham-Kent, whose interventions I always enjoy, asks about vehicles. I can tell him what kind of car I have driven all of my life -- before I was in politics -- I've always driven a General Motors car. The first car I had was a Chev. The car I drive today is a Chev. I didn't have to go, during the election campaign, and get a different kind of car and bring it out for the election campaign the way some of my opponents have had to. Years and years ago, I remember one NDP opponent who hid his foreign car somewhere and had an old GM product brought out.

I think that's important. I urge people to purchase cars their neighbours helped to build. I also enjoyed that particular slogan very much. I will always buy the car my neighbour helped to build, just as I hope the member for Chatham-Kent will -- I know he will -- want to do the same.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to take the first portion of this period of time I'm given to simply say a few words about the last speech we heard. First, it's going to be one of the last because of the new rules this government has brought in with respect to --

[Applause]

Mr Stockwell: Well, I don't know if that's mock applause or if it's truly intended.

Frankly, I'm in opposition to that opinion. I guess I'm in opposition for a whole bunch of reasons, not the least of which is that I kind of enjoy debate. I enjoy sitting about the House right about now and hearing what members opposite and of the Liberal Party and of my own have to say about the issues of the day. I enjoy many speeches, and I look across at the member from Hamilton who I think is one of the better speakers in this House and gives a very vigorous and defensive --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, I'd better get that straight if I'm going to compliment you, right? Hamilton Centre. I've been on shows where we're in opposition, but I will always say that his defence is interesting. I don't agree with it, but I find it reasonably exciting. There are others across the floor as well as the Liberal Party.

What I think you've just heard, particularly the first portion of that speech or debate, was a very gut-wrenching outline of exactly where the member for St Catharines falls on this issue. I think it was important that it go down in Hansard, because again, you won't have many.

I know the Minister of Culture and Communications was applauding, but I think you missed the point. You missed the point because -- she looks at me in an unreasonable manner.

What I'm trying to point out is that you missed the point of some limitations to speeches. That would have gone well over the 30 minutes. I don't think there's a member in this House who would think that wasn't a valued piece of workmanship done by the member for St Catharines; not a person in this House. It was heartfelt, fair and I think it brought forward a lot of good comments that needed to be made. I'm not certain that in the future these kinds of speeches will be allowed.

What I will say about the member for St Catharines is that he seemed to be honestly upset with the fact that this government was bringing in these kinds of rule changes. He said very categorically that it really surprised him that the NDP would be the ones to champion rule changes that would muzzle opposition and backbenchers alike.

I guess the point I'd like to make to my friend the member for St Catharines is this: If you've ever been in a position where you've seen this party in power, it shouldn't surprise you. I guess what it's come down to is that I look across the floor to a lot of members who sit in government who have sat in this House for a long period of time. You should have been involved in government where the NDP were in charge. There have been places around this province at municipal councils where they have been in charge: the Toronto school board, Toronto city council, and a few other locations from committees and so on at Metropolitan Toronto council.

My friend the member for St Catharines would know that none of this should surprise him. None of this is unusual and everything they've done is totally predictable. I guess the rationale used by that side of the House -- I heard it in 1983, I heard it in 1985 and I'm hearing it today -- is: "The ends justify the means. We have a higher calling. We know what's best. However or whatever it takes to achieve that is just one of those things that must be done so we can carry out our agenda."

I was surprised to hear the member for St Catharines make those kinds of comments, because with all due respect to this House and this party across the floor, nothing you do surprises me. Nothing you do shocks me. No trick or card that you pull from your sleeve gives me any reason to ponder why you're sitting across the floor. The only thing you must look at is the last provincial election.

Mr Hope: So why do you heckle so much?

Mr Stockwell: I heckle so much because I don't agree with practically anything you do. It frustrates me that you would say one thing outside this House and on this side of the House and do things so diametrically opposed to what you stood for, but it doesn't surprise me.

Just go back to the last provincial election and you'll get lesson 101, NDP campaign-style politics. Say it, mean it, do it but just don't tell them how. They never tell you how. Why? Because they just say it. It doesn't have to be doable. They don't even have to really mean it. They just have to speak with conviction for the minorities and underprivileged of this province and if they got into power, life would be right. Life isn't right. They're in power and they have backed off a lot of their principles.

I think the most interesting display we've seen is the rule changes. This, the party of the minorities: You're now "the minorities" to the NDP. How does it feel? Wonderful? Are they representing you? Nothing they do surprises me.

1750

I often make this comment to my Liberal friends and some of the Conservative people who were in government: "The biggest mistake you ever made when you were in government was believing them, believing that if you appointed them to commissions and boards they would carry out the good work and services they should in fact carry out, that it wouldn't be partisan and they wouldn't be percolating problems for you at the grass-roots level." I doubt very much I'll have to make that speech ever again to my Liberal friends across this House. I doubt very much I'll have to make that speech to my friends on this side of the House. I'll never have to make that speech again, because every day they prove that you don't have to make that speech about the socialists. Last campaign every one of those appointments you made came out and worked as diligently and as hard as they could against you on money the taxpayers spent paying their salaries all those years you appointed them.

This leads me to the patronage issue. The patronage issue doesn't surprise me either. They toss out names like Andy Brandt and Bob Nixon: "We're non-partisan. We appoint them from all parties." What they do is appoint one or two very high-profile people to a patronage position. Hopefully those people were leaders of their parties at the time, which coincidentally worked out. The patronage system kicks into gear and gets all those people jobs at the public trough -- that's what they crave -- so they can work together to get this government re-elected next term.

I was somewhat surprised by the comments of the member for St Catharines because I can't believe that a person who has been in this House for 15 years honestly thought the socialists were any different from any other political party. They're not. They're exactly the same; I suggest that they're worse. If it came to patronage, if it came to figuring out how to live off the government system, if it came to figuring out how to get a grant or a job, they could write books about it, volumes. They are professionals. I take my hat off to them. "Don't try this at home; you'd only hurt yourself." Not just at federal and provincial levels: at Metro, at municipal levels; they've done it everywhere, and they're successful.

The only difference today from two, three or four years ago is that we now see them in government, and we've ripped open the front door. As we rip open the front door to the big bureaucratic maze all we see are socialists cashing their cheques, collecting their money and working the system. That's how the system works.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): What the hell are you talking about?

Mr Stockwell: I'll speak firsthand. I'll give you examples, list by list, in the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, all throughout Etobicoke and Metropolitan Toronto. The debate may come where we could go out in public and discuss this, but after today these kinds of speeches will not be allowed. For 30 minutes you can make your piece, you can represent your constituents, you can argue with the government. I've often said in the past, and I said at the committee of agencies, boards and commissions, they have all due right to do what they're doing; as the Liberals had all due right and made some very serious mistakes, I might add. The Conservatives did, and they made some very serious mistakes.

Mr Conway: Morley Rosenberg was a lot of fun.

Mr Stockwell: That was an interesting one. The federal Conservatives made some mistakes, and I can think of only the United Nations for one. We've all made those mistakes, but the difference is that when this party was over here it was holier than thou. They wouldn't have patronage appointments. They wouldn't appoint people based on their political affiliation rather than their ability to do the job. No, say it ain't so.

Well, what we have today is our friend Marc Eliesen at Ontario Hydro. Marc Eliesen at Hydro is just the tip of the iceberg, but he is a very prolific tip of the iceberg. What you can see is above the water; what you don't see are thousands and thousands whom they appoint beneath the surface of the water.

I wanted to get those thoughts, because probably with 30 minutes and debating a very intense bill I'll want to put on the record a lot of information I've gleaned from my constituents, but today I wanted to get on the record the respect I hold for this Legislature. I look across the floor. I know I come here because I want to hear debate, and I would suggest that I'm here probably as much --

Mr Bisson: Well, then give up the floor long enough to let somebody debate.

Mr Stockwell: There goes Gilles, the member from Cochrane, another pearl of wisdom.

I come here because I like the debate. It's a healthy democratic process. When that debate is cut off or shortened in any sense I feel ripped off, because I think there are things that need to be said from backbenchers and from people in opposition alike.

The point I want to leave the opposition benches with is this: If ever another government is elected in this province, and who knows who that will be next time --

Mr Conway: H. Ross Perot.

Mr Stockwell: H. Ross Perot.

If ever there is another government elected in this province, it will be very interesting to see this party back to this side of the House. Frankly, they will sit here in absolute silence, with absolutely no ability to criticize, condemn, no soapboxes to preach from, no issues to crow about, no government to complain about.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): You're the masters over there. Talking about patronage, if ever anybody mastered it, it's that bunch over there.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Stockwell: As in the past, the member from Durham has run in here and offered his salient points of view, suggesting that this side of the House was responsible for a lot of patronage appointments. I have often said in the past, you are the government. If you choose to make patronage appointments, so be it. I know this Conservative Party when in power -- listen up -- made some patronage appointments.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Some?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, quite a few.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Here we go, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I've unsettled them.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Etobicoke West has the floor. Members will have the opportunity to comment after he completes his presentation. In the meantime, please allow him the respect of the House and give him the opportunity to make his statements.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to say that at least they had the courage to admit their patronage appointments. They didn't put in place a real --

Mr Conway: Boondoggle.

Mr Stockwell: -- boondoggle of a committee. Not one member across the floor who has sat on this committee ever voted against an order in council where the Premier told you to vote for this person on this committee. Don't tell me it's any different. It's no different. It's worse.

I know the time is closing. I will be up tomorrow. I will put this government on notice that my speaking tomorrow, if they found this controversial, they will find absolutely unbelievable. I'm going to lead off tomorrow with the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, because I found her comments about the police absolutely offensive and unbelievable to the ears of the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto. Now you, my friends, can look forward to another fulfilling day in the Legislature, hearing from those people called the opposition.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, June 30, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1801.