Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): It is indeed a privilege for me today to rise and honour our world champions, the Toronto Blue Jays.

[Applause]

I can see we have unanimous consent on this one.

Over the past 15 years, and particularly over the past month, the Toronto Blue Jays have given Canadians a reason to smile, a reason to cheer, a reason to feel good about themselves and a reason to feel pride in their country.

The members of my family are all avid Blue Jays fans, to the extent that my 14-year-old daughter and I travelled down to Atlanta this past weekend to be at game 6 of the World Series. We wanted to be there to cheer on our beloved Blue Jays and to be there as Canada's baseball team made history.

What a roller-coaster ride it was. Imagine being a little island, my daughter and myself, two Blue Jays fans among 52,000 Atlanta Braves fans, all doing that perfectly synchronized tomahawk chop and the chant that I was to remember in my dreams and my nightmares for days afterwards.

Some will say it is ironic that it took a group of American, Puerto Rican and Dominican ball players to unite Canada, but that sells Canada and Canadians short. The ownership, administration and fans are all Canadians, and we're the ones who helped build this superb team. From across this country, from Vancouver to Saint John's, the team was Canada's, on the field and in our hearts.

Congratulations, and go Blue Jays.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This week, people across Canada are sending their elected representatives white ribbons to show their concern that pornography is harmful to the individual, the family and the community.

Those of us who wear white ribbons are worried that some children are receiving their sex education from pornography. We are worried that there is no law against the possession of pornography, and we are worried that the degradation and violence of pornography hurts society, particularly women and children.

Last fall, I sponsored a private member's resolution which received the unanimous support of this Legislature. My resolution petitioned the federal government to replace the Criminal Code's ambiguous definition of obscenity. Since then, a Supreme Court of Canada decision has clarified what is obscene and has stated that the distribution of pornography is not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

None the less, there is widespread concern that the Ontario Film Review Board still does not reflect community standards in releasing many adult sex videos. Moreover, adult video stores are increasing in many communities, including Mississauga. As X-rated videos become readily available, they fall into the hands of children. A study by Dr James Check of York University shows that children between the ages of 12 and 17 are the primary consumers of pornography in Canada.

I therefore ask all members to join me in wearing a white ribbon this week and fighting the spread of pornography.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Last week and last weekend there was a fever. We caught that fever. It was the Blue Jays fever. We won. We won the World Series. For the first time in history, Canadians have got something tangible we can celebrate, and we did celebrate, with a fever. Out on Yonge Street, people were dancing, people were singing, out on the streets, out in the parks. There was a fever. We caught that fever.

I want to thank the Blue Jays. I want to thank Cito Gaston. I want to thank everybody who was involved with that team for what they have done for this country. They have brought us together. We are united. This weekend was history, and I am proud, and I am telling them today from Yorkview, thank you, thank you very much. Thank you, Blue Jays, for everything you have done, not only for the city but the rest of the country. Thank you for uniting us.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I stand here once again on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole to congratulate the Toronto Blue Jays, the city of Toronto and Canada.

Late Saturday night, in the 11th inning, the Blue Jays made baseball history as they became the first team outside the United States, the first Canadian team, to win the World Series. Our excitement and our joy was overwhelming. Hundreds of thousands of fans poured on to Yonge Street Saturday night. People just wanted to cheer, to yell and have a good time. What a party.

Yesterday that same winning spirit and excellent behaviour was displayed once again as thousands of people turned out to congratulate their Jays. Inside SkyDome and along the parade route, people yelled and cheered for their baseball heroes.

The Blue Jays are number one in baseball. Toronto and all of Canada are proud of the Blue Jays. Our team brought us home the greatest achievement in baseball, the World Series trophy. Today I congratulate Toronto, Canada, and of course the very special Blue Jays. The Jays are number one, but so are their fans.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): The Toronto Blue Jays have won the World Series and won the hearts of Torontonians, Ontarians and Canadians across the country. On Saturday night, 500,000 people in Toronto marched jubilantly down Yonge Street in celebration of Canada's first World Series win, and the celebrations continued over the weekend and into Monday during the welcome-home parade and festivities.

We should be proud of the Blue Jays' hard work and the wonderful accomplishment they've achieved. I'm certain I speak for all members of this House and for all Ontarians when I extend a big congratulations and thank you to the Blue Jays -- and Mr Speaker, I'm not going to sing this year.

Not only have the Blue Jays given Canadians a sense of pride and unity, but economically they have injected tens of millions of dollars into the Metro Toronto and Ontario economy. Tourists and reporters from around the continent and around the world congregated in this city last week to witness the World Series games at the SkyDome.

It's unfortunate that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation was not there to personally welcome media people from around the world and act as an advocate for the Tourism ministry in Metro and Ontario. This was a unique and maybe once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to promote the many tourist attractions of Ontario to the world. Unfortunately, I understand the minister was away on personal leave last week. Obviously the window of opportunity which the World Series presented in terms of tourism promotion was not a priority with him.

I'm looking forward to another World Series victory next year for the Jays. We're proud of you, Blue Jays. Keep up the good work.

1340

GREEK CELEBRATIONS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Last Sunday, it was a real honour to be able to participate with members of Metro's Greek community in marking the 40th anniversary of OXI Day. That parade, which is the anniversary and looking back, marks a time in history when Greece was able to repel the dark forces and democracy reigned on that day on October 28, 1940. The Greeks rallied together and were able to come together to defend their country, and this parade marks that anniversary. It's important to have that place in history, because that shows an assembly of people coming together in democracy and unity for peace, stability and prosperity.

After the parade, we then marched over to Nathan Phillips Square and city hall, where we had many speeches from leaders of the Greek community. We had wonderful dances from the Greek community from the dance troupes, and it shows how wonderful the culture and community are, how proud they are of their traditions. It was good to see that cooperation coming within the community, and it's a good thing to remember that we have these people as part of our community, that they share the values and the principles of democracy, and that is the basis of stability and economic growth of any community.

NORTHERN ONTARIO BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise today to acknowledge and honour the Northern Ontario Business Awards, which I attended on Thursday last in Sault Ste Marie. Approximately 500 women and men from across the north came together to celebrate and honour the north's business people. All northerners thank Michael Atkins and his cohorts for again making this evening and day most memorable. I'd like to take a moment to share my congratulations, and those of the Liberal caucus, with those honoured.

Company of the year, one to 25 employees, went to Miller Technology of North Bay. Our congratulations to Ron Miller and his people.

Company of the year, 26 to 50 employees, went to Dingwell's Machinery and Supply of Thunder Bay. Our congratulations to Patrick Gilbride and partner Robert Bell and their dedicated employees.

Company of the year, 51-plus employees, went to Great Lakes Power of Sault Ste Marie, Don Watson, president. A tip of the hat to Don and friends at this dynamic electrical utility.

The entrepreneur of the year award went to the dynamic and versatile Vic Prokopchuk of Atikokan, whose community involvement and leadership talents were well documented.

Young entrepreneur of the year award went to Doug Nadorozny of the AMS Group (Sudbury). Our congratulations.

The executive of the year award went to Frank Dottori of Spruce Falls Paper.

On behalf of all members of this assembly, our best for the future, because the business people of Ontario, particularly northern Ontario, are our future.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health, and it concerns her government's treatment of Ontario's vulnerable seniors who are unable to care for themselves.

Since September 1990, 20 nursing homes in Ontario have closed. The 94-bed Bestview Health Care Centre in Orillia has never had any new beds allocated from the provincial government since it first opened its doors. Bestview alone has a waiting list of more than 100 vulnerable seniors waiting for beds.

It's been indicated to me that other nursing homes in Orillia, as well as those in Penetanguishene and Elmvale, also have lengthy waiting lists.

I would really like to know what I'm supposed to tell people like Nancy Crisp of Big Cedar Estates, who is in desperate need of a nursing home bed for her husband.

Minister, your treatment of vulnerable seniors is deplorable. You do not appear to be too concerned about sending out more health cards than there are people in Ontario, and you do not appear to be too concerned about wasting more than $39 million on a scheme to reduce medicare fraud when that scheme itself is open to abuse.

I would suggest that the time is long overdue for you to live up to your responsibilities. Get your spending priorities in order so that the vulnerable seniors in Ontario can have access to nursing home beds and receive the dignified care and treatment they so richly deserve.

NIPISSING COLLEGE

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): This afternoon I will be moving the first reading of a private bill -- note, not a private member's bill but a private bill -- regarding Nipissing College. Right now, degrees are conferred upon Nipissing graduates by the university in my riding, Laurentian University. This bill will allow Nipissing University College its own power to confer its own degrees upon its own students.

What is memorable about this bill is that, first, we in the north will have another university in the north to particularly service the Highway 11 north-south corridor, and, secondly, that all three parties in this House are waiving the five-day reporting period to allow the bill to come before the standing committee on regulations and private bills tomorrow morning. This is truly an example of how we all can work together.

Much if not all of the work was done by the president of Nipissing College, Dr David Marshall. He spent many hours working on the proposal in order to be granted this power, and he's contacted all parties to ensure that everyone at least is informed with full information. I look forward to introducing this bill tomorrow morning, and I want to welcome Dr David Marshall, who is sitting in the gallery.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I rise under standing order 21 to bring to your attention a serious problem. Because we are given particular information in this place about the manner in which certain activities are carried on by the ministers and the ministries, we now have proof that we don't get the full story, that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, for instance, is putting out a different story than it has provided here in this House and that is put out by some of the members of the government party.

Not only does this first edition of Mr Cooke's personal newsletter around the province contain some information which does not comply with what was given to us in the House, it comes with a full-size personal cutout of Mr Cooke. A three-colour production produced at this time when our budgets are all under terrible stress is wasteful. More than that, when another minister of the government is on record as opposing the building of the Palladium and in fact was going around telling her constituents in the Ottawa area that the government did not support it, we have the point of privilege of finding out that David Cooke and Dale Martin actually gave Ottawa the Palladium.

Mr Speaker, I wish that you would make an inquiry as to who is telling the truth. Is it the Ministry of Municipal Affairs first edition, a very expensive piece, or is it the member and the minister from Ottawa Centre?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Bruce certainly seems to have some good ammunition for a question in question period. I thought at first he was concerned that his picture wasn't in the publication. That as well, perhaps, will find its way to the floor of the House during the oral questions.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On the same point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I want to indicate also that the part which was referred to on the Palladium made many members of this Legislature ill when they read it.

The Speaker: We certainly want all members of the assembly to be in good health.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber, and indeed to our country, a special visitor who is seated at the table, Mr Oluyemi Ogunyomi, who is the chief legislative officer from the National Assembly of Nigeria. You're most welcome to our chamber.

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT / ENTENTE CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I wonder if I might have the unanimous consent of the House to make a brief statement with respect to the results of the referendum last night. I've discussed this with the opposition leaders, and I think we all agreed this morning it would be a good idea.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the House, if only briefly, in addition to the comments that I made publicly last night. I think the results are now in, and it's clear that while the referendum result was a positive one in a number of places and jurisdictions, including, I'm proud to say, our own province of Ontario, and I'm very proud of that fact, I think it's also clear that the rejection of the referendum in the province of Quebec and in the western provinces clearly means that the process of renewal that started several months ago, indeed a couple of years ago, and concluded in the accord at Charlottetown with the referendum has now been concluded.

As I've told the people in the province of Ontario, I accept that result. I accept it entirely as an expression of public opinion in the province of Ontario, accept it as an expression from Canada and see it very clearly as an indication not that the idea of federalism has been rejected and not that the idea of our making progress has been rejected but simply in the reality that this particular accord has not met with sufficient approval to proceed.

1350

Obviously, I am disappointed in the result. I'm sure members, whatever their own views may be with respect to the issue at hand, will perhaps appreciate in a brief moment of non-partisanship that when you spend a great many working hours, days and nights, trying to achieve something and feel you've come very close and you've given it everything you've got to make it succeed and it doesn't happen -- I hope members will recognize there is naturally a sense of personal disappointment on my part.

Let me also make it clear, however, that there's no point in our looking back. We have to proceed as a country together. We have to take the time to reflect on and learn the meaning of this experience, of what has taken place. The issue of job creation, of making the country work better, of getting our province to work better, of making sure we're all working more effectively on behalf of the public of the province, that reality and that issue are very much ahead of us and ahead of this government.

I can report to the House today, as I've tried to do on a number of other occasions, that I've had a number of very candid conversations in the last couple of days. I can tell the House, for example, that I spoke today with Premier Bourassa. He was extremely constructive. He was determined to continue the fight for Canada in his own province and sees the task ahead, I think, very clearly in terms of the tasks we face together. I took heart from that conversation.

I can also reflect to members the conversations I had with Chief Mercredi as well as Chief Peters in the province of Ontario and say to the House that I conveyed to those two leaders my own sense that it was now incumbent upon all of us to work together and try in a practical way to achieve some of the things which we all felt, certainly I felt very strongly, would be achieved in the context of the constitutional discussion. That task remains ahead of us and I think it is critical for us to do so.

We live in a democracy in which people were offered a challenge and a choice, and they made it. It is now up to all of us to attempt to interpret and work with the choices the people have given to us. I do so without any regret and I do so without any sense of nostalgia for what might have been. I gave it my all. I think I was speaking on behalf of a consensus of the members of this Legislature when I did so.

I spoke from platforms in northern Ontario and in the south; I spoke in English, French and other languages as well. I tried to convey as clearly as I could the need for generosity, compassion, imagination and courage in the renewal of our Constitution. I continue to believe that those are qualities that are necessary in the building of a better Canada. They are qualities which we will all have to bring to the debate and the discussion in the creation of jobs, in making the country work better, in the practical work we have to do together, and I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that we simply must move ahead, move on and do it together in a spirit of determination, in a constructive way.

C'est naturel peut-être de parler directement et franchement à mes concitoyens de la province de l'Ontario du fait que je suis fier que nous ayons réussi à convaincre une majorité d'Ontariens de l'avantage du Oui dans le vote référendaire. Mais, quand on voit le résultat à travers le pays, il est clair que l'appui pour le Oui n'a pas été suffisamment fort pour que nous puissions conclure ce rang de discussions constitutionnelles de façon positive.

Je regrette beaucoup cette décision de la part de mes concitoyens canadiens. Mais, naturellement, il y a des choses dans la vie qu'on regrette, et j'accepte tout à fait, clairement, la décision de l'électorat.

J'ai parlé ce matin avec M. Bourassa. C'était une discussion très positive. Nous avons réaffirmé encore, nous deux, le partenariat nécessaire et essentiel qui existe entre nos deux provinces. J'ai parlé aussi avec les chefs autochtones, le chef Mercredi et le chef Peters de notre province, pour les encourager de la réalité que nous allons continuer à travailler ensemble, et nous allons le faire d'une façon très positive et constructive.

Même si on est déçus des résultats, on doit les accepter et on doit travailler avec toutes nos forces et toute notre capacité pour l'avenir.

On a personal note, I would just express my gratitude to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the Conservative Party. First of all, I know that my absences from the House have been a source of some discussion and comment. They are a fact of life which stems from these obligations.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the third party that I have appreciated the non-partisan, constructive spirit in which they have consistently carried on with this debate and this discussion. I particularly appreciate the support that I've had from members of the Liberal Party caucus and from members of the Conservative caucus.

I think we've all recognized in a very positive way and a positive spirit the fact that however intense the partisan debates may be and however intense our partisan differences may be, we must, on this file, continue to work together. I can assure members of the House that I will continue to act in that way as we discuss these issues.

May I also, on behalf of the members of the Legislative Assembly, express my gratitude to the many members of the Ontario public service, at all levels, who have worked extraordinarily hard in this debate. We are remarkably served by the quality of the people who have served us and who have given us advice and who have worked very hard to achieve a successful result. I know that just as I am disappointed, so are they, but I want to convey to the deputy and to everyone working in the ministry and to people working in other ministries my sense of pride in the work they have done and my personal gratitude for their job.

May I also express my real thanks to the members of the Yes committee, to the people who worked very hard as volunteers across the province and who have done, I think, a remarkable job in conveying a positive message to the people of the province.

We have to recognize now the need to turn a page, not quite perhaps in the way that I had hoped, but nevertheless in a way that I think the people of the province will understand. We now must clearly address, together and constructively, the challenges of the future that face the 10 million citizens of this province as effectively and creatively as we can, obviously in close cooperation and partnership with our fellow Canadians and with our fellow provincial governments, and I will continue to provide that leadership to the best of my ability.

I want to say again to the House, thank you very, very much.

1400

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I do not believe that we need to spend a great deal of time today in analysis. The message from the people of Canada last night was very clear. The people have spoken, they've listened to all sides, they've considered all the facts, and they've told us that this constitutional package wasn't right for them.

It seems to me that the second message is equally clear: Governments must now set aside the constitutional debate and concentrate all their efforts on building a strong economy and on creating jobs.

Those of us who favoured the agreement, in all parties, sincerely believed that a Yes vote was a vote for Canada, but we recognize with equal and absolute conviction that those who voted against the agreement were not voting against Canada; they were voting against a series of constitutional amendments.

It would be simplistic and naïve, however, to claim that this vote was nothing more than a vote on constitutional issues. Anyone who has talked to an Ontario voter realizes that many who voted No were not just voting against a constitutional package; they were voting and voicing a very different concern about their future and about government's inability to come to grips with their very real concerns.

We do hear a great deal of talk these days about how angry people are, and they are angry. But they're angry because they're frustrated. They're frustrated because they feel the pain of recession. They come head to head with economic crisis every day. They have ideas about what has to be done to solve the problems, and they don't believe that government is listening to their concerns or to their ideas. They just don't believe that governments are dealing with the issues that matter most to them. When Ontarians talk about crisis, that's what they're talking about, and that's what they want their governments to deal with.

In attempting to amend the Constitution, the best efforts of governments have once again failed to meet success, and we cannot continue to devote our energies to the resolution of constitutional issues at a negotiating table. The Constitution is not the problem that is affecting people's lives every day. The economy is doing that, and the economy has to be our priority every day.

As one who supported the Yes side, I join in recognizing the verdict of the people. I congratulate, with the Premier, all who participated in this process on both sides of the issue. It was an important exercise in democracy. A great number of people were energized, people took time to become informed, people on both sides expressed a real commitment to Canada and its future, and now governments must hear what people have said.

The greatest contribution that Ontario can now make to national unity is the contribution that we have always made as the engine of economic growth. The most important thing we can do for national unity today is restore Ontario's prosperity. That is the best way to ensure the future of this province and of this country.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly about last night's referendum result. Let me clearly join with my two colleagues, the leader of the government and Premier, and the leader of the Liberal Party, in thanking not just those with whom we worked throughout this province and in our ridings, encouraging people to support the Charlottetown accord, but indeed all Canadians in how they conducted themselves in this referendum campaign.

Those who were working on the No side, as well as those who were working on the Yes side, if you look at virtually any other country and how they approach major decisions, I think acted maturely. I think it was a good campaign. I thank all those who took the time to analyse this referendum and to participate in one form or another in a very basic form of democracy that I think we're obviously going to need more of.

There are many messages, many meanings and many ways to interpret what happened. I don't want to rehash. I agree with much of what the Premier has said. I know academics will now debate and will write about this period in our history. I'm sure this week and next week and next month and for years to come, political strategists and tacticians will review the campaigns and the advertisements and the results from the top down and the bottom up. Pundits and media commentators will play Monday morning quarterback. That's as it should be; that's fine.

But I'm not an academic, I'm not a pollster and I'm not a political strategist. I'm not a pundit; I'm not a media commentator. I, like each of you in this chamber, am the representative of my community, and I want to share with you a fundamental result of yesterday's referendum that hasn't been expressed yet in this chamber and I think is a lesson all of us should have learned from yesterday, and if we do that, the referendum will have a positive contribution to make, not only in future constitutional discussions but in the economy as well.

I, like each of you, am a representative of my community. I'm a guy from North Bay with a mortgage and two children. I was sent here to Queen's Park to do a job. Our task is to lead, well reflecting the will of the people.

Last night was a signal to us that leadership and reflecting the will of the people must go hand in hand, cannot be separated. We, as elected representatives, must give form and substance to the decision-making process. We must make those decisions by reflecting the will of the people. Harry Truman said it rather simply. He said: "There go my people. I am their leader. Therefore I must follow them."

Nearly 14 million people went to the polls and marked a ballot yesterday, and one of the clear messages I heard was that this signals a change in the way we must conduct our politics. The brokered interests around the table came and represented their agenda very effectively. Whether it was western Senate seats or whether it was Supreme Court appointments or aboriginal self-government, the horse-trading and the negotiating and the accommodations took place. They took place in a typical Canadian, very generous, way, a positive way. By the old definition of politics, the brokered interests struck a deal. By the old definition of politics, that would have been enough, by those definitions.

But that was not reflected in the will of the people yesterday. It was not enough. Politics is changing, and our attitudes and our method of operation must change with it. This doesn't simply apply to us in this chamber; it applies to union leadership, it applies to business leadership, it applies to all the power brokers in our society. The paternalism and the élitism of the past will not sell today.

That is one of the real messages I took from yesterday's referendum. We need more genuine reflection of the will of the people in our deliberations. We need more free votes in the Legislature. We need more recognition of the sophistication of the electorate. They knew what they were doing yesterday. They were not voting on Lyn McLeod, Mike Harris, Bob Rae, Brian Mulroney, economics, jobs; they were voting on the Charlottetown accord and they didn't like it.

I suggest to you, as something we should learn, that one of the very great lessons from yesterday is that it's not politics as usual. People are mad about certain things. The anger won't go away by ignoring it, and we need to be honest and we need to be open in our decisions.

I agree with my two colleagues. We need to get on with the fundamental economic change and job creation. This is not a new issue just discovered overnight, but there is another signal to the union élite, to the business élite, to the cultural élite, to the political élite, and it's a signal we cannot ignore. As we turn to the economy, we should, I believe, reflect on one of the real messages from yesterday and from last night. The paternalism and the élitism of the past did not sell on the Constitution and it will not sell on the economy. It won't sell in dealing with jobs. It won't sell in dealing with labour legislation. It won't sell in any of the other significant structural changes we are going to have to address.

I wanted to express this viewpoint in a real, positive way, that if we learned that from yesterday, then we will one day find a Constitution acceptable to all Canadians, and if we learn from yesterday that the politics of the past has changed, we truly then will have an opportunity, if we apply those lessons, to find the economic solutions we are looking for as well.

I congratulate all those involved. I share a number of the comments and concerns the Premier has made and others have made, but I believe if we continue to ignore one of the very strong messages from the people in yesterday's referendum, then we will have greater difficulty in the future in finding those solutions we are looking for. I ask all 130 of us in this Legislature to reflect on that and what the people told us yesterday.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): There seems to be one continued point of unanimity, and that's in recognizing that the message we heard in yesterday's referendum was a message of getting back to the economy. Needless to say, that's where we want to turn our attention and the Premier's attention today.

In fact, it is hardly for the first time, since day after day, week after week, we have kept trying to remind this government of Ontario's reality: that in Ontario, every working day, 547 people lose their jobs, every three days a plant closes in this province and that there are 555,000 people out of work. We insist on having this government recognize that, in September, the jobless picture in every other province in this country improved except in Ontario.

Premier, it is obvious to everyone that your economic strategy is not working. You cannot meet even your very modest predictions of economic growth. I ask you today: Do you have any other policies to offer Ontarians, or is 11% unemployment the best your government can do?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The unemployment numbers are obviously not acceptable to anybody in the province or anybody in the country. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will recognize that what we are confronting, perhaps I can say to her, contrary to what she's been putting forward, is not a problem that is confined to Ontario. It's a problem and a challenge that is affecting the entire economy in the western world, in particular the economy of the North American world and in particular the economy of those parts of North America to which our exports are particularly tied and to which our job growth potential is particularly tied.

I say to the honourable member that the strategy of our encouraging investment, both public and private -- the Jobs Ontario Training fund, the Jobs Ontario Youth fund, the anti-recession fund, the decreased taxes on small business, manufacturing and resource processing, the manufacturing recovery program, our determined effort not to abandon an equity agenda but to sustain an agenda for fairness, the $3.9 billion on strategic infrastructure, the sectoral strategies that are in place as well as the $150-million sector partnership fund, the increased capital cost allowance and the $930 million that we are determined to place in training, which is a 25% increase in our training budget -- this is the general direction which we want to take.

I can say to the honourable member that we are doing whatever we can. We're going to be working closely with business and with labour, with community groups, with everyone, to address it and we are going to continue to make this issue the very top priority for the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier keeps refusing to understand that it truly is time to come home and deal with the kinds of things he can do to turn around Ontario's economy and to recognize that the list he was able to recite after having the page open in front of him doesn't offer any initiatives that are actually working. Nobody is getting back to work in this province.

The Premier publicly indicated yesterday that one of his first steps in looking at the condition of the economy, which we all agree has to be the priority, will be to go to countries in Asia to convince people that there is stability so that they can be encouraged to invest in our country.

I would say to the Premier in all sincerity that you can't reassure investors in Tokyo and in other Asian cities that Ontario is a safe place to invest their money when people here in Ontario are, day by day, losing confidence that it is in fact safe to invest here at home.

I would ask the Premier, will you not deal with the realities of this province? Will you not stay and talk to the people in Barrie and Kitchener and Thunder Bay and Toronto, and find out from them what you can do to turn Ontario's economy around, and to say to people here at home what you will do to restore their confidence that it makes sense to do business in this province again?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not surprised by the question. I in a sense anticipated it.

I would say to the honourable member, first of all, will I be sitting down with people in those communities? Yes, I will be. Have I been doing it? Yes, I have. Have we been responding? Yes, we have.

I'll be going to Sault Ste Marie on Thursday, and no doubt she'll be commenting on the fact that I won't be in the House at question period then. But I'm going to be sitting down with the chamber of commerce, I'm going to be sitting down with the labour movement, I'm going to be sitting down with members, and we're going to be discussing and also looking at some very practical things that we've done in terms of cogeneration, which will be creating jobs in the Sault Ste Marie community and responding to a very difficult economic situation.

I can say very directly to the member that if she's suggesting that somehow there is a conflict between our trying to improve exports, improve investment and take a broad-minded, open-minded view of the world and the responsibilities of the Premier of Ontario, I couldn't disagree with her more profoundly on that particular score. You're setting something in opposition to each other which shouldn't really exist.

Mrs McLeod: I would make it very clear to the Premier that my question was not one of questioning his presence or absence in the House. My question is directly to the Premier on what he needs to do to deal with what he recognizes as a goal; that is, to restore confidence that it makes sense to invest in this province. I'm saying to the Premier, start at home. Hear what people are telling us day after day after day about what your government is doing to destroy investor confidence in this province.

To take just one example, Mr Premier, this week, as you well know, your Labour Minister is going to bring in Bill 40 for its final reading. People across this province, Mr Premier, if we want to talk about investor confidence, are telling you very clearly that this bill is destroying confidence in Ontario as a place to invest. This bill is going to put more people out of work. Premier, if you are in fact serious about building investor confidence in this province, will you not stop this bill before it's too late?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer to the question is no, Mr Speaker. I'll just tell her why: because we don't see any conflict. It's interesting. I've talked with the people in the province of Quebec. I've spoken to business people throughout. There's a need to create a strong partnership, a sense of working together. We gain nothing by pitting labour against management or management against labour, or by indulging in the kind of rhetoric which the Leader of the Opposition has surprisingly engaged in, which says that if we try to create a more stable labour environment in this province, somehow we're doing something that's contrary to business. What we are doing is modest, it is progressive and it is sensible, and we're going to continue on that path.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for the Premier. I think the Premier will agree with me that one of the foundation stones for the people's confidence in their government is that the ministers who are elected to form a government are abiding by the rules and the regulations and the standards of conduct that have been established to ensure that there is no conflict of interest in the activity of any minister. In fact, the Premier himself made reference to that in the first speech from the throne of this government when he stated as follows:

"Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever it exists. We will set clear standards of behaviour for the conduct of ministers."

Since that time, a number of ministers and members of the government have been in trouble: the minister of highways, the member for Welland-Thorold, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, the member for Scarborough West, the member for Sudbury East, the member for Cambridge, the member for Kitchener, and most recently, the Solicitor General when he was Minister of Correctional Services.

We have said time and again that one of the great defects in the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines is that the Premier sets himself up as the judge and jury of conduct. I want to ask the Premier quite directly, when the Premier violates the conflict-of-interest guidelines, who is to stand in judgement of the Premier?

1420

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Perhaps the honourable member could tell us what he's talking about.

Mr Sorbara: I'd be more than pleased to tell the Premier what I'm talking about, if I could have a page. I want to refer the Premier to section 22 of his guidelines. The section reads as follows:

"In any adjudicative or investigative process bya provincially appointed tribunalministers shall not communicate on behalf of a private party in any manner in which his or her position as minister could reasonably be perceived as influencing a decision."

I'm just going to send over a copy of a piece of correspondence dated September 16 for the Premier's consideration. This letter is on the letterhead of Bob Rae, MPP. It is addressed to Mr John P. Kruger, the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board. It relates to a massive development project in the Premier's own riding, the Black Creek-Eglinton development. I'm sure the Premier will be entirely familiar with it.

It reads in part as follows:

"Dear Mr Kruger:

"I am writing in support of the request by Drena Inc" -- that's the private party -- "and the city of York for an expedited hearing for early October in the abovenoted matter."

It continues as follows:

"As you can appreciate, all parties, including the provincial government with its interest in the development of a transportation mode, are concerned about the effects that any further delays may have on this development. Many of the partners involved share this concern and I hope they will be persuasive in any further discussions that you may have on this question. Your consideration of this request would be appreciated."

The letter is signed by Tony Romano, executive assistant to the Premier of Ontario. I ask the Premier once again, does this, in his mind, represent a violation of section 22, which clearly states that no minister, and presumably minister's staff, ought to communicate with tribunals and try to persuade them in any decision which is before them? Could we have just a clear yes or no from the Premier on that matter?

Hon Mr Rae: The member has given me this letter which is over the signature of Mr Romano, who's my executive assistant. It's the first I've seen of the letter. Let me just say to the honourable member that it's no secret this is a project which the government of Ontario, the government of the city of York, the Ministry of Transportation and other ministries have been directly involved in negotiating. What Mr Romano is writing to ask is that the OMB deal with this issue in a way that's as soon as possible.

I am reliably informed that an inquiry of this kind is not unusual, but I would say to the honourable member that to suggest that somehow a conflict --

Interjections.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Inquiry.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. Mr Speaker, let me deal directly with this. To suggest somehow that there is any kind of conflict involving me, involving me as a minister or me as Premier, on the basis of this letter is, I think, most unfair. It casts an aspersion which is quite unjustified and quite unfair, and I regret very much that that's the kind of inference the member is seeking to draw with respect to me. I regret that he would choose to put his question in that particular light and to put his question in that particular manner. I regret very much that he's chosen to act in that way because I think he's really being most unfair in this regard.

Mr Sorbara: I have no comment to make on the proposal. I have no comment to make on whether or not it is a good idea to develop those lands. I have no comment on who the Premier chooses to speak on his behalf as his executive assistant and to write letters over his letterhead and to advocate in front of a tribunal.

I simply tell the Premier this: There is a set of guidelines the Premier himself proposed to govern the conduct of his ministers. One of the massive defects in those guidelines is that the Premier stands as judge and jury, apparently now even when he and his office are the perpetrators of the wrongdoing.

When it was the corrections minister, we got rid of a deputy minister for a while. When it was the former Solicitor General, who never saw the letter, who never signed the letter, it was some staff member who was dismissed. In other cases, it was just an unavoidable error.

It is not being unfair to ask the Premier who it is that is going to make a judgement as to whether or not this letter, interfering or advocating in front of the tribunal, in clear violation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines, will be determined in some closed quarters with Ross McClellan and a few other of the political spin doctors or whether he is going to put this matter as to whether or not a violation occurred and what should be done if a violation occurred to a committee of this Legislature or to the conflict-of-interest committee, or who is it that is going to stand in judgement? I say to you, Mr Premier --

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

Mr Sorbara: I say to the Premier that on the face of it, clearly the guidelines have been violated. There couldn't be a clearer violation of the guidelines if the Premier had signed the letter himself, and I'm asking him, who is going to stand in judgement on this matter?

Hon Mr Rae: Look, this is a project which this government --

Mr Sorbara: It's a big project.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. Don't play around.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Don't play around, my friends.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: You're trying to turn this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I find it ironic, and maybe other members will understand this. The member's leader stands up and asks her first three questions, saying, "Why don't you do more about ensuring that we have job creation in the province of Ontario? Get things moving," she says, "Get things going." An executive assistant in my constituency office, when we understand -- let's read the letter:

"I understand that the application has met all the board's priorities for an expedited hearing date and that the appellant has also indicated their agreement to this request. The people who are" -- everyone --

Mr Sorbara: The appellant has not agreed to it.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Now the member's taking a stand. He's against the project.

The Speaker: Could the Premier take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: An expedited hearing request, quite bluntly, has nothing to do with the adjudication. It has nothing to do with requesting special treatment with respect to the outcome of the inquiry or anything of that kind.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's called jumping the list, Bob; it's called butting in.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: You have here a situation where people are agreed that a project needs to go ahead, a project which is supported by the government of Ontario. We're on record. I was at the signing ceremony. So were other ministers at the signing ceremony. There's no secret about that. There's absolutely no secret about that.

I want to say again to the honourable member: This is an issue about jobs. I find the questioning from the opposition totally contradictory. To try to turn this into some kind of a personal conflict on the part of the member, I think has really missed the mark, and I must say, even after knowing the member for as long as I have, I am really surprised by the kind of comments he's made.

1430

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Now we have the 8th or 9th or 10th example that we have absolutely no guidelines, that it's just "Do whatever you wish to do," and another confirmation again today that as long as Bob Rae is Premier and this party's in power, the guidelines mean nothing.

The Speaker: Is the question to the Premier?

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I would like to ask a question of the man who plans to stay on as Premier in spite of the guidelines. Last night we, as political leaders, realized we did not share the view of all Ontarians. Leadership obviously does not always reflect the views of membership. I suggested earlier today that we should learn a lesson from that experience.

Today, as we turn our attention to the economy, Premier, I suggest to you that by listening to the élite of the labour movement, not the union worker, you're in danger of making the same mistake on Bill 40. I would ask you if you have learned any lesson from yesterday, learned the lesson of Charlottetown. Will you scrap Bill 40, as the union membership and the public are asking you to do?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It's great to be back. I want to congratulate the member for, if nothing else, his ingenuity. He managed to turn what was a solemn day yesterday with respect to the Charlottetown accord and interpret its results as a referendum on Bill 40 in Ontario. That almost defies comment. But let me say this to the honourable member: To seek to use the results of the referendum, which were, as I said, results where more than half the people in the province -- not by a wide margin; by a narrow margin -- supported the referendum, to try to draw from that any conclusion with respect to particular pieces of policy, New Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, I think is a major mistake. He himself said it in what I think was one of his finer moments when he spoke in the House a little earlier, that this is not about the economy, this is not about any other subject; this is about the Charlottetown accord.

I say to the honourable member, if you're opposed to Bill 40, that's fine, but don't try to use yesterday's referendum as a way of crowbarring your way into the debate on that particular subject. It's unworthy of you.

Mr Harris: I really regret that the Premier hasn't learned one of the lessons of yesterday. You've not learned one of the lessons about the élite, about the deal makers, about what the public thought of that. You have not learned that. If ever there was an example of deal making now as we deal with the economy, if ever there was an example of power brokers, it's Bill 40.

Premier, 89% of union members tell you they want a secret ballot vote. Bob White doesn't tell you that; it's not in the best interests of the union bosses. Pandering to what Bob White and Leo Gerard want rides roughshod over the rights of workers.

Premier, I suggest to you today that you are destroying Ontario for the sake of a payback to the big union bosses and nothing more. Last night, you accepted the will of the people on the Constitution. Will you do the same on this fundamental economic issue? Will you give union members the democratic right to a secret ballot vote, as 89% of them say they want?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the record will show that the process in terms of labour relations in this province has always been based on a set of discussions, a set of debates and a set of balances which every government tries to find.

I think the balance we've found and struck is a reasonable one. It's one to which the response, if I may say so, has been quite exaggerated and over the mark. I would say to the honourable member again that to try to turn the referendum process on the Constitution into a suggestion that what we are doing here is somehow against the interests of the province is quite unfair.

I must say that I'm not flummoxed by it, but I do find it strange that the member would be trying to interpret the results of the referendum as indicating support for any particular ideological position or party position or non-ideological position or pragmatic position with respect to any particular item.

Mr Harris: Apparently, the Premier can't quite understand what I'm telling him. Yesterday was a lesson in democracy for the élite: the political élite, the union élite, the business élite. It was a lesson in democracy; 89% of union members are asking you now for democracy, not a cooked-up deal between the Premier and the élite of the unions. Will you give them that democratic right that 89% of them want, not the cooked-up deal of Bill 40? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Rae: We've made a number of amendments to Bill 40 and to the proposals for labour relations in response to a number of requests that have come in, and we've tried to work as hard as we can to strike a reasonable balance.

Mr Harris: Premier, this is the opportunity here to listen to workers, to listen to card-carrying union members instead of Bob White, and you are blowing that.

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier as well. I understand you'll be leaving for a 16-day tour of the Far East beginning on November 5. I can only assume, given your commitments of last evening to creating jobs and rebuilding the economy, that you believe spending 16 days out of province is the best way to do that. Premier, before you go abroad to sell Ontario, don't you think you'd better stay home and clean up your own economic backyard first?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): One of the realities of our time is that whenever a minister or a Premier either goes to Europe or goes to Asia -- which I've done a couple of times now, trips to Europe and trips to Asia -- the line is that this is somehow a luxury cruise on which public business is somehow less important than it is.

I happen to think that in terms of where we're at now, in terms of international reaction to the referendum, to which I would have thought the member would be sensitive, this trip has been planned for some time. It is very much part of the economic agenda of this government to be open to international markets, to be open to what's going on around the world, and I will continue to do that.

If the member sees any partisan advantage in bashing either dealing with the Europeans or dealing with Asians or dealing with Latin America or dealing with those international companies, I will say to the member that I disagree. This trip has been planned for some time. It comes at a sensitive time, in terms of a conclusion of the referendum debate. I think it's necessary to do and it's necessary to go, and I plan on proceeding.

I will also be meeting with a number of groups and people in the days and weeks ahead, and I will continue to do that. I don't think anything is gained by saying that somehow if you talk to businesses in Japan --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- companies that have very substantial investments here, Toyota and Honda, companies that are considering expansions here in many cases, companies that have a deep interest in what's going on in the North American economy. I just repeat, simply putting one's head in the sand and pretending that the rest of the world isn't there is not a realistic way for Ontario in 1992 to be proceeding. It just doesn't make any sense.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Why don't you just talk to Ed? He'll tell you --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, please come to order. The leader of the third party with his supplementary.

Mr Harris: Once again, Premier, I think you've missed the point of the question. I didn't say, "Don't go." I said, at this time, what is it that you plan to take with you? What are you going to tell other countries about what you've been doing for the past two years? Do you intend to tell them you've created a climate in Ontario where 500 jobs a day are lost? Do you intend to boast about your $12-billion deficit? Will you be carrying copies of your newly minted labour law? What kind of investment pitch do you think you can make with the most repressive taxation, the most repressive legislation, the most repressive job- and investment-killing labour legislation in North America under your belt?

I'm telling you, you can sell Ontario better if they never see you, so you don't remind them of that. Let's stay home and clean up our own front yard and backyard first.

1440

Hon Mr Rae: Again, it really is a joy to be back in this place.

The honourable member talks about taxes. Well, it's because of the kind of misinformation that the leader of the third party puts about. Let me tell him, I'm going to be telling them that in terms of taxes, on the effective combined federal-provincial/state manufacturing income tax rates, we are 38.3 in 1992, going down to 36.3 in 1993 and 35.3 in 1994. That compares with 40.3 in Massachusetts, 39.9 in New York, 39.9 in Ohio, 38 in Tennessee and 37 in Texas. So I'll tell the honourable member, somebody's got to go over there and tell them not to believe the kind of hooey and guff they're hearing from the opposition spokesman in this Legislature.

Mr Harris: There has been only one person over there speaking to them, and that is your Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Ed Philip. If they're getting any hooey, they're getting it from him.

Premier, I assume one of the reasons you're going to the Far East is because these are countries that have money to invest. They are well-managed economies.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Mr Harris: They place value in their education systems. They place value in their young people. They are advancing their training programs. They've built constructive relationships between business, government and labour. Premier, these are all things you've refused to do. How can you possibly believe that you will have credibility in these countries, that you will have any sense of credibility, until we get our own act together here in Ontario?

Would you not agree with me that if we could get business and labour truly together here in Ontario, if we could get on with training our young people, giving them the skills they're going to require, that would be more important than going over there now with your labour legislation sticking out of one breast pocket and your $12-billion deficit and very poorly managed economy sticking out of the other breast pocket?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm delighted, again, to answer the question very directly, because I really think the member has been providing the House and indeed the public with a very wrong impression about the advantages of doing business in the province of Ontario. I don't think it's a wise approach to do that; I don't think it's helpful or constructive. But if he chooses to be that way, that's fine.

Let's look at our health care tax rates. Our health care tax rates are at 1.95 in Ontario. They are at 8.3 in Illinois, 8.3 in Massachusetts and right across the board. Similarly, on social securities and pensions: 2.3 in Ontario, and 7.65.

In terms of the cost of health, it costs C$3,000 per employee less than American companies for comparable health coverage. If you want to talk about training, we're putting 25% more money into training in this province than ever before in the history of Ontario, nearly $1 billion.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Where is the legislation? I've been waiting a year for that legislation.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: The training legislation is coming under way, and so is OTAB. It's precisely to talk about these developments.

I can tell the honourable member that the business leaders I talk to in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan have a much more positive and realistic view about what's going in this country and in this province and what's happening in other places around the world than the kind of partisan bickering we hear from the leader of the third party when it comes to debates about the economy of Ontario. And that's precisely why these issues are so important.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a question for the Premier. It concerns another area that requires the government to pay attention and take some real and meaningful action in.

Premier, the question is to do with education. You will know that at the end of last week newspaper articles appeared about a 32-page confidential government document setting out a purported new curriculum for Ontario schools. The response to this document demonstrates both a widespread concern over its vagueness and the lack of a full and public debate of where we're going in Ontario's education.

The questions which parents in particular have and want your answer to are: How will you ensure that Ontario students are being taught a core curriculum that is relevant? How will you ensure that educational standards across the province are similar? Finally, how will you ensure that there is in place a method of evaluation, of assessment, that is meaningful and explicable to parents, students and teachers alike? They want your answer, Premier.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): In all fairness, I think I should give the Minister of Education a chance to reply to this question.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I would like to say first of all that the member opposite is correct when he refers to the leaked document, which I actually haven't seen but I gather was a very early version of a draft of the common core curriculum that would be sent out to all schools. He's quite correct when he says that it was vague, because in fact it was a very early draft. In the more recent drafts that I have been looking at, in fact we're trying to be, and we are going to be, much more specific than in the version that he may or may not have seen.

As he fully well knows, as part of this process of revamping the curriculum, we very much want to establish a curriculum that is much more relevant to young people, that has in place a form of evaluation that starts from establishing some very clear standards and then also provides some clear direction and assistance to our teachers in terms of how they're going to evaluate the kind of progress the students are making towards achieving.

These are all issues we are working on very hard. They're issues that in fact the member opposite should very well know, because indeed it was his government that began this process. But rather than continuing the process for another couple of years of discussion, we've chosen to try to begin to act and to try to get some of this information to the schools this year, and to begin the implementation process now.

Mr Beer: Again, I think the issue, particularly for parents but indeed for all of those who are involved in the educational system, is, what will be those standards and what specifically will be that core curriculum?

Your colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities, together with the community colleges, has taken from the Vision 2000 statement the decision that there can be standardized curriculum at the community college level. Are you saying today, in acknowledging that you weren't aware of this leaked document, that you have seen some further documents; that in effect what will emerge from all of this discussion will be a statement of a clear core curriculum based on well-articulated standards? Will that have a full public debate, so we'll know that the educational system for our young people is one that will have those clear standards, that clear curriculum and clear evaluation? Is that what you're committing to, Minister?

Hon Mr Silipo: The member opposite has asked the question as if he's getting me to admit something that is going to be a surprise. That's exactly what I've been talking about for all these many months, and that's exactly the direction that we are pursuing.

We believe it's possible and necessary to establish for our school system some very clear sets of expectations of outcome and that we can set those in a very clear way; that we can over a period of time establish a set of clear criteria, a set of clear standards; that that's different from standardized testing and that, quite frankly, is different from telling teachers how to teach; that we can leave a lot of flexibility in the hands of the professionals around how they deliver, but we can do that within a very clear direction that says, "These are the things that students at various points in their education should be able to achieve," and that this can be done in a way that's understood by teachers as well as parents.

That's the direction we're pursuing, because we believe very much that this can be done and needs to be done.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Premier related to the concerns of the policemen and policewomen across this province and the new use-of-force regulations brought in by his government. Hopefully he will respond, because certainly the policemen and policewomen I've talked to feel that he is the only one in this government who can effectively deal with their concerns.

My leader and I met with representatives of the Metro association this morning. They strongly believe that their concerns are health and safety related and public safety related. They believe this, as do officers right across this province. I think that will be clearly indicated tomorrow.

I'm wondering if you and your government are prepared to review these regulations. I suggested to the Deputy Premier a couple of weeks ago perhaps through the justice committee, but it could be done through a select committee equally represented by members of the opposition and the government. If that's not acceptable to your government, perhaps you could look at some sort of blue ribbon citizens' committee where the police would have input into the selection of a chair and would be adequately represented.

The reality is that although a committee did look at these use-of-force regulations, it did not reflect the feelings and the views of policemen and policewomen who are out there on the beat every day and are very much concerned about the impact this is going to have not only on them and their safety but on public safety as well.

1450

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I thank the member for his question. I don't know what he told the members of the police association about his own views with respect to the job action, and I would appreciate hearing that at some point, but I'd say to the honourable member that the offer I made directly to Mr Lymer on Sunday afternoon, where I told him that I would be quite happy, in company with the Solicitor General, who I think in the face of a very difficult set of issues has done extremely well in representing the interests of the public -- I would say to you, sir, and say to the members of the police force of the province, we support very strongly the police officers and the work they do. We understand very clearly the situation they are facing.

I want to say, however, to the honourable member that I continue to be troubled by police unions indicating that there are some things that police officers should do and other things that they shouldn't do, some laws that they should enforce and other laws that they shouldn't enforce, on an issue in which the government has indicated it is certainly prepared, I indicated to Mr Lymer on Sunday, to have a discussion. We are certainly prepared to have a dialogue. We are prepared to have a very productive discussion.

The offer that I made is very clear: Suspend the job action for 48 hours. We will sit down and discuss in those terms. That offer is a reasonable offer. It remains in place. I do not think that what I'm asking, in the circumstances, is unreasonable. I think it's a fair offer, and I would hope that the honourable member would think about it as he reflects on his next question.

Mr Runciman: I regret that the Premier is continually, starting yesterday on television and now in this House today, referring to police unions. This is a police association. He's using that terminology for political purposes because of the public concern about the perception that he is kowtowing to big union bosses across this province.

This is an association of men and women right across this province. We're not talking just about the Metro association. You saw the response of the public in the SkyDome in respect to the police yesterday versus the response you got to your speech, Premier, and I want to say that they have legitimate concerns. They're not just in the Metro association; they're right across this province. They're average citizens right across this province who are concerned about their safety and the way in which you are dealing with policemen and women.

I asked you a question in respect to achieving a resolution of this by establishing a committee to take a look at police concerns, a committee that would have equal representation from the opposition and the government, or a citizens committee where the policemen and women, rank-and-file officers, would have input into the makeup of that committee. Why won't you do that?

Hon Mr Rae: I don't know whether the member is acting as a spokesman on behalf of the police association or if he's trying to bargain on its behalf. I would say to him very clearly that I've indicated to Mr Lymer: "I will sit down face to face with you for a period and discuss what it is that's on your mind, and I will tell you the concerns the government has, together with the Solicitor General. I am perfectly prepared to do that. I have no hesitation in doing that. We can discuss any of the proposals such as you have made and such as have been made by the honourable member, any suggestion coming forward." It will be a very frank and candid discussion on all sides, I'm sure.

All I'm asking in return is that police officers and the police association, the police union -- I don't use the word "union" in a pejorative sense, never have and don't intend to; a police union is what it is -- indicate that the job action is coming to an end, as a gesture of good faith and as a sign that we're working together.

I am troubled and I continue to be troubled, and I would hope the member -- he doesn't have to say it publicly but perhaps in his private moments -- would wonder whether it's really wise for police unions to be telling their members which laws they think they should enforce and which laws they think they shouldn't enforce because they're unhappy with one particular government action or another. That is a concern we have to have. It sets a very difficult precedent for the province.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Madam Minister, as you are well aware, community information centres are especially important during tough economic times. More and more people who are out of work, looking for work, looking for places --

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Madam Minister, as you are well aware, community information centres are especially important during tough economic times. More and more people who are out of work, looking for work, looking for places and seeking food, shelter and basic human services are turning to CICs for their answers.

Not all CICs are supported by government. In fact, the CIC in Cambridge gets no funding for its operations. Surely in times like these, CICs deserve government support. In fact, all CICs require government support, now more than ever. Do you plan to pull the plug on CICs this December?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): The member is correct; the government does support 56 out of the 75 CICs. The ministry is very aware of how hard the CIC people work and how important they are to the community. In turn, we have recognized their importance. We did a review recently called the review of public access to government human services information project. It told us how important the CICs are to the community. It told us how effective they are to the community. The review has been very helpful to us, and we hope to continue to look at CICs and their situations.

Mr Farnan: I'm not sure if the CICs want to be told how important they are to us. They want the funds.

The minister has not answered my question. Again, I ask the minister, will the CICs currently --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Don't be so tough.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Farnan: Will the CICs currently receiving government support continue to be funded in the new year, and will those CICs struggling without government support be included in the funding program for the new year?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I think every member in this House does know how important CICs are, but I think every member in this House also knows the fiscal realities we are facing and the situation regarding funding of all sorts of organizations within Ontario.

We are continuing to work on a solution of funding of these centres. We know it's not going to be very easy, but I would like to assure the member -- in fact, I would like to assure all the members -- that the staff at the ministry are working very hard, not only with fellow ministries but also with central agencies, to try to come to a long-term solution to this difficult option of funding to the CICs. We will continue to work on this solution until we find one.

1500

REPORT ON VICTIMS OF ABUSE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): As it involves two or three of the ministers, my question is for the Premier. The actions of this government continue to astound us. On Thursday there was unanimous agreement in this chamber from all members of the House that the injustice done to the Grandview victims must be corrected. Yet your government has taken action in completely the opposite direction. You've obtained a court injunction which prevents the release, as ordered by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, of a crucial report from 1976.

When asked by my leader last Thursday why your government was suppressing the release of this report, the answers were less than appropriate and certainly not comforting. I would like to ask again why you are suppressing the release of this report.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer that question to the Attorney General.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Just on a couple of points that were in the question, we are not suppressing a report. As the member well knows, a number of events happened in the 1970s at the Grandview centre. Those events are under investigation by a joint investigation force of the Ontario Provincial Police and the Kitchener-Waterloo regional police services. The police forces that are conducting that investigation have very specifically asked that we not release part of the 1976 report because they believe that release of that information could jeopardize the ongoing criminal investigation and could also jeopardize any criminal procedures that might result from that investigation.

Let me be clear to the member: It is two police forces that have very specifically pointed out to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of the Attorney General that if we do release that information, it could jeopardize the ongoing criminal investigation and any criminal procedures that might result from that investigation.

Mrs O'Neill: The Information and Privacy Commissioner knows this case well, and he has assured the public that the release of this report, in its edited form particularly -- and it is much edited -- would not endanger the victims and certainly would not endanger the current investigation. You know those findings well, Mr Attorney General. The result of the 1976 report, however, will likely confirm many of the allegations of the victims.

May I remind the government that when the concern about the treatment of the Grandview victims first arose in 1968, the NDP claimed that:

"The program at Grandview was dehumanizing and inhumane and the girls were treated like rats in a maze. We all know that the Grandview survivors are real people with real needs. Their spirits and their sense of hope have been buried for a long, long time, their potential and their future seriously hindered." These are NDP words from 1969.

Mr Attorney General, why are you engaging in this coverup of this important, edited report? How can you claim credibility when you say that you really care about these survivors who have already been suffering for more than 20 years?

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, in the spirit of public debate, you'll excuse me if I take offence when words like "coverup" are thrown around loosely. I believe that everybody in this House is concerned about all of the issues that might impact on, involve or in any way affect the alleged victims who, at one time or another, may have been at the Grandview centre. I also believe that the Ontario Provincial Police and the Waterloo Regional Police services are concerned about any impacts there might be on those alleged victims.

I am just a little bit concerned when a member raises the issue of coverup. I know of no grounds why the OPP might want to engage in a coverup. I know of no grounds why the Waterloo Regional Police services might want to engage in a coverup.

If the member opposite is going to use the word "coverup," I think it behooves her to produce some information that indicates that there is a coverup. If she has some information, she should turn that over to Commissioner O'Grady of the Ontario Provincial Police, who, I believe, will be very interested in any information she has.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. Mr Premier, I'd like to read to you section 22 of your conflict-of-interest guidelines. It states that ministers should not attempt to influence a decision "in any adjudicative or investigative process bya provincially appointed tribunal."

The Ontario Municipal Board is a quasi-judicial board appointed by the government. Development applications are made to the Ontario Municipal Board, and its hearing dates are of much negotiation and sought after by developers and so on.

My question to the Premier is: How is it that you can say that a letter directed to Mr John Kruger, chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board, asking that a development in your riding, supported by your government, should jump the queue, butt in line and get ahead of all those other developments that have waited patiently to be heard by the Ontario Municipal Board -- how can you tell this House that that letter is not in fact contrary to the guidelines you set down, in section 22 specifically, where you didn't try to influence a provincially appointed tribunal?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the question, and I would say to the honourable member again: Let's look at the facts as I understand them. I hope you will appreciate that in the context of the debate in this House I get a letter which I've never seen before, it's put before me and I have to try to respond to it as best I can.

The response I'm giving you is that the response is over the signature of the executive assistant in my constituency office. This is a project which, as I said, has the full support of the Ministry of Transportation, has the full support of the GTA, has the full support of all the ministries and now has the full support of the city of York. It obviously is a project in which there's considerable public interest.

What my executive assistant is asking is whether or not it's possible for this process to proceed in a way that does not delay the impacts with respect to jobs and other issues.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): And you think that special request for special treatment is in compliance with your guidelines, is that it?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Rae: He's not attempting to affect the outcome of the proceeding. He's not saying, "Please approve this project."

Mrs Caplan: You have no standards.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: He's not saying, "The Premier told me to write to you to say, 'Approve this project.'" That's the implication of your question. That's the implication of the question opposite.

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

Hon Mr Rae: "The Premier stands to benefit personally by this." That's the implication of raising it under the aegis of conflict of interest.

Let's be fair about this. An executive assistant with respect to a public project --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- who has the full support of government is asking that a hearing date be set. That's what an executive assistant is doing. I don't regard that as any kind of interference --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please take his seat. Would the Premier please take his seat.

Supplementary?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, my supplementary is to the Premier. Mr Premier, where was the benefit to Mike Farnan when his staff wrote the letter to the justice of the peace? There was no benefit.

Mr Premier, I didn't ask you who supported the project; I just asked you how you interpret section 22 of your conflict-of-interest guidelines. I didn't write them; the Conservatives didn't write them; the Liberals didn't write them. Sir, you wrote them and you said that no minister can influence a decision in any adjudicative or investigative process.

1510

Mr Premier, the OMB is a quasi-judicial board. I say to you, hearing dates at the OMB are much sought after. I ask you, what is the difference between what your executive assistant did and what the executive assistant to Mike Farnan did, whom you fired?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me answer very directly and say to the honourable member, that to suggest for example, that if members of the constituency office staff make inquiries to the WCB about a hearing date, is that now to be regarded as a conflict?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: No. no. I want to know. Or if there's correspondence from any of you --

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat for a moment, please.

Mr Stockwell: You wrote the guidelines; I didn't.

Interjections.

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

Mr Stockwell: It represents millions of dollars when you are heard. It costs millions of dollars to wait for a hearing date. You know it.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West posed a question. If he would like a response, I would ask him to allow the Premier the opportunity to respond.

Hon Mr Rae: I think I've responded as best I can, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to bring to your attention subsection 45(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act and would ask that the Speaker reconsider what I understand is a ruling he has made which I believe he may have made in haste and without due consideration for the privileges of members of this House.

It has come to my attention that tomorrow, in the process of democracy in this province, we will be visited by several constituents who are police officers in this province. I have been led to believe, Mr Speaker, that you have ruled that a police officer who by circumstances of his daily activities may be wearing his uniform will be barred from this building under all circumstances.

Mr Speaker, I was further informed that you made that decision couched in a decision you made on October 17, 1991, a ruling which you are no doubt familiar with and which I have in front of me. You indicated at that time that this was the first time in Ontario that such a ruling had been made. Without quoting at length from that ruling, it speaks at length about where the privileges of a member may be disrupted by a police officer while on duty in the process of interrogating or investigating or executing a warrant.

Tomorrow is a normal day at Queen's Park. Tomorrow, constituents will be visiting this assembly to participate in a peaceful demonstration. As is the wont of many of our constituents, some may wish to enter the building in order to talk to their elected representatives.

There are many precedents where people in natural uniform, their vocational uniform, that manner of dress which they wear on a daily basis, have been allowed into this building. I suggest to you that the Liberals had the capacity to allow in doctors and nurses in this province when there was a demonstration regarding balanced billing; that the Premier, in his former capacity, was quick to run to the front door and say to injured workers, with their outward appearance, whether it be a prosthetic device or a crutch, that those injured workers had the right to be in this building.

Mr Speaker, I believe your decision was made in haste and is not consistent with the concerns you raised in your previous ruling. I ask not only on behalf of my constituents who are planning to attend tomorrow, but on behalf of all members of this House whose constituents wish to travel at great length to visit their elected representatives tomorrow. I believe, sir, your decision may have been rather harsh. When we invite our constituents to enter this building, the issue is not whether they are dressed in a uniform, whether they be an ambulance worker, a doctor or a day care worker, but rather that we vouch for their conduct and can assure members of this House that our peace officers in this province are just that and that their business tomorrow is to talk to us and not to cause disruption for the chamber, which they respect. I ask you to review that ruling, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Burlington South --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On the same point --

The Speaker: On the same point of order?

Mr Elston: Yes, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Burlington South was kind enough to advise me that he was going to stand on this point, and I must in the strongest possible terms support his inquiry of you as to, perhaps, a change in your ruling.

It is my opinion that, in any event, as long as a person is to be visiting this place at the invitation of a member or even on his own account for peaceful purposes, whether it be to move from place to place in the building for the purpose of informing the members of this assembly of a public interest issue, you cannot prevent them from coming into this place without breaching our privileges. It seems to me that even more so attains if in fact there has been an invitation issued by the members for people to visit with them in their particular offices.

I know, Mr Speaker, that you would not have wanted to have that happen in the case of your own situation when you were a private member in this place. You probably would have spoken out very strongly indeed against a prohibition of individuals, either from your constituency or even people who had come from other constituencies, dropping in to tell you about their points of view on particular interests that they had in regard to public business.

Even in the days when I was a minister and was responsible for some issues of interest and of controversy, it was never intended nor was it ever extended through my offices that the people be prevented from coming and making their points to the opposition, on this side of the House in those days, or indeed even to our own members of the government caucus at that time, because I realized that only with a full and frank discussion among the various interested parties could we hope to come to some kind of a conclusion and a consensus with respect to public issues.

I agree with the member for Burlington South that it would be a very unhappy day when the Speaker took it upon himself to make a ruling that prevented people from peacefully visiting members in the assembly buildings, whether they were dressed in uniform or whether they were not dressed in the uniform of their undertakings.

Mr Speaker, I ask you again, in concert with the member for Burlington South, not to put an embargo upon the visit of police officers to this building just because there is an apparent day of demonstration outside about what is viewed to be a negative public decision by the Premier of the province. I ask you, Mr Speaker, please let them in.

The Speaker: On the same point, the government House leader.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): The point I was going to make is that I believe this matter has come up in the Legislature before and previous Speakers have had to deal with this matter before. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Speaker Edighoffer had to deal with it and Speaker Stokes had to deal with it. In terms of demonstrators, when there's a demonstration going on in front of the Legislature, there has been the question of who has access to the Legislature.

The only suggestion I have, as one member of the Legislature, is that whether they're ambulance workers, whether they're demonstrators who are injured workers or whoever the demonstrators are, the same rules should apply to those folks that apply to police officers, and any ruling you make tomorrow will have to be applied to all demonstrators in the future.

1520

The Speaker: To the three members who have spoken: First, in particular to the member for Burlington South who originally made the point, what the member raises is a security issue. The member will know that we have guidelines with respect to security. I would be very pleased to meet with the member for Burlington South and the member for Bruce at their earliest convenience, which would be within the hour, in my office to discuss this further.

I must say that the ruling to which the member for Burlington South alludes is not at question here and never was. That particular ruling has to do with the privileges of members and the possibility of a surprise visit by police officers in discharging their duties. Of course, that ruling deals strictly with that and does not deal with demonstrations.

The matter which he brings to my attention is one that members on other occasions have brought to my attention with respect to demonstrations and what special accommodations can be made on a case-by-case basis. That's the way I've always attempted to deal with them and I'm more than happy to review the particular situation which we may or may not find tomorrow.

In that regard, as I mentioned, I extend an invitation to both the member for Bruce and the member for Burlington South. If they would like to see me in my office within the hour, I'd be more than delighted to try and handle their concerns so that no member feels that somehow the privileges of the members have been abused or, indeed, that the public expression of demonstration is hampered in any way, shape or form.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR70

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I move that standing order 87 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for the consideration of Bill Pr70 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday, October 28, 1992.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition which 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."

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition signed by over 3,000 people from York, Durham and Peel to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 57 proposed sites in the regions of York, Durham and Peel as possible candidates for landfill; and

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, section 5(3); and

"Whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, protest and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a 'willing host' community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for the greater Toronto area waste."

I have affixed my signature to this petition and agree with it wholeheartedly.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'd like to again bring this petition to the House, representing nearly 100 residents from Unionville and Bowmanville and Lindsay, Ontario. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of all Ontario; and

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

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

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly, along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a petition signed by 146 people from North Bay and area which reads as follows:

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

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

"The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC history and science. The origin of life is a completed act. Therefore, neither evolutionism nor creationism can be proven or disproven empirically.

"In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking, such as recognition of bias, awareness of society's influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions, can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view. These skills should be incorporated into all textbooks approved in Circular 14, dealing with the question of origins."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act reflect the fact that more women, more members of visible minorites and more part-time employees are in the workforce today than ever before; and

"Whereas these workers deserve the same access to the right to join together and bargain collectively as workers have had in the past under the existing act, which has tended to serve workers in large industrial centres; and

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act will bring about greater worker participation and reduce conflict and confrontation in labour-management relations,

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

"That the Ontario government and all the members of the Legislature effect speedy passage of changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act so as to promote better labour-management relations and to provide women, visible minorities and part-time workers with the same rights as other workers have under the act."

I have affixed my name thereto.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition here that's signed by 477 people.

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to ignore the council of the township of Tiny and their plea for reconsideration of boundary line changes within the municipality; and

"Whereas the minister has stated that restructuring within the county of Simcoe will be implemented,

"Now therefore the taxpayers of the township of Tiny find it necessary to band together and lobby against the implementation of the restructuring of the county of Simcoe.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing the County of Simcoe Act until the provincial government deals with the township of Tiny in a fair and equitable manner."

I have affixed my name to that.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here signed by a number of farmers from rural Ontario, from the Tilbury area, people like Tom McKeon, Ernie McKeon, Eugene Marchand, Jim Peltier, and also Mike Schneider from the Chatham area.

What they're opposed to is that two thirds of the farmers in Ontario do not even belong to any of the farm organizations. They are asking that the proposal for stable funding that is being presented to the Minister of Agriculture and Food be stopped or allow a democratic vote of the farmers to choose whether to belong to the farm organization or not.

1530

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition. It reads:

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine economic recovery in the region; and

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax;

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

To which I also affix my signature.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on June 11, 1992, the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton, Mr Drainville, moved a resolution,

"'That in the opinion of this House, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly should be authorized to review and report to the House on recommended changes to the standing orders to allow independent members of the assembly the right to more fully participate in the work of the assembly;' and

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly on that day, June 11, 1992, did unanimously vote in favour of the revolution" -- that's right, Mr Speaker, that's what it would be;

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

"We request that the government allow the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to study and debate the said resolution."

It's signed by members from Victoria-Haliburton, and I affix my signature to it.

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition. It's been organized by a student in my riding, Richard Simson, indicating that young people are also supportive of our police forces and of law and order.

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

"Whereas the law-abiding citizens of Ontario are gravely concerned about crime in their communities; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario trust the judgement of police officers in the province to administer sufficient force in order to protect persons and property; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario would be endangering the lives of the men and women who serve in our police forces by restricting any further conditions under which officers of the law may draw their firearms;

"We, the undersigned, feel that it is not in the best interests of Ontarians to place further regulations or restrictions upon the actions of police officers."

I submit this petition and affix my signature to it.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition signed by a number of citizens, again of rural Ontario, in the Wallaceburg and community area. It deals with the undersigned petitioning the Legislative Assembly with regard to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. What they are asking for is that the members of the Ontario Legislature pass quickly the changes to the OLRA, which will promote labour-management relationships and provide women, visible minorities and part-time workers with the same rights as other workers have under the act. I affix my signature to this piece.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario: A proposal to license a permanent gambling establishment in the Niagara Peninsula. It reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. I believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity. By my signature here attached, I ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

I agree with the sentiments of this petition, and I affix my signature to it to show my agreement.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a number of petitions signed by residents in the Blenheim area, the Leamington area, the Ridgetown area, the Windsor area -- the majority of southwestern Ontario. The emphasis behind the petition is the wide-open Sunday shopping. The undersigned are opposed to Bill 38 and ask that the government withdraw it and allow that Sunday shopping not be wide open. I affix my signature to it.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition here.

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

They are obviously against Bill 38, and I affix my signature to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NIPISSING UNIVERSITY ACT, 1992

On motion by Ms Murdock, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr70, an Act respecting Nipissing University.

OPPOSITION DAY

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Elston moved opposition day motion number 2:

That this House condemns the government of Ontario for its failure to recognize:

That northern Ontario has been a source of enormous wealth for the private sector;

That northern Ontario has been a source of enormous revenues for the provincial government;

That the provincial government puts very little revenue back into the north;

That the roads in northern Ontario are in terrible shape;

That the NDP government has not proceeded with serious four-laning of highways in the north;

That the delivery of health care services in the north is still inferior;

That northern municipalities have particular problems of boom and bust while the NDP government freezes unconditional grants;

That forestry jobs are threatened because of this government's failure to live up to its commitment to provide seedlings and because of the continuing practice of clear-cutting;

That almost no attempts have been made to diversify the economy to create jobs nor to work with the private sector and create meaningful jobs when serious layoffs occur;

That the Ontario government continues to treat northern Ontario citizens like second-class citizens.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'm pleased to speak to the resolution just read into the record by our House leader. I would note that the government may want to quarrel with some parts of this resolution or its wording. It may be that in the course of our debate this afternoon they might want to suggest, for example, that in fact revenues are being returned back to northern Ontario, or they may want to argue that in fact the roads in northern Ontario are not in terrible shape because significant progress has been made in dealing with the transportation issues of northern Ontario.

So I'd like to make it very clear at the beginning of the debate that this resolution was not prepared by me or by our House leader or by the Liberal critic for Northern Development. This is, word for word, a resolution that was presented by the then member for Nickel Belt, now the Treasurer of Ontario, on June 26, 1990.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): That's out of date.

Mrs McLeod: The names have been changed to reflect the realities of today and to acknowledge those who are responsible for the continuing situation in northern Ontario. While the member for Algoma suggests that perhaps it is out of date, our contention in the debate today is that the contentions in that resolution are equally applicable and that there is no excuse for this government not having taken action to deal with the concerns it presented then.

1540

If this resolution was presented in good faith then, if the member for Nickel Belt at that time believed it was in fact an honest representation of the state of affairs in northern Ontario, if the opposition of that day was not just playing games, if it truly believed that the government of Ontario was treating northerners like second-class citizens, I would suggest to the member for Nickel Belt and to all of his colleagues that they look at their own record and at the record of their government. I suggest that they ask themselves honestly what they have done to correct one single aspect of the situation that was described in this resolution originally presented in June 1990.

Clearly, we placed this as an opposition motion before the results of last night's referendum were known. I've already suggested today that part of what we've seen -- the results of northern Ontario are a particular example of that -- in last night's vote was a reflection of the frustration people feel, and nowhere is that sense of frustration, anger and alienation felt more keenly than it is across northern Ontario. There is a feeling of alienation that the government simply refuses to understand the very unique needs of people in northern Ontario. There is anger that the government doesn't deal with issues that really matter to northerners. And there is a tremendous frustration that in fact so many actions of this government have actually made matters worse.

It is a sad reality that as people in my community went to vote on the referendum question yesterday they were learning that a pulp and paper mill had closed its doors with finality and that a second pulp and paper mill was to either be sold or to close within the next 12 months. That's the reality of the frustration, the anger and the alienation that people in northern Ontario are feeling.

I would suggest that in our debate today, we begin to look at the reality of what has happened since this original motion was placed, since this government assumed the responsibility for dealing with the concerns of people across this province and with the concerns of people in northern Ontario.

The resource industries, which were a source of wealth and employment that northern communities relied on in the past, are now truly under siege. What has happened in Thunder Bay, with the announcement of another paper mill about to close, is just the most recent example of that.

In the mining sector, which is the largest non-government employer in northern Ontario, we've seen investment decline from $450 million in 1988 to $125 million in 1991, and the figures for 1992 are expected to be less than $100 million. This is an industry that used to employ 30,000 people and now employs less than 22,000 people.

The forest products industry is clearly facing similarly difficult times, and in this climate of uncertainty, this government seems bent on creating even greater uncertainty for workers, for communities and for companies across northern Ontario. The government refuses to understand that forestry companies in northern Ontario don't know whether it's safe to invest in their plants to meet the federal environmental regulations, for example, because they don't know what to expect from this government in provincial environmental regulations. The government backed away from three years of work on MISA, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, and workers, management and municipal leaders are now worried and confused about what the final provincial regulations will be. In this atmosphere of concern and uncertainty, the Premier, it appears, has now refused to even meet with mayors of the communities that are affected.

I'll turn for just a few moments to the specifics of the resolution, and one in particular recognizing that the roads of northern Ontario are in terrible shape. The resolution says, "That the NDP government has not proceeded with serious four-laning of highways in the north."

We remember that during their opposition days the New Democrats promised to four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway. In this year's estimates for the Ministry of Transportation, we've learned that by 1994 this government expects that only 22 kilometres of highway in northern Ontario will be four-laned. It's their promise, their commitment and their concern. I ask, is this a serious initiative in four-laning?

In the meantime, this government continues to pursue disentanglement as a solution to municipal and provincial budgetary woes, but what people in the north are afraid of is that this government doesn't understand that northern communities will not be able to manage road budgets on their own and the transportation problem, the serious condition of roads in northern Ontario, will just get worse and worse.

There is talk in this resolution of the importance of diversification. We recognized when the New Democrats originally presented the resolution that diversification is indeed important to the future of northern Ontario. But we see a government now that completely fails to understand how important tourism is to diversification in the north, how tourism in this province has been hit by the government's failure to proceed with the transportation initiatives that it committed itself to and how tourism has been further affected by increased gas prices.

Gas prices are one of those ironic issues, because we all remember the New Democrats raising again and again their concerns about gas prices and the effect high gas prices have, particularly in northern Ontario. Then we moved to the moment when the New Democrats themselves decided they would increase the gas tax.

I can't accuse them of completely forgetting that they were concerned about the impact of the gas tax on northern Ontario, because they went to offer northern Ontarians some sort of olive branch when they told northerners they would provide relief from the new burden of the increased gas tax by exempting them from the vehicle registration fee. Northerners were understandably not terribly appreciative, because there was very little saving to the northerners to compensate for the increased costs they would pay in gas tax. But now we review the government's infamous list of 63 possible ways to solve Ontario's revenue problems and we find that this rather desperate government is even now considering reinstating that vehicle registration fee exemption in northern Ontario. No wonder people are frustrated and angry and feel alienated.

There's a resolution here that speaks about the delivery of health care services in the north still being inferior. I'm not going to take the time of the House this afternoon to give example after example of how in their approach to health care issues this government keeps using one-size, broad-brush approaches that fail to respond to the unique needs and realities of northern Ontario communities, but if you talk to anybody in the north, you know that they believe that what this government has done has made access to quality health care in northern Ontario less and less possible.

Amid all the examples of broken promises, there are two particularly critical failures of the government which I must comment on. The first of these failures has been in the area of forest management. This government is continuing to consider an old-growth policy, an initiative which was undertaken by a previous government and a policy which we continue to feel is important, yet on this very important issue with significant resource implications we find the government once again failing to consult those who would be most affected by the policy.

As the Minister of Natural Resources looks somewhat surprised, I would suggest to the minister that he look very carefully at the places where the consultation of his Old Growth Forests Policy Advisory Committee is to take place. I found no community in the north where there is actually significant old growth to be considered that is involved in the consultation process.

At the same time, we continue to see cutbacks in forest regeneration. In 1992-93 this government cut the number of tree seedlings to be planted by 45 million. Now we're hearing rumours that the ministry will not offer any contracts to private tree seedling growers to plant on crown land in the 1993-94 fiscal year. Whatever the policies this government is looking at, there is one absolute rule in forest management, and that is that you cannot save forests unless you renew them. The regeneration policies of this government violate that rule and threaten both the environmental and the economic sustainability of the forest industry in this province.

I would refer the government, and particularly the Minister of Natural Resources, to the statement in this resolution, which was once theirs: "That forestry jobs are threatened because of this government's failure to live up to its commitment to provide seedlings."

The second serious, fundamental failure that I want to touch on today is the government's complete inability to diversify the economy of northern Ontario and thereby help to create jobs. I read again the resolution: "That almost no attempts have been made to diversify the economy to create jobs nor to work with the private sector and create meaningful jobs when serious layoffs occur." Again, an ironic resolution to have been presented originally by a New Democratic member, because we have seen with this New Democratic government a government that has been completely unable and unwilling to work with the private sector, a government that has absolutely refused to listen to any of the concerns of business or industry in the north or in any other part of this province.

In northern Ontario, as it has done right across this province, the New Democratic government has introduced one initiative after another, which has served to lessen confidence in investing in this province. They have created a sense that it is impossible to do business in Ontario. As a result, when layoffs occur, as they are occurring on a daily basis in my part of the province and indeed across the province, there are no jobs for workers to train for and there are no new businesses to provide jobs for them.

As my colleagues and I debate this motion today, we do so with sincere concern about the economic future of the northern part of this province and of the province as a whole. We debate this resolution with no confidence in the government's ability to achieve any of the goals it set out for itself in presenting this resolution in the spring of 1990.

1550

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Just as I rose in the spring of 1990 to support this resolution when proposed by the NDP, I rise today to support this motion as proposed by the Liberal Party.

We will vote in favour of this. We do not have confidence in this administration, in this government, for a number of reasons, I might add. A number of my colleagues will wish to put some things on the record, and I will put a few myself, rather than all of us talking about the same things.

I don't want to dwell on the particular motion. There are some aspects of it that I find passing strange.

"The NDP government has not proceeded with serious four-laning of highways in the north." For northeastern Ontario, for the corridor served by Highway 11, once you get north of Huntsville, through Parry Sound, Nipissing, Timiskaming, up into Timmins and Cochrane, that takes that whole route. The last four-laning of any kind along Highway 11 was proposed, planned, promised, funded and started by a Progressive Conservative government over seven years ago. It was finished by a Liberal government that promised to four-lane everything when it got elected, and not one new inch of four-laning has proceeded on Highway 11 for the last seven years.

We had an NDP government that was going to four-lane the Trans-Canada. What that meant to everybody was that wherever we have a Trans-Canada Highway, as Highway 11 is, as Highway 17 is, people would expect that if they voted NDP, there would be four-laning. On the contrary; there has been even less with the NDP government than there was with the Liberals, and with the Liberals there was even less than there was when there were Progressive Conservative governments, at a time, I might add, when we spent half as much money overall.

"Forestry jobs are threatened because of this government's failure to live up to its commitment to provide seedlings." The last government in administration, spending less than half the amount of money the Treasurer announced in his budget, had far more seedlings provided at a time when we should have been moving ahead. In 1985, when we were talking about significantly more dollars required now for tending of the forest, because we had massively increased the numbers in the planting of seedlings in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, we said that must not only continue, but now we need even more money. We had commitments for more money for northern Ontario through the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Affairs at the time.

A new government took over in 1985, the coalition of Liberals and NDP, and we've seen cuts ever since. We saw cuts in reforestation. Obviously, to avoid the embarrassment of not tending the forest, of not caring for all the seedlings that were being planted, rather than recognize that we must put more back in, you simply cut back on the number of seedlings.

If ever I've seen anything that is a disgrace and the reverse of what was expected -- we certainly expected, and I know northerners have been very disappointed, that when the NDP was elected it would in fact move on four-laning.

They condemned, as the leader of the Liberal Party has said, all those Liberal tax hikes on gasoline day after day after day. Gosh knows they had enough opportunities to condemn them, because with every budget the Liberals hiked the gas tax, further destroying the competitiveness of Ontario, but even more so in northern Ontario, where we rely on gasoline and that form of transportation more than in many areas of southern Ontario.

Then, as the Liberals have pointed out, and I'm quite in agreement with them, after all those opportunities to condemn the Liberals for hiking gas taxes, they got elected, and what do they turn around and do? They hike gas taxes. I say, a pox on both of you. Neither one of you had the courage to live up to your commitments that you made to northerners when you ran for election. It was so easy when both of you were in opposition to condemn the balance of 42 years of sound Progressive Conservative government.

The last exciting thing that happened in northern Ontario was the creation of a separate Ministry of Northern Affairs, condemned by the Liberals at the time, condemned by all, when the Conservative government of that day had the courage to come forward. Then, once you get into government, you try to pretend that the Ministry of Northern Development is your ministry. You squeeze their budgets, you cut off the funding for reforestation and you cut off the funding for mining exploration.

One of the things I'm a little concerned about is that there's nothing in this resolution about parks policies, about multiple use, about mining. There's nothing in here about tourism. There's nothing in here about a number of the mainstays of northern Ontario economic activity and of the new industries that should be taking place there.

I look at the amount of money that has been put out and the statistics from Save Our North about the disgraceful amount of money being put into mining exploration in northern Ontario and what that means to us. They point out the $500 million of benefits that Kidd Creek Mines provides to the economy of Canada, half a billion dollars, and we are cutting down on the total Ontario exploration spending. We're spending less in real dollars in 1991 than we did throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Even in indexed dollars, we're spending less.

There's nothing in here about the environment. There's nothing in here about a government that took away the only hope northern Ontario had to get one single job out of recycling. You see, the recycling movement also provides opportunities for new technologies, for new jobs.

When a proposal came forward from Kirkland Lake saying, "Let's put this proposal to a full environmental assessment test; let's see if it's best for the environment," a proposal that required southern Ontario garbage because there's not enough garbage generated in all of northern Ontario to justify the new technology and the capital expense required for the recycling operation that's proposed there -- ie, they needed more garbage in order to provide feedstock, if you like, for all those jobs and for that recycling -- the NDP said no to the environment. They said no to jobs for northern Ontario. They said, "You're going to have to recycle in the north, but all the jobs and all the benefits will go to southern Ontario." That was the net result of those decisions.

There are so many things that this government has done wrong in the area of economics, of jobs, of opportunity, of prosperity, of building for the future, of providing hope, of providing opportunity all across this province, including northern Ontario. For a party that was elected with a considerable amount of support in northern Ontario, with high hopes and expectations -- I mean, we saw through some of it.

They campaigned in Elliot Lake saying, "Vote for us and we'll buy all the uranium from Elliot Lake." Then they went over to Manitoulin Island, where they were opposed to nuclear power, in the same riding, and said, "Vote for us and we'll stop nuclear power." There were so many obvious and blatant inconsistencies in the campaign that we should have been able to see through it at the time. But there were many that Ontarians believed, and many that those in the north believed. They didn't buy the old Elliot Lake-Manitoulin fric and frac, say one thing in one place and then something else; we realize that. But many in northern Ontario did believe that you sincerely were going to put more emphasis on northern Ontario.

Instead of that, by any measure -- amount of highways, four-laning, amount of money for infrastructure for our municipalities -- the percentage of the budget going to northern Ontario is less than it was with the Liberals, and it was less then than it was when we had Progressive Conservative governments that had things in perspective in this province.

So we will support the motion. I'm surprised the Liberals had the courage to bring it forward because it is, as they said, the same motion that condemned their lack of action. We supported it at that time; we support it at this time. Shame on both of you.

1600

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): It is indeed with some pleasure that I have an opportunity to take part in this debate, because I would like to add a little bit of history to what we have heard here. I will not try to respond to all of the comments and allegations made by the leader of the third party or the Leader of the Opposition. I'll leave that to some of my colleagues, but let me start here. Both of the opposition leaders would have the people of northern Ontario believe that there is not such a thing as a worldwide recession going on out there. They would have the people of northern Ontario believe that there was never such a thing as a free trade deal signed and that it has no impact on the people of northern Ontario.

General Motors has announced it is going to close 21 plants in North America, putting 74,000 people out of work. International Business Machines has announced that over the next five years it will close plants and put 40,000 people out of work. There is a worldwide problem with the economy. You need only ask the Japanese, with the difficulties that they are going through with their economy, as to the truth of that statement. The members opposite would have us believe that no such worldwide recession exists.

Also, in regard to the comments that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party made in the run-up to the signing of the free trade deal and the comments that we made saying this is a bad deal for Canada and this is a bad deal for Ontario and northern Ontario, I'm sad that everything we predicted has turned out to be true, that we are losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. And to hear the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party try to tell the people of northern Ontario that nothing like the free trade deal exists, that it has had no impact on their jobs, no impact on the logging industry, no impact on the forestry industry, is complete and utter drivel and shouldn't be repeated in this place. And for the leader of the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party, to believe that he can continue to make these comments day after day, and that over time people might believe him, has to be challenged.

The fact of the matter is that northern Ontario has been badly hurt by the free trade deal; northern Ontario has been badly hurt by the worldwide recession. We are working hard to address these issues, and let me point out some of the ways.

As soon as we became the government we put together a $700-million anti-recession program. As members know, the people of northern Ontario make up 8.3% of the total population of Ontario. Nothing less than 30% of the anti-recession program, nothing less than 30% of $700 million, was allocated to northern Ontario. That is far more than the Progressive Conservative Party ever would have allocated to northern Ontario to address the free trade deal or a recession and far more than the Liberal Party ever did in the five years it was the government.

Where was that money spent? It was spent on projects that would give long-term benefits to communities and provide short-term jobs that would deal with the havoc that has been created by the recession and the havoc that has been created by the Conservative gift to Canada: the free trade deal.

Mr Speaker, 143,481 person-weeks of employment were created by the anti-recession program in northern Ontario. That put people back to work, people who had lost their jobs because the Conservatives brought in the softwood lumber tax and shut down sawmills and shut down logging enterprises across northern Ontario.

It is very clear what the free trade deal says. The free trade deal says that all we're to continue to do in northern Ontario is to mine and cut the forest; all of the manufacturing, the processing, the value added jobs are to be done in the United States. That is what the free trade deal means.

We are having to adjust to, to deal with on a daily basis, the havoc that was left to us by the federal Progressive Conservative Party bringing in the free trade deal, bringing in no adjustment programs to deal with the havoc that was created, bringing in no training programs and simply saying to the people of northern Ontario, "If you're out of work, too bad, so sad; eat cake." That is what the Progressive Conservative Party has left for northern Ontario, and the Liberal Party, when it was the government and could have responded, could have planned and could have put in place adjustment programs over the five years when this province had the highest budgets ever, did nothing.

I ask you to consider this. When we became the government, these are the backlogs that we found in Ontario: The northern health travel program was in backlog; the courts were in backlog; the Ontario Municipal Board was in backlog; the Assessment Review Board was in backlog; the Human Rights Commission was in backlog. That is the legacy the Liberal Party left to Ontario: lots of backlogs, lots of work that hadn't been done and hadn't been dealt with. We have been required to work very hard to address these needs.

Hydro rates: The Conservative Party talks about a legacy to northern Ontario. Let's be clear; the reason that Hydro is in such a mess today is because no one over there, not in the Progressive Conservative Party and not in the Liberal Party, was looking at the bottom line with respect to Ontario Hydro for 20 years. We have been given a gift, a gift of nuclear plants that have $1-billion and $2-billion repair bills. Darlington, a plant that the Conservative Party started, a plant that the Liberal Party refused to shut down --

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): A plant that you said you wouldn't continue to build.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I'll wait until you've quelled the opposition.

Darlington can't operate at 50% efficiency, but leaves the people of Ontario with a $14.3-billion debt. That is the legacy of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, not only to Ontario in general but specifically to northern Ontario.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who said they were going to close it?

Mr Eves: Who said they were not going to finish it?

Mr Stockwell: Why did you finish it, Howard? Yes, you were going to close it, remember that? Close it, Howard.

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

Mr Stockwell: Yes?

The Deputy Speaker: Please.

Hon Mr Hampton: Since 1991, this government has put $106.6 million into highway construction and repair. That compares to $83.4 million in 1988, far more than the Liberal government was prepared to spend. From October 1990 to October 1992 the Ministry of the Environment has transferred to northern municipalities $64.4 million for sewer and water projects. I invite people to sit down and look at the 1988 and 1989 allocations by the Liberal government to northern Ontario, and look what we have done with a far tighter budget and with far more economic difficulties to confront.

Given the worldwide recession and the havoc that has been created by the free trade deal, we have done very well indeed, and I think the people of northern Ontario know that.

1610

Mr Eves: I would like to participate in this debate. Some of the stuff coming out of the Attorney General's mouth is just unbelievable: The free trade deal is responsible for all the ills of northern Ontario. I suppose it's responsible for Mr Bush's low popularity in the United States of America; I suppose it's responsible for Japan's economic problems; I suppose it's responsible for Great Britain's economic problems; I suppose it's responsible for France's economic problems. Give me a break. Grow up.

Every government that has ever been in power anywhere has to deal with change and what's going on in the world. The object and the responsibility of government is dealing with that change and coping with that change and making life better for people, not dumping on somebody else politically because you don't want to accept the responsibility of being in government.

Talking about promises, I have with me a copy of the Agenda for People. Talking about governments that promise one thing and don't deliver, we'll go through a few of the promises made in the Agenda for People with respect to northern Ontario, and I hope to go through a few of the promises made in NDP brochures during the summer of 1990 election campaign. I have some great little quotes here from the current Premier of the province and from the Agenda for People.

"Our party will not be presenting an endless catalogue of promises to the people of Ontario. Men and women across Ontario have told me they don't want promises that can't be kept, and they don't trust parties that pretend to serve every need and satisfy every demand. Compare our approach," Mr Rae said, "to the record of the Liberals. We don't use election campaigns to discover problems, promise solutions and then ignore them afterwards," end of quote from Mr Rae.

Oh we don't, don't we? How many of those promises have been kept 26 months later? Most of those campaign promises have either been totally ignored, or subject to a complete about-face, or have never materialized in the first place and never even been talked about again.

In Agenda for People, the first thing the New Democratic Party of Ontario promised to do was to create a northern fund where it would spend $400 million over the first two years that it was in power. They've been in power now for 26 months. They have not spent anywhere near the $400 million they promised to spend in the first 24 months that they would be in power.

When they were in opposition they recognized that this money was needed. They recognized that this money was going to return to the north part of what was raised in the north. It is estimated that a minimum figure of at least $250 million a year is raised through taxation by the province of Ontario in northern Ontario. I would think the government would want to make a commitment that it would at least return the money to northerners that it extracted from northerners through various means of Ontario taxation, and that would require $250 million a year, each and every single year.

They said they were going to spend this money to promote economic development, job protection, job creation and improve services throughout the north. They also went on to say that in addition to this $200 million that they were going to spend, they were making a commitment, because they said the Trans-Canada Highway, to quote them, through the north was "nothing less than a disgrace: two lanes, busy with trucks, suffering from poor maintenance and unsafe.New Democrats would make $100 million a year available for this important project." That's a direct quote from their own campaign document.

They were going to spend $200 million a year, every year, doing this other stuff, and they were going to spend $100 million a year, every year, to improve the Trans-Canada Highway through the north. They have done neither.

They can't use the economy as an excuse because they explain here how they were going to balance their budget in the fiscal year that they were talking about. When they attained power in September 1990, they then immediately began to backtrack and said that Mr Nixon had fudged the figures and that now they couldn't do some of the things they were going to do.

But in the summer of 1990, when the Treasurer of Ontario said in the Legislature, "Any fool would know in April 1990 that we were in serious problems," did any fool draw up this document and have a balanced budget? Did any fool do that in August 1990 when this thing was produced and suggested that there would be revenue in excess of the expenditure, including all the promises, every single one of them, in Agenda for People, when the Treasurer says that any fool would know in April 1990 that you couldn't do this? I suggest the Treasurer should have talked to the person who drafted An Agenda for People and published it in August 1990, because any fool would know that those promises couldn't be kept.

Going on with a few of the other promises that this government has made, I want to say, first of all, a few words about the Minister of Northern Development, because I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Minister of Northern Development.

I want to say that when the member for Sudbury East was first elected, she came down here and proposed that there be a northern heritage fund. She introduced a private member's resolution which Mr Harris -- I might add, the member for Nipissing -- and myself spoke in favour of and that was when the Liberal government was in power. She criticized the then Liberal government for not delivering on a promise of a northern heritage fund and talked about the amount of money that would be required to have a satisfactory, effective northern heritage fund. She talked about how woefully inadequate the current budget of $30 million a year was for a northern heritage fund.

I want to tell you that this government is spending no more money per year in its northern heritage fund in 1992 than Leo Bernier spent in 1984 under the Nordev, or northern Ontario regional development, program. That's how committed this government is to northern Ontario. They are spending the same amount of money some nine years later that Mr Bernier was spending in 1984. I don't call that commitment, and yet we have quote upon quote from the Minister of Northern Development about how inadequate that fund was and she goes on to talk about how much money should be spent, the $400 million that has been talked about. Talk about playing politics with an issue.

There was a program when Mr Bernier was the minister called Nordev. When Mr Fontaine became the minister he changed the name of the program and spent the same amount of money. Then everybody was criticized because there should be a northern heritage fund. Then Mr Fontaine decided to create a northern heritage fund, but he spent the same amount of money and all he did was transfer the programs from the Conservative program into the northern heritage fund, called it something different and said, "Surprise."

This is the same money. It's the same program. It's being spent in the same way. We just call it different things. We throw different labels on them because we represent three different political parties. I don't know what good that is doing for the people of northern Ontario and I don't know who anybody thinks they're fooling by proceeding in that manner.

I'd like to talk about a few other campaign promises made by this government in the summer of 1990: "Be it resolved that the Ontario NDP caucus should press the provincial government to set maximum wholesale-retail prices for gasoline products and ensure that these prices are uniform throughout the province."

There's another promise this party made, that it's going to have uniform gasoline prices across the province so that northerners no longer would have to pay a premium. How come I didn't hear anything about that when they introduced the gas guzzler tax? How come I didn't hear anything about that when the gasoline tax increase of 1.5 cents a litre -- up another 1.5 cents a litre this past January. How come I didn't hear anything about those promises? How come I didn't hear anything about the fact that this even further disparaged the inequity between gasoline prices in northern and southern Ontario? How come I didn't hear it from the Treasurer of the province who comes from northern Ontario? What happened to that promise?

What about the promise that the government would open a bilingual medical school at a northern university? Where is that medical school? What about the promise that the government would push for a northern medical school so health care providers stay in the north? Where's the fulfilment of that promise?

What about Shelley Martel's promise in her campaign brochure in the summer of 1990, "Gas prices must be equalized across the province." That's a direct quote. "New Democrats will push for a northern medical school so health care providers stay in the north." That's a direct quote. Where are those things? You've been in power for 26 months. Where are they?

You can't blame that on free trade. You can blame it on lack of commitment. I'm not saying it's a lack of commitment on the part of the Minister of Northern Development, but it sure is a lack of commitment for those people that sit right in there that control all the power in this government, including the Treasurer who happens to be from Sudbury himself.

Here's a quote from the member for Sudbury East in her private member's resolution of 1987 when she says, "A $30-million budget commitment is 'inadequate at best.'" Yet that's what she's delivering today under the northern heritage fund.

I will give the government this: They have helped address some short-term problems and some serious short-term problems in Kapuskasing, Elliot Lake and with Algoma Steel. It has done that, but I wouldn't expect anything less of any government of any political stripe. Every government that has ever been in power has had crisis situations and problems it's had to deal with. That's the responsibility of being in government in the first place, to deal with these challenges and problems from day to day, but the reality is that doesn't do anything for the long-term economic plight of northern Ontario. It's still subject to boom and bust in certain sectors of the economy, depending on how the world economy and the Canadian economy are doing from time to time.

1620

In the few short minutes I have left, I would also like to talk about a couple of other issues which I think are very important, one of them being the whole area of the environment.

The Attorney General raised the issue of the cost of hydro and the issue of nuclear power and Darlington. I think there is not a person in this chamber who wouldn't state today that this is a vast expenditure. This is also the same party which, when it was in opposition, said very clearly in more than one provincial election campaign that if it was elected, it would stop Darlington in its tracks. They would not complete Darlington, they would not spend one more cent with respect to nuclear energy in the province, yet they proceeded down the road spending hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. We've seen hydro rates in this province go up by some 20% over two years. That's a legacy and a burden that no other government has ever placed on hydro users in the province.

Kirkland Lake asked the Minister of the Environment for an opportunity to have the minister look at Kirkland Lake as a possible alternative towards solving the garbage crisis. She absolutely dismissed it out of hand and said she would not consider it.

A few weeks ago, I raised in the House the Sunthetic Energy proposal in the Minister of Northern Development's own home town of Sudbury. These people are not asking for one cent from the government. They are asking that Ontario Hydro enter into negotiations to purchase some of the hydro power they would produce as a byproduct of their operation. They proved that they would employ hundreds of people in northern Ontario, that they would purchase, I believe it was, at least 5% of the corn crop in southern Ontario to make this a very viable enterprise. They have a market of $300 million a year that can start tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, and this government won't even consider their proposal.

I have small hydro-electric power projects that are proposed in my own riding. If you want to talk about the elimination and reduction of nuclear power in the province of Ontario, I presume there have to be literally hundreds of these province-wide. Ontario Hydro won't even consider that. They want to use coal-powered plants that produce sulphuric acid. They want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year -- I believe the figure is about $600 million to $700 million -- refitting, refurbishing and repairing antiquated coal-powered stations instead of looking to small hydro-electric hydraulic power proposals around the province, instead of looking at things like Sunthetic Energy is proposing, instead of getting into the new technology and helping the environment at the same time. They won't even consider these things.

I find that absolutely ludicrous, because they're locked into some mentality that says they're not going to do it, or because the Minister of the Environment says she's not going to do it or because Mr Eliesen says he's not going to do it. They don't think about what they're doing. There are all kinds of ways you can help northern Ontario that don't require a cent of your money, but you're unwilling to even consider or look at those factors.

The last thing I wanted to touch on just very briefly is health care in the north, because this is an issue that these members of the New Democratic Party and candidates have talked about for years and years, in election campaign after election campaign. They have dealt with some issues. In my own riding they've dealt with the issue of northern health travel grants, not to everybody's satisfaction because one of the criteria still depends on not where the individual patient resides but where the doctor resides, which doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. I thought this program was to help people who live in northern Ontario regardless of where their physician resides.

Look at the number of specialists who have left the Sudbury area alone or are planning to leave in the near future. Now, there has to be a problem, I say to myself, when all these highly qualified, respected physicians leave an area of the province en masse, and leaving Dr Donahue totally out of this equation.

There's a lack of psychiatrists and psychologists in Sudbury. There's one psychologist, Dr Ho, to serve all of northern Ontario, whom we had to yell and scream and fight for to get into the Sudbury cancer centre in the first place, when the member for Oriole was the Minister of Health, as I recall, a battle that lasted about a year. He's a very respected physician and he's developed a stem cell transplant program at the cancer centre in Sudbury. He's on his way to California.

Dr Robert Corringham, who spearheaded the cancer treatment centre to start with, to get it in Sudbury, is leaving the province. Dr Chris Farrell, obstetrics-gynaecology, has announced his departure from Sudbury. Dr John Rowen, a thoracic surgeon, has announced that he's leaving Sudbury. Dr Gary Nadeau has announced that he's leaving Sudbury. Dr Joan Dahmer, an internist, has announced she's going to leave the Sudbury area.

Now, there has to be something wrong, I say to myself, when all these highly qualified, respected physicians are leaving northern Ontario en masse. They're either going to southern Ontario or they're going to other countries or other parts of this country, because for some reason they don't feel welcome or accommodated under the current system.

Mr Stockwell: Free trade.

Mr Eves: And you can't blame that on free trade.

It is so simple to say: "We're doing everything exactly right and all our problems stem from free trade, so we can just dump on Brian Mulroney. We know the people hate him, so we'll just dump on him and that solves all our problems. There, we don't have any problem any more."

Do you think the people who are unemployed still don't have a problem any more because you've got it off your political plate on to somebody else's? Do you think the people who don't get qualified medical treatment in northern Ontario don't have a problem any more because you've dumped on the most hated man, perhaps, in the country? How has that resolved any of your problems, and how have you helped one single person in northern Ontario by using that kind of tenuous, at best -- that is the most polite terminology I could use -- explanation?

Accept the responsibility that you were elected for. Deliver on the promises. As your Premier said in the Agenda for People: "We're not going be like any other government. We're going to deliver. We're never going to make a promise that we don't keep." Well, start keeping your promises.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I'm particularly pleased, at my point in the rotation, to follow the member opposite, who spoke in his concluding remarks with particular respect to health care in northern Ontario. I think he focused primarily on the issue of the number of doctors and specialists in northern Ontario and the issue of recruitment and retention which we've spoken about many times in this Legislature, and which we know to have been a long-standing and ongoing problem with respect to the north and health care.

There is, however, a need for me to be very direct with the member opposite and with the Health critic in his party, who continue to throw about absolutely erroneous numbers. I think it's very important for us to set this straight for all people in Ontario, but particularly for people in the north who hear these individuals continually talk about a mass exodus of doctors from northern Ontario.

It was just a week ago or so that the critic from the PC party indicated that in fact there were 10 doctors who had left the Sault Ste Marie area and that there were 33 doctors who had left the Sudbury area. When I pushed him on that, he came back and he said, "Well, maybe six have come but it's a net loss." He was very clear. He was very sure of his numbers yet again.

I've asked the members opposite to address these kinds of issues that I actually do think continue to be important challenges for us to address these kinds of issues, which I actually do think continue to be important challenges for us to address, with some sense of responsibility around how they present them and around the data they use.

1630

I would point out to people that during the period from December 1991 to September of this year, if we look at the numbers of doctors who are registered, who are billing for services, who are in our health care system -- first of all, let me deal with the area of Algoma, because the member opposite suggested that there had been a loss of 10 doctors from that area. In fact, during that period of time we have an increase of 10 on our billing rolls at this point, doctors who are actually active and delivering services in that area. The numbers have gone from 186 up to 196.

Sudbury: This is where we heard that there was a loss of 33 doctors from that area. Let me tell you that the numbers in that same period have gone from 268 up to 289. That's a net increase of 21.

This is not an unimportant issue, and I don't want to suggest that there aren't needs for continued initiatives in this regard. We have done a number of things.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: The members opposite will know that there already are programs that exist in the government attempting to address this issue, issues of the underserviced area bursary program, the incentive program, but they weren't doing enough and they weren't doing the job. We remained convinced that there was more to be done.

We have, in the course of the last year and a half, introduced the specialist retention initiative in terms of the underserviced area travelling specialist program. We are attempting, by greater initiatives, to affect the practice of medicine with respect to recruitment and retention for northerners. This is an important issue for us.

There are some other initiatives that we are working on that we haven't implemented yet that I think are very critical to this, the whole area of physician human resource management; our ability, through effective use of incentives and disincentives, through perhaps billing number allocations, to look at how we support having more doctors in the north who will stay in the north. One of the things we've understood from the recruitment programs we have had in place is that retention remains a problem. The physician will come in under that program, will remain there for two to four years and then will come back down to southern Ontario. We have, I think, specific initiatives that will address that. I think the program will be of assistance, although this still remains an issue.

The member talked about the northern health travel grant. I want to point out that these weren't minor improvements we made to it. Let's look at the record. In 1988-89 we spent $9.4 million in this province under the previous government. In 1989-90 it was $9.6 million. In 1990-91, the transfer year, it was $9.8 million. In 1991-92, on the northern health travel grant, $11.5 million in assistance was provided by this government. That's a major increase in one year to enhance services and access to services for northerners. I think it continues to show our commitment.

I'll move quickly at this point, because I think there are a number of issues that need to be addressed and I just want to touch on them.

In the course of the time I have been in this portfolio, as I've been well advised by members of our northern caucus, who continue to come to me with ideas and with the concerns of the constituents they represent, we've announced a number of initiatives.

We announced the northern diabetes network, which involves 42 communities in northern Ontario. This was an area of growing concern with respect to the incident rate of diabetes of northerners. We all should be concerned in this House. We should be concerned with what's happening in our aboriginal communities, in the north in particular. It's of epidemic proportions. Forty-two communities are getting access to health education, promotion, services that will stop people from getting ill, stop people from ending up in the hospital with very serious illnesses that can be directly related to diabetes and that can be preventable with the proper kind of intervention. We've done that.

Let me talk about the breast cancer screening program with respect to Thunder Bay. In April 1992, we put in place a travelling mobile van program because we knew that in northern Ontario it's not just a question of putting it in one centre. It's a question of access and a question of bringing services to people, not always bringing the people to the services. I think that's an important thing.

The member opposite talked about medical schools and training of health care professionals. Let me tell you, I'm very proud of some things. We are now just coming into the second year of the northern Ontario family medicine residency program, doctors who are in their training, getting their residency up in northern Ontario. Hopefully, that will help recruit more northerners who will end up staying and practising in the north.

Construction is currently under way -- and this is something else that was announced by this government and was supported by us -- for the health science resource centre at Laurentian University in Sudbury, along with the centre previously built at Lakehead University. This centre was funded by the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. It supports a residency program and houses other health-related programs, such as northern health human resource research units. Applied research helps us learn how to recruit and retain more health professionals in the north.

There's been support for further development of the regional cancer centre. There's a third machine that's up and operating there at this point in time. There's been some controversy about whether that was needed, but it's there and it's operating. Sudbury is now providing services to people from some other parts of the province where we have shortages or waiting lists. Through a provincial registry we're now able to move people up to northern Ontario to receive services. There have been enhancements there as well.

We've passed, and will soon have proclaimed, legislation that gives recognition to midwifery. We're in the process of getting ready to move in the development of the educational program, a university-based program for midwifery. Regardless of which proposal is implemented -- they're being reviewed -- there will be, I am quite convinced, a northern university that will be involved in a network of education with respect to this program, tremendously important in terms of, again, recruiting northerners as health professionals in a very important new health profession.

The northern health human resource research units at Lakehead and Laurentian universities have begun their research activities. Scientists and health care providers, planners and consumers are working together, looking into the issues of recruitment and retention.

In spite of the desperate fiscal situation that faces this government, we continue to invest new resources in the north. I very recently announced three new community health centres. They included Aboriginal People's CHC in Timmins, the Centre de santé communautaire de Sudbury and Longlac Community Health Centre.

That's a concrete demonstration of continued support for enhanced services. The people on this side of the House understand very well -- we have a large representation of members from the north -- the need to continue to address these issues. There will be other initiatives, there will be more expansions in terms of community health centres, there will be reforms in terms of long-term care dealing with transportation, nursing home beds, a whole range of issues.

Capital expenditures are going on in the north in the health care sector. I think we have a proud record. I'm very pleased with it. The members of our northern caucus, on an ongoing basis, bring issues of concern to me which continue to need to be addressed. I pledge that we will continue to do that. I reject the allegations that have been made by the members opposite.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable minister for her participation. Further debate?

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I must say at the outset that it's always a pleasure to follow the Minister of Health, for whom I have a lot of respect and who I know does an excellent job on that side of the House. But I'm looking for participation in this debate from the six northern members.

I cannot remember anything that stands out more in my mind than reading the newspapers when the Premier of the province provided northern Ontario with six ministers. We've heard from one so far; we've heard from the Attorney General. We heard the Attorney General blame Brian Mulroney. Everybody's blaming Brian Mulroney today for everything. We heard the Attorney General do that here in the House today. We heard him blame free trade. We heard him put a number of blames on the recession, the recession we're faced with but are looking to the government of Ontario for answers to.

Unfortunately, the Attorney General could get up and do all of this, blame all those people, but yet could not come into this House and present a petition from 3,150 of his constituents regarding a mobile CAT scan service in northwestern Ontario. I suggested to those people that if they wanted that petition presented, they could have given it to me. He could have given it to any other member in that party to present. He could not do that, he could not come in here and represent his constituents by doing that, but he could come in here and blame Brian Mulroney and the federal government. That's not helping us in northwestern Ontario.

What I'm looking forward to is hearing from those other ministers, from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I'm looking forward to listening to her and how she's going to bring forth those resolutions in an area of 18% unemployment.

We can listen to all the rhetoric over there, but when I go home to my constituency, I face unemployed miners; I face many people who are losing their businesses or going bankrupt. I face all those people who are facing unemployment, at a rate higher than anywhere else in this province: 18%.

1640

Business closures continue to rise. Every day we take a look at the number of businesses that are shut down. This is affecting northern Ontario as much as what the Attorney General went on to say is affecting southern Ontario. I suggest he take a little closer look at what we're facing in the north and get some of the facts and figures coming from northern Ontario.

The member who spoke previously spoke about the Ministry of Northern Development as well. Yes, I have to go back to Leo Bernier and, yes, I have to give Leo Bernier credit for bringing that ministry to us in the north. It's a very big improvement, and something we looked forward to.

Would you believe that ministry last year had its budget cut by $58 million? It's a $58-million budget cut to something which we were very proud of in the north, which we saw deliver a goodly amount of service to us in northern Ontario. When this government talks about its interest in the north, its six ministers representing us in the north, all we have to do is take a look at the figures. The figures point out to us that we have reductions in areas we really depended on.

I'm the critic for Mines in the official opposition, and actually the mining industry of northern Ontario is facing a lot of very important issues today: the low commodity prices; the increasing sources of supply they have to compete with; a dramatic rise in the cost of production, a good number of things which are uncontrollable costs but some things that can be addressed by this government.

When I talk about the rising production costs, I'm talking about the rising WCB costs this government is forcing upon the mining industry; the Hydro rates, something which is facing the mining industry and the forestry industry and hitting them head on in terms of the rates they're having to pay Ontario Hydro to remain in production. As we know, both mining and forestry are high energy users, and if these costs keep going through the ceiling, we'll just see them close up their doors and head off to other areas where there are some incentives for them to come in.

Unfavourable tax incentives, such as Bill 12, are just not putting money into mining.

I take a look at the recent legislation being proposed by this government, the Ontario Labour Relations Act -- and let's just take a look at what that's doing to the mining industry. Replacement workers cannot be brought in during a closedown. What will that do to the furnaces that must continuously operate to ensure that an operation will be kept running? What will that do to areas where the mining industry needs people to keep the operation going? What will that do to the forestry industry and the mills, where the operation needs people to ensure that if there is a strike, those machines will be kept up in order that they can open up when the strike is settled? This government must take a look at the legislation.

I go back to the issue of investment in mining. In 1988 we had $450 million invested in mineral exploration in the province of Ontario. In 1991 that dropped to $125 million, and now in 1992 we're looking at estimates of approximately $100 million, again in exploration. People in the House may not realize how important that exploration is in terms of finding new mines, in terms of spending in northern Ontario.

In the mining industry, we have approximately 21,700 people employed directly in the operation. I am including mining, milling and smeltering operations. You've got to take a look at this. Today 21,700 people are employed. That is down from over 30,000 people who were employed in this industry in northern Ontario in the late 1980s. Again, a strong reduction in employment, and this government must realize that.

If I take a look at the beginning of Bill 12, and I mentioned that earlier, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, this was a budget measure of 1991 which had received third reading and royal assent in June 1992. It's a mining tax that limited expenditures in mining and was a tax on new mines.

There are a number of very complicated issues involved in Bill 12, but I think the bottom line in Bill 12 is that it sent out a very negative message. It sent out the message that mining profits were going to be fully taxed. What more of a negative message would you want to send out?

I could go on and talk about the revenues that have been falling in the mining industry, from a high of $7.3 billion in 1989 to $5.1 billion as costs increase, and how that's affecting mining.

I would like to end on an issue that really affects us in my riding. I've spoken on this a number of times and I would like to bring this back to the House today. It revolves around a commitment that came out of a campaign brochure of the member Shelley Martel in the summer of 1990, where she said, "Gas prices must be equalized across the province." That was two years ago. In a check today, we find out that in Kenora we're paying 55.9 cents a litre for regular gasoline, while in Toronto they're paying 49 cents.

Is that the equalization of gas prices across this province promised by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines two years ago? I think not. Again, as I've said in the past, we don't have public transportation in northern Ontario; we rely a lot more on our transportation, which the minister agreed to back in 1990 during the campaign. But today we see no action.

In wrapping up, I would like to say again that I'm looking forward to hearing from those six ministers from northern Ontario who have been touted by the Premier to represent our interests in northern Ontario.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to put some thoughts forward on this extremely important opposition day motion brought forward by the member for Bruce. As the critic for Natural Resources for our party, I thought it would be appropriate for me today to relate some of the concerns we have with regard to northern Ontario. It really has to do with the forest management, the infrastructure that is now threatened by a minister who has little regard for the long-term consequences of his actions.

It should be noted that it was the PC member for Nipissing who launched a major tending initiative back in 1985, because he believed, with the support of the government of the day, that this kind of investment in our forests was a direct investment in Ontario's wellbeing. This tending initiative was a multimillion-dollar program designed to complement and accelerate efforts by both government and industry to grow and plant enough trees to sustain our forests, and to sustain them environmentally as well as industrially.

While we make no claim of perfection, Ontario Progressive Conservatives take great pride in the success of what we called an integrated approach to forest management during the 1980s. It was an approach that included the development and implementation of world-leading forest management agreements in partnership with the private sector. There was a renewed focus in terms of accelerated growing, planting and tending, as I've already indicated. It was all supported by comprehensive fire management and pest control infrastructure, among the best in the world.

During the 1980s there was a vision and a plan with respect to forest renewal and sustainability in the province of Ontario, but I don't really think that's the case today. Somewhere along the line, driven in large part, I suspect, by quick fixes, narrow issues and vested interests, this government has lost sight of this commitment to our forest environment. The government has closed its eyes to the vision and set aside the plan.

Instead, what's happening today is that we're now drifting directionless from pollster to Premier, to headline, to crisis. What's worse, we've now had a number of major policy decisions on the part of the current government that run counter to any semblance of responsible resource management whatsoever.

On February 12 of this year, the Minister of Natural Resources announced Operation Tree Plant, a stunning retreat in terms of Ontario's commitment to tree planting. Despite the fancy, and somewhat misleading, name of the program, what it means is that the Ontario government is actually planting 35 million fewer trees this year as part of its traditional obligations.

1650

Sure, many of these trees will get planted, but probably in the wrong place and without proper tending afterwards, at the expense of growing and unfulfilled needs elsewhere in the province. This is not responsible or professional forest management. It's simply an ad hoc consolation prize driven by a decision in the Premier's office to cut spending, regardless of the consequences.

Then, on March 24, the minister dropped the other shoe: He announced that four of Ontario's tree nurseries will be closed, the Chapleau and the Gogama facilities in 1992 and the Thunder Bay and Midhurst sites in 1993. Midhurst, the best nursery in the province of Ontario, with the best trees, is being closed. It's unthinkable. Premier Drury must be turning over in his grave. Again, this decision wasn't made on the basis of any long-term forest management considerations -- it was not not based on vision or planning -- but because of fiscal desperation.

Sure, they're attempting to put a good face on these policy changes in order to justify what they're doing, but by an objective measure there isn't any question that what's happening seriously threatens forestry regeneration in the future of our province's forest products industry.

The future of the tree growers in northwestern Ontario is particularly grave because none of the growers has contracts from this government for seedling production for the 1993 season.

At the same time, there exists a serious lack of effort on the part of this minister to settle simple negotiations with paper companies that would enable direct contracting with tree seedling producers in northwestern Ontario. Seedling producers have been informed by the paper companies that they are ready and eager to negotiate for seedlings for 1993, but the holdup lies in the pulp and paper industry's inability to access the appropriate bureaucrats in order to come to an agreement.

The implications of this minister's misguided forest policy on the tree seedling industry and all those employed in it are obviously devastating. The ramifications for our forest are equally foreboding.

The minister's current budget allocates approximately $230 million to forestry over the next three years. He plans to cut that budget by $100 million -- $40 million to be slashed in the first year alone. Obviously, the minister's commitment to Ontario's forests is dead. Private nurseries are being methodically and deliberately put out of business because of the minister's misguided forest policy.

Let's face it: If the NDP members were in opposition instead of government today, they would be yelling and screaming about what's going on until they were blue in the face. To add insult to injury, beyond the repercussions for the forest industry itself, these decisions are all made at the height of a recession when we need this kind of investment the most. The major effects of the MNR expenditure cuts will be felt in northern Ontario.

The Ontario Silviculture Association, an organization of companies that plant trees, estimates that 2,000 to 3,000 jobs, mostly for students, were eliminated in the industry this summer. The ministry itself estimates that the closing of the four tree nurseries will cost 50 permanent jobs and 180 temporary positions.

Thunder Bay city council recently endorsed a report from the local tree seedling growers association which called on the NDP to ensure that 165 million trees are planted annually. In the Thunder Bay region alone the minister's cutbacks are costing an estimated 770 jobs, but the impact is being felt right across the province.

The cuts in the forestry regeneration program seriously jeopardize the future of our provincial forest products industry, an industry which supplies some 160,000 jobs in 40 communities. What this minister and his government colleagues don't seem to understand is that if the forest industry cannot be assured of a reliable supply of wood in the future, investments will be directed to other jurisdictions. Clearly, this government needs to be headed in a new direction.

At the same time the industry is under pressure in terms of increased international competition, new and stronger environmental requirements and cutbacks in pest control programs. All this and more, and yet after two years in office we still don't have any comprehensive vision or management plan from the current administration.

Maybe it's because, as some in the tree seedling growers association speculate, the current minister simply cannot balance his responsibilities in terms of both resources and native affairs. At the very least, many believe he has a conflict of interest, often at odds with each other. I agree.

The solution, however, involves much more than simply replacing the government's policies with new ones or even replacing the minister himself. I believe the solution lies in making a new and positive commitment to Ontario's forests, one that's bolstered by a long-term, comprehensive plan and sound professional management.

Conservation officers' budgets have been cut right across this province; they've been slashed as much as 50%. The conservation special investigations unit has been disbanded and reassigned in the name of reorganization. The minister fails to realize that Ontario's wildlife is a priority that deserves better protection, and that the taxpayer in Ontario deserves a level of service that is not just a shell of what it was in previous years.

Many complaints with regard to the outdoors card: The indication is that they will result in a 50% increase in the cost of going fishing. It is a licence to steal from hunters and anglers, because the minister probably will not use that revenue for assisting conservation officers, restocking fish and other conservation efforts, and that's what the money was really all about.

The increase for recreational lots on crown land in the north, including recreation camps for fishing and hunting, summer resort leases and cottage leases in provincial parks: They will result in annual increases of 15% or $100, whichever is greater, until the rent based on market value is achieved over the next five years.

Many people have indicated to me that it's nothing but a blatant tax grab from the taxpayers and that the money that comes from fishing licences, hunting licences and all these things is not all going back to what it was intended for when that initiative for those licences was brought in by the previous administration.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the time I've had.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In the short time I have, I want to just outline some of the things this government has done around the question of mining.

I want to bring people up to speed on one particular thing that happened in northern Ontario with regard to a group called Save Our North that came together. This group is made up of prospectors, developers, people who are generally employed within the mining industry, municipal council people, local business people from across northern Ontario, but particularly based in the community of Timmins, where it really started off.

One of the things the Save Our North people were talking about was that in order to try to draw attention to some of the difficulties we're having within the mining industry here in Ontario but also generally across the country, one of the difficulties is that quite frankly nobody, for very many years, was really listening to what the mining industry was telling them was happening. Some of the difficulties that happened under the Conservative government, prior to 1985 and for the five years that we had Liberals on this side of the House, from 1985 up until 1990, were that there was really a feeling out there that those governments were not listening to what they were saying with regard to some of the real, systemic problems we have within the mining industry. They also tried to bring that message to the federal government, and unfortunately the federal government didn't respond.

When they initially approached me as the local member for Cochrane South, which is the city of Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Matheson, being from the mining industry, I understood somewhat what they were talking about but also took some time in order to try to organize us around how we would deal with that. To make a long story short, what Save Our North came up with was basically five conditions or five particular points it wanted governments to be able to address. I specify the word "governments," because it wasn't just a question of the province of Ontario, but also trying to get the federal government to come on side.

The Save Our North committee basically said we had to move on a number of points. One of the very important points was to put together the necessary infrastructure in order to support the mining industry, to help it to develop and find new mines. People who know something about geology know that yes, we probably do have some of the best geological areas in North America up in the Timmins and Kirkland Lake area, but to find a mine you need to have the tools to do so. Unfortunately, many of the tools they needed, as far as the supports the government can provide towards things like geoscience databases and different kinds of information, really weren't there in any type of coherent force.

So what we as a government did was we moved immediately, fairly shortly after we were approached by this group, to build a very good cooperation, and we put together a number of initiatives in order to be able to address some of the concerns of the mining industry. We put together the geoscience database, which is basically a database that puts together a lot of the exploration material we have within the ministry of mines and gives that, as a tool, to people who are in the prospecting business, to better aim where to go to take a look for mining within our area.

1700

With the federal government, we put together the northern Ontario development agreement, which is basically a pot of money that was put aside which had a number of different sections, one of them being mining. We put $30 million towards mining in order to support research and development within the mining industry so we can learn how to do mining better, more efficiently and get a better bang for a buck. Right now we're just going through the process of actually going through and doing some of those research projects that are out there in order to hone up on the technology of mining.

I want to take a second because a lot of people don't realize that mining is probably one of the most technologically advanced industries, if not in Ontario, probably in most of the world. In that kind of line, one of the things that we, as a government, try to do, working with Save Our North, is to draw the attention of the people of the province of Ontario and, quite frankly, some of the members of this Legislature to the whole system of mining.

One of the things we did was put together an information package through media advertising in southern Ontario and other means in order to get people to understand the importance of the mining industry as it relates to our economy. Unfortunately, many people in Ontario don't realize the importance, and when the Liberals were here for five years and the Conservatives before them, they took the mining industry for granted, and now we're having to deal with some very tough situations.

We also put together the assessment file research imagining system, which basically takes all the assessment files -- we have some 35,000 of them in the province -- and puts them on an imaging system, so again we can give tools to the mining industry and the prospectors to be able to come together and get the information together.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Obviously, the member from Etobicoke cares nothing about mining, but it is very important for the people in my area, sir.

As well, we put together the mineral deposits database, which basically lists all the known mineral deposits in Ontario on that database, again in order to give those miners and the developers the tools to be able to find places.

We also moved on a number of other initiatives. One of the things the mining industry said, which probably is not uncommon with another industry, was about some of the difficulties that industry has when it approaches government in regard to licensing and being able to get permits. One of the things that the Save Our North committee talked about was putting together a one-window approach to permitting when it came to being able to access permits in order to be able to work on properties up in northern Ontario when it comes to mining.

A very short time after we started working with Save Our North we signed MOUs between the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment and ourselves at the Ministry of Mines in order to create the Ministry of Mines as the one-window approach when it comes to permitting. We went a very long way towards making the whole business of how mining interacts with government much more effective and much more efficient.

One of the other things we did was that they had asked that the government come forward to try to find some sort of incentive program for the mining industry in order to assist them in the prospecting development and actually putting the mine on line. Unfortunately, the federal government, for whatever reason, dismantled the flow-through share system that we had up until about four or five years ago all across Canada, which gave prospectors and mining companies, especially juniors, the ability to be able to raise capital to be able to invest within the mining industry.

We need to understand that every dollar invested in mining doesn't necessarily mean you find something. You have to spend huge amounts of money in prospecting in order to be able to find a property that it is actually economical to put on line. When the federal government -- the Conservative government of all things, which is kind of strange -- took that tool away, it sucked away the capital and the tools the mining industry needed in order to get the capital in place.

So they came to us, the New Democratic government of Ontario, and asked us to work on an incentive package with them. We just recently announced in September of this year, as a matter of fact, in Timmins, that the provincial government had put forward a number of ideas that were based on consultations we had with the mining industry. I say the word "consultation" because we have built a partnership with the mining industry and people associated with it in being able to work together to find solutions to very difficult problems that we have within the mining industry.

We are hoping to be able to come back very soon and put forward incentives that would assist the mining sector. Actually, the mining industry is quite pleased and quite excited about some of the initiatives that are coming forward.

I just want to finish on this note, because I have other northern colleagues who want to get up and who have a lot to contribute to this debate: It is very easy for the members of the opposition to sit here and criticize, and we understand that. That is a role of opposition. But we ask them to be somewhat constructive when it comes to their criticism, because they are not putting forward any kind of solutions to the problems we have in northern Ontario. All they are trying to do is accent the problems we have and basically play politics with this thing. The people of northern Ontario don't want to be played with. They want action. That's what this government is giving: action not only when it comes to the mining sector, but action when it comes to health care and other issues.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I would just like to remind the honourable member of the $30 million the Treasurer added to the mining tax, $30 million you've taken away from the mining industry in your budget. I wish you had reminded the good people in the mining industry in northern Ontario about that good thing you did for them.

I think it's really delicious irony that we are able, after two years, sadly, I guess, to be able to put forward the very same motion the NDP caucus at the time, two years ago, had put forward. You will know, Mr Speaker, that this government has done nothing for northern Ontario. As was mentioned by my leader, as last night's results came forward, there is a great dissatisfaction with this government and I'll tell you why.

There are nine members from northern Ontario who have been elected to this government, and I must say that the people of northern Ontario had very high expectations. With nine members in the governing party, and five of those in cabinet --

Mr Miclash: Six.

Mr Ramsay: Six in cabinet. Thank you. My colleague says it's actually six in cabinet -- there would be a tremendously strong voice for northern Ontario in the Ontario cabinet and therefore maybe a lot of people would say finally there would be a government that would be addressing the issues of northern Ontario. But after two years in government, we find, no, that has not happened. There has not been that action for northern Ontario.

Thinking back on our government, the Liberal government, and what happened in regard to northern Ontario, I think I understand the reason. The reason is that we had a minister in the Liberal government by the name of René Fontaine, who came from Cochrane North, where I see the honourable member now sits on the governing side, and you know what the difference is? René Fontaine had a vision of what northern Ontario is about and should be about, and he had a vision that northern Ontarians should have the tools to rebuild their own economy, and he worked towards that vision.

One of the things he said was that northerners, number one, should have their fair share of the resources that all the taxpayers of Ontario put into the Ontario government. Therefore, he initiated a program, and it was very tough to do at the time, that pioneered moving Ontario public service jobs into northern Ontario. That was a tremendous move, not only for the economy of northern Ontario. Does the member for Sudbury shake her head that that's not a very good move, when Sudbury got many jobs, a couple of hundred jobs, I believe, at least? I think it's a darn good job. There's a nice building in Sudbury. I was at Laurentian University the other day.

But that was a policy of vision, because not only were these jobs coming to the main centres of northern Ontario to be an underpinning for the economy of northern Ontario, but more than that -- and this is where the real wisdom comes in -- Mr Fontaine ensured that a good portion of the civil service of Ontario shared and lived the experience of northern Ontario like we who come from the north do.

As those people progress through their ministries, and maybe come down to the head offices that are still in Toronto, those people will have experienced the north, they will understand the north, and when the 15 or 16 of us who are elected from all parties in northern Ontario come down here, we will be able to communicate with civil servants who have understood the north because they've lived in the north and they've worked in the north. I think that's a tremendous achievement.

What's sadly lacking here is a northern vision. I like the minister personally, but she doesn't have a northern vision. She doesn't have a vision that this is what she would like to do for northern Ontario. We would like to see that, and we would ask, we would beg, the Minister of Northern Development to have that vision.

Let's look at some of the facts that we have over here, and I'm sure my colleagues will tell me when my time is up, if I do get a bit wound up.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I will.

Mr Ramsay: Yes, I think a few of them will.

What we've seen now is an unemployment rate of 18% in northern Ontario. In Sudbury, which isn't doing too bad, it's 14%, in Thunder Bay it's 10.8%, and these numbers are up from a year ago. The indicators, with the layoffs and the plant closures, are that these are going to be higher in the rest of this year.

It's clear that the NDP government is putting very little into the north, and again, let's just look at the facts. Let's look at the Ministry of Northern Development budget. The budget of the Ministry of Northern Development is now $58 million short this year from last year. Why did you put in $58 million less money in this year's budget?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Let's be fair, David; $40 million was anti-recession money.

Mr Ramsay: Yes, okay; let's talk about that. When the minister says to me, "You're right," I want to acknowledge that, Minister.

1710

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Timiskaming has the floor. Other members will have the opportunity to participate. Please continue.

Mr Ramsay: I would like to acknowledge what the Minister of Northern Development said to me. I will acknowledge that the minister did put $40.8 million in the anti-recession fund. That's $40.8 million of $700 million. We didn't even get our 10%. You'd think maybe we'd at least get our 10% because we represent 10% of the population. We didn't even get that, so it's another example of shortchanging.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member says 10%. We provided 30% in anti-recession the first year. The numbers he's using are not factual.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have not heard the point of order.

Mr Bisson: The member is using wrong figures. We spent 30% in the first year on anti-recession.

The Acting Speaker: That's a point of view.

Mr Ramsay: What did the government actually propose before they were in government? What they said they were going to do was propose a northern fund of $400 million over two years, returning money to the north, it was their view. Well, we got $40 million, not $400 million.

What about regional economic development? The government had said it would work to help the communities of the north, southwestern, eastern and central Ontario seek ways to develop a sustainable economic development. We have not seen that.

The Minister of Health is here, and today she said that this government is spending $11 million on the medical health travel grant program. It's a very good program, but what we're seeing is a lot of northerners having to come to southern Ontario to receive their health care, rather than the government moving on its promise. The NDP had said it would develop a medical school in the north in order to have medical trainees practise and train in the north so that they would stay in the north. We don't see that happening.

What you've done is capped the doctors there, and now 33 doctors have left Sudbury. So now our people have to come down to southern Ontario because the northern doctors are now being capped in their incomes. These aren't northern doctors who have gross incomes for themselves; these are northern doctors who have staff and other practitioners working with them and that's why their gross incomes are so high. These have been capped. Why have all these doctors left Sudbury? You've got to be working with the medical practitioners in the north. That's what we want to see.

Some of my colleagues have mentioned -- I know the member for Nipissing had mentioned -- highways. When we were in government, we had announced that we would commence the four-laning of Highway 11 and Highway 69 to northern Ontario. We have not seen the commitment from this government as to the plans, the schedule of that, as this party had called for while in opposition. We have not seen that.

The Minister of Northern Development in her campaign literature had said she would like to have equalized gasoline prices right across the province. That's a real motherhood issue for northern Ontario.

I am getting the hook, Mr Speaker, but I wish the minister would work on that, because we see prices of 49 cents and 52 cents in southern Ontario, and up in Hearst it's 69 cents today as we speak. That's intolerable for northern Ontario.

I'd like to lend the floor to my colleagues over here in the Tory party so that my colleagues can get back at this. Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this motion today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Further debate?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): In following the member for Timiskaming, I will mention part of the subject I thought he would go into, that is, the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake. Indeed, he should be open to some of these possibilities because it's a classic instance where this government has failed to respond to the interests and needs of a community. Since he didn't do it, I'm certainly pleased to talk on it.

As a starting point, every one of us should stop and listen to the north. The sound of the people from the north is one where they're crying out for attention, not only for jobs but for their economy and for support from this government at Queen's Park, so that we stop thinking in an insulated way that separates southern Ontario from northern Ontario. We've really got to have a sense of one whole province trying to work together. The fact that we're spending some time considering needs of northern Ontario this afternoon is indeed a credit to this House. If only the government would adhere to some of the thoughts and the considerations that are being tabled.

For the longest time now, our caucus has been placing considerable attention on how we can help build a stronger economy in northern Ontario. In fact, a large number of members from our caucus have been there specifically to visit the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake, to see just what can be done there and just what it does offer to that community. The member for Mississauga South, the member for Dufferin-Peel and myself, along with our own northern members, have been to that site to speak with the people and try to appreciate just what could happen to northern Ontario if this government were to consider rail haul.

Rail haul to Kirkland Lake is an option that has been closed off under Bill 143 and has not been considered. We beseech this government to open up its mind to consider the possibility of rail haul to northern Ontario as a way of disposing of Metro's waste. That has been a concern we've expressed before. Again in this motion from the north on the north, why can't we do it?

We're talking about jobs. We're talking about a resource, which Metro is just going to bury in very expensive ground, that can be rail hauled to northern Ontario. We're talking about a community where 69% of that community said, "Let's at least look at it." Let's put it through an environmental assessment process so that we can study the benefits of rail haul to northern Ontario. We've got the Adams mine. It's a site ready for it. We're talking about a community that's ready for it. We're talking about over 200 jobs that could be generated within Kirkland Lake area.

We're talking about communities that are on the record saying, "We want it." The corporation of North Bay, Fort Frances, Sault Ste Marie, Espanola and the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities are on record asking the province -- Ruth Grier, Bob Rae -- to look at rail haul, and yet this government refuses to do so. All we're doing is bringing forward to this government what it means to look at all the options, and one of the options has to be to help the north.

All you can do as a government is somehow put a Berlin wall around Durham and Peel and say: "You're going to look after your garbage there. You cannot, as the greater Toronto area, look outside those borders." We're challenging the government again today to say, open up the borders, open up the option of rail haul, so that we can then have at least one option considered. This government refuses to have the openness of mind to look at those things.

We're talking about revenue that can be generated in the north. The Ontario Northland Railway will generate something like $13.5 million a year. That railroad is in jeopardy right now, because no longer are we shipping the ores, metals and resources from the north to the south. We're seeing the loss of jobs in that railway. If we come along and start shipping through a rail haul proposal that's been put forward by Rail Cycle North, we then have another way of making use of that railroad.

We're talking about the municipalities in the area that could benefit by up to $80 million over a 20-year period. A huge sum of money comes into the north. What we see as waste they can take as a resource and do something with it, not just bury it. The traditional flow of north to south can now be reversed and from the south they can make use of a resource we no longer have need for.

We're talking about communities that want to become involved in solving their own problem, yet Ruth Grier hasn't been there to look at the situation at the Adams mine site. Talk about government: We could barely get the committee of the Legislature, when it was studying Bill 143, to go up north. But we did it. If only now the government could open its logic a little bit further and allow this to become a viable option for consideration under the Environmental Assessment Act. That is what we're asking for. The people of the north want it. What's happening to the minister of northern resources? Where has she been?

Mr Stockwell: They ship a million tonnes to the States.

Mr Cousens: That's for sure. We can ship it to the States, but when it comes to using a resource in Ontario to help the north, it just doesn't seem to happen.

1720

When we're talking about responsible government, we're talking about being responsive to the needs of the communities you're serving, and as a caucus, we are anxious to do just that for the people of the north. Under our leader Mike Harris we are trying to do that, and I'm suggesting there's still time for this government to open up the rail haul option.

I call upon the Minister of Northern Development, I call upon the Minister of the Environment, I call upon Bob Rae, the Premier, to open up other options for the north. Rail haul of Metro's garbage is certainly an option that needs to be considered and it's time this government took it far more seriously than it has to this point.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Hon Bud Wildman: In the short time I have, I want to express my appreciation to the members of the opposition for bringing this matter before the House, and I want to concentrate specifically on forestry.

I will not, of course, respond to the allegation that nothing is being done in the north, when I come from an area where Algoma Steel is very important. I want to deal, though, particularly with forestry. There's no question that forestry is of very great importance in northern Ontario and it is important for jobs in our part of the province. When I came into this position after the election in 1990, I was determined that we should move forward with development of a policy for sustainable forestry to manage on an ecosystem basis rather than continuing the ad hoc approach, the approach that only concentrated on timber values.

All of us from northern Ontario recognize the significant importance of timber and timber values for many communities, as many as 40 communities across our part of the province, but it is unacceptable for us to continue to manage forests only on the basis of timber and the provision of fibre for the mills. It ignores all of the other values that are important in terms of forest management if it's done on an ecosystem basis. Tourism, fish and wildlife habitat, the aesthetics of wilderness, conservation, old growth -- all of these values must be taken into account if we're going to have a true forest policy rather than just a timber policy.

In this province we have never had a forest policy, despite what my friend from Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, the united counties in southern Ontario, had to say about what he called a vision for northern Ontario, a vision for forestry under the Conservative government. The fact is, we have never had a forest policy in this province.

First, we established an audit, the first on-ground audit, to look at the boreal forest and the cutting that has been done over the last 20 years, to determine what kinds of sites, what types of approaches to regeneration are the best over the last 20-year period. That audit is going to report in the next couple of weeks, and hopefully it will give us some indication as to how much money we should indeed be investing with regard to reforestation, with regard to planting, with regard to artificial regeneration, as opposed to alternative approaches to harvesting that are so important for silviculture.

As was mentioned in the debate, we established an old-growth policy approach where we are consulting widely across the province to develop an old-growth policy with a lay panel, along with a blue ribbon scientific panel, to advise the government, first on an old-growth policy for red and white pine, and then subsequent to that to move forward next year to look at an old-growth policy for other species.

We froze the 10 sites that have been identified by the work done under the previous government from harvesting to protect them while this work is ongoing, and I'm happy to say that we look forward before the end of this fiscal year to the interim report of that work.

We've put a tremendous amount of money into research, into alternatives with regard to vegetation management to get away from chemical spraying, herbicides. We are involved in a number of initiatives with regard to moving forward on a scientific basis for biodiversity development and biodiversity management in our forests.

Of course, if we're going to have sustainable forestry, we must also have sustainable industry, forest industries in sustainable communities, and for that reason we established a forest industries action group to bring together management, labour and government to work together for changes in the lumber and pulp and paper industries so that we could improve the profitability of those industries in the future, develop new technologies and make it possible for us to respond to environmental and technological needs to ensure that we indeed can move forward with new approaches with regard to environmental protection, recycling, de-inking, new uses of underutilized fibre and so on, so that we have new opportunities for employment in northern communities.

It has been indicated in the debate that we have had serious difficulties in this current revenue situation. Obviously when we came to power it would have been far preferable, we all admit that, if we could have initiated these programs with regard to sustainable forestry while maintaining the approach that had been taken in the past with regard to forest management, so that we would not have to face a situation of cutbacks in that area, so that we could maintain our sustainable forestry initiatives.

Unfortunately, with the decline in revenues it has not been possible for us to do that. We haven't been able to continue the plantation of seedlings at the rate that it has been done in the past, 165 million seedlings a year. But unlike the previous government when it was unable to meet this commitment, we did not dump seedlings, we did not bury seedlings. We ensured that those seedlings were indeed planted across the province. Operation Tree Plant was an enormous success. We planted 159 million seedlings last year despite the fact that we only had funding for considerably less than that.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): How many did you shred?

Hon Mr Wildman: We didn't. That's the difference between our approach and yours.

We are currently exploring other alternatives, other approaches, for ensuring that we will be able to enter into new arrangements with the industry to ensure that we will have new approaches, not only to plantation but also to tending, site preparation and silviculture in general. Obviously there has to be a new partnership between the private sector and government if we're going to be able to meet our responsibilities on a sustainable basis.

I will just conclude by saying that in terms of sustainable industry, if anybody questions our commitment to the forest products industry, one just has to look at Spruce Falls and the efforts this government has made with the investment of time and taxpayers' dollars to ensure that we could indeed have a community worker buyout in that operation, have it continue to operate and turn a profit. That's what we mean by sustainable communities, sustainable industry and sustainable forestry for northern Ontario. If there's any question about our commitment, just look at Spruce Falls.

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak against this motion. As a lifelong resident of Thunder Bay, I am well aware of the neglect and suffering the north has experienced under previous governments in this province. Frankly, I'm surprised that the opposition would make such accusations. I am very proud of what my government has accomplished to undo some of the damage and address the neglect of past administrations, and I am very pleased that this government has made the north a priority.

The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fort William, knows as well as I do the many projects this government has funded, the initiatives we have supported and the services we have helped provide throughout the north and in Thunder Bay in particular. Many other services for outlying areas are based in Thunder Bay, the hub of northwestern Ontario. This government has maintained services to those outlying areas and in fact expanded and improved many of those services.

I reject the opposition's accusation that this government hasn't addressed the issues of economic diversification and job creation in the north. We have supported many initiatives that address economic concerns of northern communities.

In September 1991 this government took effective control of UTDC in Thunder Bay to prevent its closure. UTDC has been the sole supplier of rail cars to both the Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit. It has also made sales to other provinces, the United States and internationally. This government negotiated the sale of the transit-related assets of UTDC to Bombardier. The actions of this government helped to save and secure some 675 jobs in this vital industry in Thunder Bay.

1730

This government was also instrumental in helping to keep western Canadian coal coming through the port of Thunder Bay, which saved more than 200 jobs in the city and is expected to save Ontario Hydro $80 million this year.

With funding from the Northern Ontario Development Corp and the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp, this government was also able to help bring Leo Sakata Electronics and Earnway Industries to Thunder Bay. These plants officially opened in August of last year and continue to grow.

Through some $2.2 million in Jobs Ontario Capital funding, this government has supported projects such as establishment of the Pigeon River Tourist Information Centre, improvements to Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital and improvements to Sleeping Giant Provincial Park.

In regard to health care, one of the most notable examples of expanded services is the network of regional diabetes resource centres we have established, as already mentioned by the Minister of Health. This government has provided $500,000 for startup costs and is committed to providing the $5 million needed annually to deliver this crucial health care service.

Another significant and unique health care service this government is supporting is the Ogden-East End Community Health Centre in the Leader of the Opposition's riding. This centre is unique because it was designed to specifically meet the health care needs of the residents of the community. Due to the $2.5 million provided by this government, the Ogden-East End Community Health Centre is currently under construction and is expected to be fully operational by the summer of 1993.

Just last week, this government supported another crucial health care service. The Thunder Bay Regional Cancer Centre received $3 million in capital funding from the province and additional funding for operating costs.

Through the anti-recession program, this government provided Faye Peterson Transition House in Thunder Bay with a capital grant of $834,000 to build a new centre. Faye Peterson Transition House is an emergency centre for abused women and their children. This shelter provides a vital service to clients from across northwestern Ontario. Health care in Thunder Bay is definitely a priority of this government.

Confederation College and Lakehead University in Thunder Bay have both received considerable support from this government. Some of the capital projects we have funded include a new hospitality, travel and tourism training centre at the college, a new health sciences resource centre at the university and, also at the university, a new music centre and visual arts building.

I'm also pleased to take this opportunity to inform the members opposite that this government has provided substantial funding for road improvements. Highway 61 is an example of this.

We've also provided capital funding for volunteer fire departments in Pass Lake, Shuniah and Oliver township.

In Thunder Bay, the program for renewal, improvement, development and economic revitalization has provided funding for road reconstruction, streetscape improvements and repairs to sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The PRIDE program is one way this government is actively involved in ensuring that all our communities stay vital, attractive and economically sound.

In my riding, this government also funded the reconstruction of Highway 587, a $2.2-million project that includes widening the road and shoulders, repairs to frost heaves and improvement of highway drainage.

This government has also supported and recognized the importance of literacy programs in the north. A literate workforce is of paramount importance. Accordingly, this government has supported literacy programs in Thunder Bay, such as the ones offered by the Indian Youth Friendship Society, the native employment opportunities program, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Literacy Coalition of Thunder Bay.

I know the opposition finds it very difficult to hear of all the great things this government is doing for the north, but it is happening there.

The neglect of past administrations in this province has caused damage that my government is committed to repairing. This government has clearly made the north our priority and will continue to do so. I'm proud of what this NDP government has accomplished, and though we know there is more to be done, we must remember that government money is taxpayers' money.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Generally one would say that one is pleased to participate in a debate. Today, I think I can say I'm saddened to be participating in the debate, mostly because the reality in northern Ontario today is not the rhetoric we're hearing across the floor.

The reality in northern Ontario today is an unemployment rate of 18%. In my riding and in most rural ridings across the north, we would consider 18% unemployment to be a vast improvement. If you are talking to your constituents out there, if you're talking to the people, they will say that what the government is saying across the floor sounds good but, boy, does it feel bad. Sounds good, feels bad.

I want just to take you to Sault Ste Marie last Thursday night. Some 500 northern women and men in the business community gathered together to present their annual awards. Not one minister of the crown appeared at that particular gathering. They talk about partnerships, but where are they? They're not there; they're not encouraging the growth in the private sector; they're not making things happen. All you have to do is talk to the folks in my riding, in Mr Wildman's riding, across the north, who want jobs and can't find them.

I want to talk specifically about my riding for a moment. I want to talk about probably the worst economic situation in the province of Ontario, in the Elliot Lake area. People in the Elliot Lake area need some hope; they need some action. They don't need any more rhetoric. In the Elliot Lake area they want real jobs. They don't want make-work jobs, although they're happy that some of those have been provided. They want real jobs.

This government by its action has, under its instructions, laid off 1,700 people in Elliot Lake. What is their response? "There's some money." That's nice, but the real things that will make real things happen in this area are the things they promised after the election. They promised they would expedite Patten Post. They promised they would help with a cogeneration plant at Algoma Mills.

These are the things that make sense for both the province of Ontario and the people I represent and the people I think Mr Wildman represents just across the line. They make sense, but what does this government do? It defers them. "We don't need the power," they say, but they're happy to go ahead with other hydro projects. If you can believe it, this green NDP government is going to build or refurbish two coal plants. Can you believe it? This is the green party -- coal plants. We only want the government to do some things that make sense. If they would do some things that make sense in my riding we would have real jobs.

I talk about a seniors' campus in Elliot Lake. We've been very successful in the community with the seniors' retirement living program. It's working, but we need more facilities. We've been talking about this in the community for some years. It is needed; it has to happen. Where is that? "Well, it's being studied." We talk about the French college, something that makes sense that this government says it's committed to. Why don't you consider Elliot Lake and why don't you get going? There's just nothing happening out there. The phones are on hold. These things make sense and they need to happen now, because there are going to be 600 more men and women laid off in this community in about three years. It's got to happen, and it's the story of the north.

Mr Wildman and budget cuts; Ms Martel and budget cuts -- and this in a time -- I've heard this rhetoric over there, "We're under constraint." The fact is, real government spending, adjusted for inflation, is the highest under this government in two years that it has ever been, so they're not afraid to spend bucks. They're spending money, real money, adjusted for inflation, faster than anybody.

So what's happening to northern Ontario? What's happening to my constituents? I can't explain it. I don't know, but I'm the guy who has to sit in the constituency office and see the folks, the grown men, 40 years old, coming in and saying: "Mike, I had a job that employed me. I made $40,000 a year. I have grade 4 education. They won't retrain me. They won't do anything for me." What do I say to him? At times I get angry and feel outraged because I'm out there, as I'm sure other northern members are, with real people with real problems who want real jobs, and all we get is rhetoric. Sounds good; feels bad.

1740

I listened to the Minister of Natural Resources, and as his critic, I want to echo the words of the Tory, Mr McLean, who talked about the forestry regeneration program. Mr Wildman says: "We can't do it. We've got to cut it back because I want to do studies." I'll tell you, doing studies ain't going to cut it. We need the jobs now; the forest needs the trees now. It is the most ludicrous approach to both the environment and forest regeneration that has ever been expressed, and to dress it up by talking about committees -- I think they're good. They should be going on. But if you're replacing real forest regeneration with all these nice projects which employ consultants, not many of my people get many jobs, and I think that's what's making us in the north so angry.

I can talk about ambulance services that have been cut. I can talk about patients the Sudbury General Hospital trauma unit doesn't want to take, because they require intensive care, from the Manitoulin Health Centre. I could talk about things real people are really worried about out there, and all we get is rhetoric. We get less dollars, but if rhetoric was money, we'd be doing swell.

I have to yield the floor at this point. I have a lot more to say and certainly will at another opportunity.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Hon Miss Martel: I'm very pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon and I want to thank my northern colleagues from this caucus and certainly the Minister of Health as well for participating. I appreciate their contribution and I appreciate the hard work they do every day for people in our special part of the province.

I want to focus on what I think is a very special effort this government has made in respect to dealing with partnerships in communities that have been in crisis in northern Ontario. Where I disagree fundamentally with the member for Parry Sound when he talked about this very issue is that I don't think any other government would have done what we did in Kapuskasing, in Elliot Lake, in Sault Ste Marie, in Sturgeon Falls and in Atikokan. I don't believe it for one moment.

His federal government was asked in each of those cases to participate with us to try and rebuild those communities. We got no response from the federal government on any of those communities. I want to remind him of that.

I don't think the Liberal Party, when it was in government, would have done what we did in any of those communities, and I just give you an example of what we did in Kapuskasing when we set up legislation to allow workers to participate in their own companies. I remember all the criticism we heard from the Liberals at that time, but that's what saved Kapuskasing. I want to remind the Liberals about that.

Let's look at what we did in those communities. In Kapuskasing, the community was facing a very difficult time. The president of Kimberly-Clark announced in 1989 that he would give the company away. The only condition was that someone would have to buy Smoky Falls dam and that someone had to be Ontario Hydro.

We entered into a very difficult period of negotiation with the community, with the trade unions that were involved, with the business community, with Hydro, with a number of ministries, and in June found we could not at that time enter into the kind of partnership they wanted, because we believed that not everyone had brought enough to the table. We went back to the table in July and early in August were very pleased to announce that more people had come to the table, that they had brought more money with them, and with a much greater effort we put together a deal that saved that community.

I am pleased to announce that in June of this year the company reported a profit of $2 million. The second thing that's happened is that the company has also let $200 million in contracts to build a new thermal mechanical pulp plant. That's a community that's surviving because of this government and because of the partnerships we developed there.

I want to say to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, with respect to Elliot Lake, that no government has done more than we have to help out his community. We put $15 million into his community in December 1990 to have a program of economic diversification. That was $5 million more than his government was prepared to do just during the election campaign -- par hasard -- of September 1990. We put together a $250-million diversification package for his community, because it was the right thing to do. I have no regrets for what we did in his community: $160 million to maintain Rio Algom's operation till 1996; $65 million for short- and long-term diversification efforts in the community; another $25 million for energy initiatives in that community.

The member does a disservice to the people on the working group, who have worked very, very hard to have projects come into their community. When he says there is no one at the end of the line, he does a disservice to them, because they are working very hard. They have created a great deal of short-term employment in the community. I have no doubt that they will succeed, and I hope he gets on board to work with us in that regard.

Let's talk about Sturgeon Falls as well. The community of Sturgeon Falls, at the MacBlo plant, had to shut down one of their operations. They came to the government last April looking for some funding in order to establish recycling at that plant.

We did a couple of things that were very different, that no other government has done. First of all, we passed legislation in this House -- I want to say that the member for Nipissing was involved in that, and I thank him for that -- to allow a joint venture between five communities involved in an economic development corporation, to allow them to go to the bank with MacMillan Bloedel and with the government to borrow money to build that recycling plant.

That project is worth $15 million. Some $4 million came from the Northern Ontario Heritage Corp; $4 million came from the Ministry of the Environment. The communities, in partnership with MacBlo, will go and will build the rest together.

I want to talk about the local partnership. The people in the community have agreed to raise $1 million as part of their contribution. The other interesting thing that has never been done before is that through that partnership, a portion of the funds and the profits that come from that particular recycling plant will be diverted back to the five communities through the economic development corp; again, a very clear sign of a partnership between this government, a major corporation and five communities that were very much interested in seeing how we could protect their future, and how they could indeed have a future.

My colleague from Rainy River already spoke. In the case of Atikokan, when I was there in February of 1991, there was 80% unemployment. The two major employers were down. Working with both the two companies, Proboard and Atikokan Forest Products, we managed to get both of those companies back up. In the case of Proboard, we provided funds to allow the local people to buy the plant from the American partners. Both of those plants are operating, people are back to work, and it was a credit to a lot of people at the heritage fund, to the local community and to members of our government that got that back up.

Just very quickly, in terms of capital investment, I want to focus on this again and clarify some errors.

We received 30% of all of the anti-recession funds: 30% of $700 million. In community after community that I have travelled in, that fund was the only thing that allowed local people to get back to work, to purchase goods and services. In many communities, it was the only thing that went on last summer, and I'm proud to say we were a part of it.

This year, in terms of Jobs Ontario Capital funding, the north has receive $140 million dollars out of a possible $500 million this year for very needed projects in many, many of our communities. Add to that $3.4 billion of regular capital funding that we have; much of that is going to northern Ontario.

I am proud of the work we are doing in this government in northern Ontario. It's a record that I'm very pleased to defend and one that I'm pleased to stand upon.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: I moved this resolution because of a couple of things --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The Liberals have got a lot of nerve moving this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, thank you for trying to bring the member for Nickel Belt under control. I moved this motion because of the very serious difficulties that face the people of northern Ontario. In many ways it is, as my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin said, a very sad day when we have to bring these motions to the floor.

Let me explain to the people who may be watching what an opposition day is. This is the only time when the people on this side of the House can actually take issues about which we are very concerned and bring them to the floor of the House so that this Legislature can vote on the issue of whether or not more needs to be done to sustain economies in places like northern Ontario.

1750

Mr Speaker, you will know, along with the people in this House who are members, that the government has had its way with the rules. In fact, under your inimitable guidance in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton, you have just read into the record today a petition which talks about giving people more time to address the issues.

Today, we have had merely 48 minutes per caucus to talk about something which has been serious for some time. I admit that, as a member one time of the Liberal government from 1985 to 1990. Even prior to that, in the days of the Conservative government, it was a serious problem, and it is now, some two years-plus under the administration of the New Democratic Party of this province, a terrible problem.

We have people who are thrown out of work. We have people who have no hope at all of going back into gainful employment because we have not been able to come to grips with a strategy which really works. We have, from time to time, people making announcements on behalf of the government which have very high-sounding principles, very high-sounding rhetoric, but which are very short indeed on long-term and far-reaching effects for the interests of the people of this province.

It did not use to be good enough for the party of the people, so described, the New Democratic Party, to come around and rant about how many jobs it had saved if there were one or two people who were displaced from their work by the inevitable restructuring that has been going on in this province for some time. But we saw it here today as minister after minister rationalized the existence of their government and their programs in northern Ontario, complaining about this being the best they could do under the circumstances. "We put a few dollars here; we put a few million dollars here."

It surprised me to no end that there has been a declaration of the salvation of several communities on the part of various ministers of this administration today: Kapuskasing is saved, and all of those terrible consequences that have befallen the men and women who are now laid off as a result of the restructuring of that paper plant -- well, they're saved. The fact that they think they're unemployed doesn't matter. They've been saved by the New Democrats. The fact that there are men and women who are out of work in Elliot Lake does not matter, because there are people who have been saved.

But it didn't use to be good enough for the New Democrats to save one and give up on two. It didn't use to be good enough to have an organization come together and say it's shutting whole parts of plants down. It didn't use to be good enough for those people not to be able to access health care. It didn't use to be good enough to find that products that we used to make in profusion in northern Ontario were no longer needed.

But under this administration which has taken over the administration of this province from September 6, 1990, it has now become good enough to look at men and women permanently out of employ, to look at men and women permanently unable to access facilities that used to provide good, incredible health care.

It is good enough to have rough roads and bad roads in northern Ontario. It is good enough for the New Democratic Party of Ontario not to four-lane northern highways. And it is good enough for these people, now that they are in government, to turn their backs on the commitments they made during the elections which promised everything, indeed so much, to the people of northern Ontario.

The New Democratic Party, to be quite frank, has given up on the principles that it used to stand for. They have given up wanting to provide universal health care to the people of this province. They are chopping services. You can't get the drugs you used to get, you can't get the care you used to get if you're out of province, and you can't access a whole series of services that you used to be able to get in this province, because the New Democratic Party has turned its back on the principle of universal health care and it has turned its back on the issue and the principle of full employment for this province. All you have you do is look around the communities of northern Ontario to find evidence everywhere.

We could go to the rest of the province and we'd find and discover that the New Democrats have turned their backs on all of the principles they used to have in all parts of this province. But it is enough to know today that the people of northern Ontario deserve better than these New Democrats are willing to give.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Elston has moved:

"That this House condemns the government of Ontario for its failure to recognize:

"That northern Ontario has been a source of enormous wealth for the private sector;

"That northern Ontario has been a source of enormous revenues for the provincial government;

"That the provincial government puts very little revenue back into the north;

"That the roads in northern Ontario are in terrible shape;

"That the NDP government has not proceeded with serious four-laning of highways in the north;

"That the delivery of health care services in the north is still inferior;

"That northern municipalities have particular problems of boom and bust while the NDP government freezes unconditional grants;

"That forestry jobs are threatened because of this government's failure to live up to its commitment to provide seedlings and because of the continuing practice of clear-cutting;

"That almost no attempts have been made to diversify the economy to create jobs nor to work with the private sector and create meaningful jobs when serious layoffs occur;

"That the Ontario government continues to treat northern Ontario citizens like second-class citizens."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1757 to 1802.

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

Mr Elston has moved:

"That this House condemns the government of Ontario for its failure to recognize:

"That northern Ontario has been a source of enormous wealth for the private sector;

"That northern Ontario has been a source of enormous revenues for the provincial government;

"That the provincial government puts very little revenue back into the north;

"That the roads in northern Ontario are in terrible shape;

"That the NDP government has not proceeded with serious four-laning of highways in the north;

"That the delivery of health care services in the north is still inferior;

"That northern municipalities have particular problems of boom and bust while the NDP government freezes unconditional grants;

"That forestry jobs are threatened because of this government's failure to live up to its commitment to provide seedlings and because of the continuing practice of clear-cutting;

"That almost no attempts have been made to diversify the economy to create jobs nor to work with the private sector and create meaningful jobs when serious layoffs occur;

"That the Ontario government continues to treat northern Ontario citizens like second-class citizens."

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Brown, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey), Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Ramsay, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

Nays

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

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36, the nays 63.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 36 and the nays 63, I declare the motion lost.

It now being past 6 of the clock, this House does now adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1808.