Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

REPORT ON RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The final report of the Clare Lewis Race Relations and Policing Task Force was to have been released on October 27. That date has come and gone and we are still waiting for the report.

My understanding is that the report is being held up until the French translation is completed, although the task force's two interim reports, as you recall, were released without waiting for the French text to be prepared.

Somehow it's suggested that the Premier's office asked or told the task force not to release the report at this time. Can the Premier tell us if he or someone from his staff called the task force to ask it not to release the report last week? It was due last week. If this is the case, is it appropriate for the Premier's office to intervene in the work of an independent task force? We have seen that happen before, anyhow. If the report has been completed, why should it not be released?

I also gather that the Solicitor General or anyone in his office somehow has seen the report in either a final or a draft form. I want to know if they have seen that.

Can the Solicitor General tell us when the report will be made public?

The Premier announced the re-establishment of the task force with much fanfare. Will he tell us what's going on now, because we don't know. Maybe this report can shed some light on what is happening with the situation with the police and the government at this time.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This morning the Coalition to Keep Ontario Working presented me with some bricks intended for presentation to the NDP cabinet. These bricks illustrate their frustration and anger at the government's refusal to recognize the devastating impact Bill 40 will have on our economy.

Each of these bricks was once part of a productive factory or commercial building which provided employees with jobs and housed equipment that produced income and goods for our province. It is ironic that the one industry benefiting from this government's policies is the demolition industry which, I am told, is the largest-growth industry in Ontario.

I should point out that unlike the early 1980s, when there was also much demolition, these demolitions today are not for the purposes of rebuilding; they are simply to get the buildings off the tax rolls. The buildings these represent have been torn down and the site is now a vacant lot. The companies have closed and the employees have lost their jobs.

I can assure you that when Bill 40 is passed, more bricks will go to the dump and thousands of people will lose their jobs. Although this government rejects the assertion that Bill 40 will kill jobs, it has never conducted an economic impact study of its own.

I urge this government to kill Bill 40 before it kills jobs and to remember that you have a responsibility to build Ontario's economy, not destroy it.

ALMOST HOME

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I rise to acknowledge a most welcome event in the Kingston area, the official opening of Almost Home, a home away from home for families with sick children.

Every month Kingston's two acute care hospitals, the General and Hotel Dieu, treat about 100 children with serious medical problems. Many of these children face long, hard and often frightening fights with illness and disability.

It is essential that these young patients receive support from their families. This becomes a major challenge when the child could be sick for weeks, months or even years. There are also new stresses on parents and brothers and sisters. Family life is disrupted, there is financial strain from extra expenses and continual tiredness from worry, travel -- since the children often live an average of 70 kilometres from Kingston -- and fitful sleep.

Almost Home will be a haven for these families. Situated within walking distance of both hospitals, it will provide families with accommodation in a homelike setting, an opportunity to prepare their own meals and a place where they can be close to their child yet get away from the hospital for a few hours. There will also be a variety of professional and volunteer services to help nurture the emotional health of all family members. Almost Home represents an important advance in caring for the whole child, a chance to combine the best in medical treatment with the long-term benefits of emotional health.

A service like this isn't cheap. It will cost almost $1 million just to set up and there will be operating costs as well. Perhaps most impressive of all is that the funding for Almost Home is entirely in the hands of volunteers, who have raised nearly 75% of their capital costs.

I encourage everyone in the large area served by Kingston's medical facilities to visit Almost Home at 118 William Street.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

1340

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): At 11 am today on the front steps of the Legislature, the Coalition to Keep Ontario Working presented bricks, such as these, for all MPPs. With it went a letter, which reads in part:

"To all provincial ministers:

"Dear Minister:

"This brick was once part of a productive factory. It housed employees and equipment that produced income and goods for our province. It paid federal, provincial and municipal taxes. Today this brick is likely destined to become landfill.

"The company enclosed has been shut. The employees have lost their jobs. The building has been torn down and the site is a vacant lot. As you prepare to vote on Bill 40, please remember that if it passes, millions of bricks will be sent to the dump, and hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs and pay.

"The Coalition to Keep Ontario Working asks all MPPs to help prevent this. Kill Bill 40 before it kills jobs. Please keep this brick as a reminder of your responsibility to the public: to build the Ontario economy, not destroy it through legislation which drives out employment.

"Bricks should be building materials, not landfill."

Bill 40 is being pushed ahead by the government without any idea as to the effect it will have on the manufacturing, retail, agricultural and service sectors. I believe that for a government to do this, when so many people have lost their jobs and many others are worried whether the job they have today will be there tomorrow, is to the workers of this province an irresponsible action on behalf of the government.

It is time to stop this bill.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Last Thursday, her worship Mayor Hazel McCallion of Mississauga personally delivered 50,000 coupons to Premier Bob Rae from people who oppose Bill 40, yet the Premier did not come out of his office to accept the mayor's 150 pounds of mail.

Mayor McCallion's mail is typical of what I have heard from my constituents. Of the 400 people who have contacted me, only five supported the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act. I have heard from individuals, businesses, government agencies and social service providers, including the Peel Board of Education, the city of Mississauga, the Mississauga Board of Trade and the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.

For a more accurate knowledge of my community's views, I distributed a survey, and 95% of respondents strongly disapproved of the NDP's labour law agenda, while 83% strongly agreed that the labour law reform package would make Ontario a much less attractive place to do business. An astonishing 48% of the businesses surveyed said they would consider moving to another jurisdiction if the plan becomes law.

To pass Bill 40 is to ignore the will of the people. Premier Rae, with one in 10 Ontarians out of work already, why are you trying to kill jobs, kill investment and kill our economy? Please listen to the people. While you still can, withdraw Bill 40.

LOCAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Last Thursday, I participated in a town hall meeting held in Flamborough which was organized by the Wentworth North NDP riding association. That evening's topic for discussion was local rural development.

The issue was indeed topical, as many of my constituents from Dundas and Flamborough have been experiencing problems with new developments that seem to be all too hastily encouraged by municipal governments. Antrim Glen Estates and the Pleasantview development came immediately to mind.

I have lived in Wentworth North all my life, and I was greatly encouraged by the discussion that took place at this meeting of concerned and informed citizens. It was a relief to hear that people felt the development of their community is not unconditionally a good thing. Many people are disheartened by the haphazard approach to local development with no vision for the future, and which seems to discourage community consultation and participation.

Development was considered positive only when it is sustainable, and sustainable was understood to mean not only respect for the environment, but also for the cultural and historical heritage of our community. The local meeting was enthusiastic about the proposed reforms to the Ontario Heritage Act, and expressed its interest in an act with enough teeth in it to protect the integrity and beauty of its communities.

These people care about their community. The essence of any community lies with the expression of its people. It is that which keeps us together and, by providing insight into our past, leads us to understand our present and directs us towards our future.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the autumn of 1991, I warned Premier Rae and members of the government about the impending closure of General Motors' operations in St Catharines as part of the downsizing and restructuring plans of General Motors. During my questions, statements and speeches in the House, I expressed concerns specifically about the possible closure of the foundry and the engine plant in St Catharines, the area I represent, and urged the Premier and his ministers to avoid policies and rhetoric that might discourage GM from retaining its investment in Ontario and recommended that they do everything possible to encourage GM to keep all of its Ontario operations open.

Once again, I'm alerting the Premier to the potential further job losses at GM, as corporate headquarters slashes at least 60,000 jobs and possibly as many as 120,000 in total. GM workers in St Catharines, Oshawa, London and Windsor are worried that their jobs could be lost in the next GM blood-letting. This time, they will want the provincial government to devote all of its attention to their future.

Premier Rae, who seems to be intent upon embarking upon yet another foreign tour, this time to Asia, should recognize that the workers at GM plants in Ontario want him to remain here to fight for their jobs. The only trip Bob Rae should be taking is to Detroit, to make the case for GM workers and their jobs. I call upon the Premier to abandon his globe-trotting and to present to General Motors the best possible case to keep all of its Ontario operations open and the jobs intact.

TONY ROMAN

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Henry Van Dyke said there's only one way to get ready for immortality, and that is to love this life and live it as bravely and faithfully and cheerfully as we can.

So it was with Markham's mayor, Tony Roman. He fought bravely, faithfully and cheerfully, and now he is in the company of the saints, having passed away last Friday. He was our town's leading architect, leading Markham into growth with vision and balance. He was a man of Christian faith, living a life of service to the Almighty and all people. He was our community's best promoter, bringing in new business and prosperity. He was a friend to the great and the small and was able to walk and talk comfortably with all people. As mayor, regional chairman, MP, politician, athlete, businessman, family man, as a Christian, he served his community and his country with distinction.

To his wife, Elsie, and all his family we extend our sympathy. We have been blessed to have known him and to have been able to work with him. His contribution to our community is immortal. May all of us try to embody his dedication to principle.

COMMUNITY CARE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I want to use my 90 seconds to sing the praises on the occasion of the 15th anniversary for Community Care, located in Bowmanville in my riding of Durham East. In my riding, seniors are increasingly turning to Community Care programs to provide the support they need to stay independent in their homes.

In the first six months of this year, 241 people have benefited from a travelling foot care clinic, another 303 have been driven to medical and social appointments and dozens of others regularly receive a hot lunch through Meals on Wheels. By the end of the year, volunteers will likely have fielded more than a thousand inquiries, ranging from income tax to requests for health information. They have an annual budget of $140,000 from various government ministries, municipal grants and charitable donations. Limited funds means a reliance on volunteers. Bowmanville Community Care has a pool of 350 unpaid workers who this year have contributed 10,000 hours of volunteer work.

If you are watching this on television and you live in Durham East, please consider helping others, and help yourself as well. They need volunteers now. Volunteering is a great way to make connections and is ideal for building self-confidence. If you can help, please call 623-2261 and feel better for it.

1350

NOTICE OF MOTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Wednesday, October 28, 1992, the member for Bruce indicated that he desired to give notice of a reasoned amendment. The member attempted to give that notice orally and was interrupted and told that the procedure for giving notice in this House is that it be laid on the table in writing. I draw the member's attention to standing order 53, which states, "All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table" -- or filed with the Clerk of the House -- "before 5 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day."

I would point out that this standing order in no way distinguishes between various types of substantive motions. It applies equally to notice of reasoned amendments as it does to opposition day notice or notice of a government motion.

The practice in this House has been that notice is written. The reason for this long-standing practice is both practical and simple: Notice is to be printed on the Orders and Notices paper so that every member may be apprised of it the day following its tabling or filing. To ensure the accuracy of such a notice, it is necessary that it be provided in writing.

As to the question of whether or not the member is at liberty to give notice orally prior to providing it in written form, I would like to refer to a decision made by the Deputy Speaker on March 27, 1990, wherein he prevented a member from reading his notice of motion with respect to an opposition day by indicating that: "It is not the standard practice to read the resolution. You may table it if you want."

In addition to our practice in this regard, there is a more fundamental difficulty with providing notice orally; that is, we do not have a provision in our procedures that would allow a member the floor to give notice. We do not have a routine proceeding that is titled "Notice," nor do we have any other standing order that sets out a procedure for giving notice of a substantive motion orally. It could not, for example, be done on a point of order, as the member for Bruce attempted to do.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Also last Wednesday, the member for Ottawa West, Mr Chiarelli, informed the House that the Premier had responded to a question during oral question period on a matter currently before the Ontario Municipal Board, contrary to the sub judice rule contained in standing order 23(g). The member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara, rose in the House the next day to the same effect.

I have reviewed the Hansard for both days, the written submission of the member for Ottawa West, several parliamentary authorities and standing order 23(g).

Let me say at the outset that this standing order requires the Speaker to call a member to order "where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Speaker that further reference would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding."

I am not satisfied that the requirements of the standing order have been met in the case at hand, and accordingly I do not find anything out of order. However, had I ruled otherwise, members may have been prevented from continuing to place questions or to make responses in oral question period concerning certain aspects of the proceeding that is before the board. Members can appreciate, then, that the sub judice rule is invoked only in exceptional situations and that its invocation has consequences with respect to members' ability to speak.

I thank the member for Ottawa West and the member for York Centre for raising this matter in the House.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): While I'm on my feet, I would like to take this occasion to answer a few questions put to me last Thursday about the procedure followed by the House and in committee of the whole last Wednesday evening.

Let me first state the practical circumstances as they were then in committee of the whole. The Chair of that committee, Mr Villeneuve, was conducting business on Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment, following the procedure as described in the allocation-of-time motion passed on July 14, 1992.

I will quote to you here, as I quoted to you on Wednesday evening, the pertinent sentence which dictated the conduct of the Chair:

"At 5:45 pm on that sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House."

It is my opinion that that sentence is an extremely clear one. There can be no doubt as to what day it was: It was the second sessional day in committee. There can be no doubt, as well, as to what time it was: It was 5:45 on the second sessional day. There can also be no doubt as to the imperative nature of that order in its use of the word "shall" to guide the manner in which the Chair must dispose of that particular stage of the bill.

During those proceedings, a point of order was raised, a ruling given, and that ruling appealed to the Speaker. I then took the chair for the express purpose of entertaining the appeal of the Chair's ruling, and the mace was put on the table, as is necessary when the Speaker is in the chair.

After considering and upholding the Chair's ruling, I had no alternative but to leave the chair in order for the House to revert to committee of the whole so that it could continue to abide by the order of July 14. There was no other possibility at that point, and I would have been disregarding the order of the House had I done otherwise.

I hope these few words will help explain the proceedings of Wednesday night.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I would like to announce that November is Wife Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. Today marks the beginning of the seventh annual wife assault public education campaign.

We have encouraging news about the effectiveness of the wife assault public education campaign. Market research conducted after last November's campaign shows that Ontarians' attitudes towards wife assault are changing.

The 1991 campaign sought to communicate two central ideas: that psychological abuse is part of wife assault, and that men are responsible for stopping the violence. Ontarians appear to have understood both these messages.

The majority of those surveyed, 72%, placed the responsibility for ending wife assault squarely with men. An even larger majority, 82%, now understand that emotional and psychological abuse are as damaging as physical abuse. And 85% of those surveyed see that discarding or destroying a woman's possessions or keeping her isolated from friends and family is abusive behaviour.

The inroads that have been made in expanding the public's definition of wife assault are particularly evident among men. Previously, men were less likely than women to consider psychological and verbal abuse to be part of wife assault. This difference in perceptions has virtually disappeared. In short, we are making progress.

Public education is perhaps our greatest hope for effecting change in this area over the long term. When all people come to see wife assault for the crime that it is, when our societal institutions cease to overlook it, then the women of the next generation will have a real chance at equality.

This government is working to ensure that our messages about wife assault reach all men and women in this province, especially those who may not have received them thus far. The various communities within Ontario will approach this issue in different ways, and our methods of communication must be sensitive to that diversity.

To this end, the Ontario women's directorate is working with community groups to develop wife assault brochures in 17 languages, including Cambodian, Polish, Vietnamese, Arabic and Hindi. This year's campaign also includes radio ads in 11 languages, including Ojicree, Mohawk, Portuguese and Greek. Newspaper ads will be run in 14 languages, and 114 organizations have received a total of $200,000 for public education programs geared to the needs of their own communities. We will also rebroadcast two television commercials first aired last year in both English and French. Both reinforce the campaign theme that no man has the right to assault a woman.

While the results of the post-campaign survey are welcome and encouraging in terms of the goal of eliminating wife assault, we have really just begun. We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent or to slow our pursuit of that goal.

Since our election, we have increased funding aimed at the prevention of wife assault and sexual assault by more than $25 million, bringing to $88 million the total funding for these initiatives.

In the next year, we will concentrate on reviewing violence prevention programs across all relevant ministries to ensure that every dollar of the $88 million is well spent.

In May 1991, we announced plans to integrate our wife assault and sexual assault prevention initiatives by 1994 into a combined strategy to prevent violence against women. Integration will not be an easy task. We are committed to ensuring that the communities representing survivors of violence, service providers and advocacy organizations have a role in framing the violence against women prevention initiative.

Other groups as well have valuable insights and expertise that should inform this process. Francophones, cultural, racial minority and immigrant women, and women with disabilities will be very important participants in our consultation process. We hope to begin the consultation early in the new year.

In April of this year I announced that aboriginal organizations and the Ontario government would be working as partners towards a strategy to address family violence in aboriginal communities. The aboriginal organizations have completed their consultations, and we will be considering their recommendations shortly.

1400

We, as a government, have made it a priority to end violence against women, children and other vulnerable people. By "vulnerable," we mean those who are particularly susceptible to abuses of authority or physical advantage. People with physical disabilities, for example, experience a high rate of physical and sexual abuse because of the sheer number of care givers upon whom they are dependent, because of the private nature of much of that care giving -- hence, the opportunity for abuse -- and because of their physical inability to resist any attacks. So while we have often spoken of issues around the abuse of women in this House, it is important that we consider all persons who are particularly vulnerable to violence and abuse.

The Minister of Health has announced that we will go forward with amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act in order to respond to the incidence of sexual assault of patients by health care professionals. Those seeking medical assistance are particularly vulnerable to those who offer treatment and care. As we move towards a new direction of long-term care, we are also paying special attention to the safety needs of the elderly and the physically disabled. To this end, we are developing new standards of care to ensure the security and safety of long-term care clients, both in institutionalized settings and in community-based care situations.

We are also working to put effective policies and procedures in place in all adult institutional settings to prevent violence and to intervene appropriately when it does occur.

With respect to abuse occurring in correctional facilities, we have created a special complaints unit within the Ministry of Correctional Services to investigate complaints of sexual harassment involving offenders and ministry staff. The Ministry of the Attorney General has taken the lead in ensuring that past abuse, such as that at St Joseph's, St John's and Grandview, is taken seriously, is dealt with appropriately and that survivors are provided with assistance to enable them to heal.

An example of our active involvement in implementing safeguards to maximize the protection from abuse of children in residential care can be seen in the special efforts undertaken by the Ministry of Education in the provincial schools. Indeed, protecting all children from all forms of abuse is crucial. We have established an interministerial initiative to develop a strategy to reduce violence against children and we have revised the guidelines on child abuse for use by all professionals who deal with children. We anticipate and encourage the support and involvement of all our colleagues in this House for these initiatives because we take seriously their expressions of concern around violence against women, children and the vulnerable.

As we begin this Wife Assault Prevention Month, during which women's groups and other organizations all across Ontario will focus on the prevention of wife assault, this government is doing its part to help change attitudes and reduce the incidence of wife assault. But no government can do the job alone.

With respect to wife assault, we depend upon the whole community to ensure that our society refuses to condone or tolerate this crime. Research tells us that six out of 10 Ontarians know either a man who assaults or an assaulted woman. This is a disturbing statistic. What this statistic means is that across this province, hundreds of thousands of women -- our neighbours, our business colleagues, the mothers of our children's friends, our own mothers and sisters -- are routinely beaten, humiliated and threatened by the men with whom they live. Some of these women end up in hospital emergency wards, some receive injuries that result in permanent disabilities, some of them are beaten to within an inch of their lives, others are literally beaten to death.

We, as a society, cannot allow this crime to continue. We, as a community, must take responsibility for ending the climate of acceptance that exists when people do and say nothing about this crime. We, as individuals, as members of provincial Parliament, as members of community organizations and businesses, can take it upon ourselves to bring discussion and condemnation of wife assault out into the open.

More men have to tell other men that their abusive behaviour is wrong. Women and men must stop believing that assaulted women are somehow responsible for their victimization. We all need to understand that assaulted women live in a state of siege. Like prisoners of war, they live by someone else's rules, isolated from family, friends and other sources of support. They are made to feel defenceless and powerless through frequent physical and psychological abuse.

These women do what they must to survive, things that may not make sense to those of us who stand on the other side of the barbed-wire fence. "Why does she stay with him?" we ask. Is this really so hard to understand? When someone tells you he will kill you or your children if you leave, and when you have every reason to believe he will follow through on that threat, you reach for the doorknob at incalculable risk.

Given the 120 women who were killed by their intimate partners in Canada in 1991, an increase of 33% over the previous year, the fear of death for abused women is real. We must not malign an abused woman's weakness for staying with her partner; we must admire her strength for getting through yet another day of terror.

We need to work together to lift the shroud of silence which surrounds and perpetuates wife abuse. For many women, the enemy is not just the man who abuses them; it is also the silence of the community and the silence of those who try to deny and minimize the violence.

Wife Assault Prevention Month focuses attention on the efforts to counter wife assault, which continue year-round. This crime has no place in a civilized, just or enlightened society.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? Responses? Official opposition, the member for Eglinton.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): As women's issues critic for the official opposition, I am pleased to add my support to the minister's efforts in declaring November Wife Assault Prevention Month.

Over the last seven years, there has been a concerted effort by government in two areas relating to wife assault and violence against women. The first is informing the public about the extent of it in our society, and the second is in changing attitudes.

The first is perhaps a little easier than the second, and the Ontario women's directorate certainly is to be commended for its work over the last seven years in trying to inform the public. I think we have all heard the statistics time and time again. At least one out of every 10 women in Canada is battered by her partner, and this translates to over 200,000 women per year in Ontario alone.

An even more frightening statistic is that 50% of all women murdered in Canada died as a result of domestic violence. When you hear statistics like this, it becomes increasingly obvious that we, as a society, have a responsibility to act in this matter. We cannot stand in silence and let it happen.

We have had a number of programs over the years to help change attitudes. If you remember, we had Break the Silence, we had Break the Cycle, we had Wife Assault Is a Crime. We had numerous different programs to try to make people understand how serious this problem was, and I think it is encouraging that people's attitudes are changing. People's awareness is much better than it ever has been.

We have successfully, I think, challenged the myth that wife assault occurs among certain groups of people. Well, that is not true. In fact, wife assault occurs in every ethnic, every racial, every economic, every social and every age group. But there is something else. Now that we are publicizing the fact that women need to break the silence, that they must come forward and receive help, we must also ensure that the resources are there to help them when they do come forward.

Recently I initiated a women's outreach tour across southern Ontario, which I hope to continue in parts of the north later on this year. I went to Waterloo, Kitchener, London, Windsor, Ottawa, Kingston and Oshawa, and there are a number of things I was told by women who are working in this area.

The first is that there is a dire need for more second-stage housing. Once a woman is ready to leave or has to leave the crisis intervention shelter, many times there's nowhere for her to go where she can have a period of stability while she puts her life back together. There are only 15 second-stage housing projects in all of Ontario; to serve all of southeastern Ontario there are only two. So obviously this is a real need.

1410

The second thing I learned when I went and talked to women in many shelters, not only those who are administering but those residents of the shelter, is that there is a chronic need for more funding, for core funding, for funding for counselling. If there was anything I heard time and time again, it was that the resources are not there for counselling, and women are crying out for this. They cannot put their lives back together without this crucial counselling.

There's also one other thing I'd like to mention. When I asked about programs to help batterers, to try to help them deal with their anger so we could break this cycle and ensure that they would not be endangering the women and children again, I was consistently told that they didn't have them, that the government didn't encourage funding for them. In fact, in one centre in Windsor where they did have funding for male batterers to try to help them alleviate this anger so that they could be in a family situation again, I was told that the Ontario women's directorate had called a moratorium on men's treatment program dollars from Correctional Services. So I think it's very important that we not only work with the victims, who have to be our first priority, but that we also try to break this cycle by working with the men to see that it doesn't happen again.

This button says "No Man Has the Right." I hope that our next button will say that no person has the right to perpetuate violence at any time, anywhere, and I think we, as a Legislature, must try to get that message out.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Each year at this time the minister responsible for women's issues hold a news conference, as was done today, outlining the number of wife assault brochures, newspaper ads, radio ads, television ads and posters that the government is funding to prevent wife assault and family violence.

Brochures alone will not help the women and children who have been and continue to be abused by spouses and fathers. It is the services and the improvements to our criminal justice system that will make the difference, and these are the areas where this government is not giving adequate support and priority.

The facts speak for themselves. A recent study found one in five Canadian men living with a woman admitted using violence against her; 45% of all women murdered in Ontario in 1990 were killed by a current or estranged male partner. Some studies indicate that between 40% and 60% of assaultive men witnessed wife assault during their childhood. Serious behavioural problems are 17 times higher for boys and 10 times higher for girls who have witnessed wife assault than they are for other children.

We now have a problem: Because of increased public awareness and the prevention campaign, more women than ever before are using community services. However, the government is not keeping in step with this increased utilization of community services. Despite the huge increase in the number of women using crisis shelters, and I'll refer to the one in Waterloo region, the shelters have received little or no new money. In fact, they only received one half of 1% this past year. In Anselma House, in my own community, calls to the crisis prevention line were up 62% from 1990 to 1991 for the first half of that year, and the number of immigrant women coming to the shelter increased by 80%.

The minister has admitted that existing funding does not meet the need for services for women and children who have been assaulted and abused. Why not? Why advertise and why try to prevent and then not provide the appropriate services for these individuals who come forward? It is time that this government reordered its priorities.

These are tough economic times, but the bottom line is that this government has managed to find almost $200 million to put private child care operators out of business. Victims of family violence would be far better off if they had access to services in their community, including child care subsidies. Availability of child care subsidies would enable women in abusive situations to find work and get out of abusive situations.

It's obvious that although this government talks about prevention, action is not a high priority, not action in this area nor action on behalf of children at risk. This year we've seen funding increased to children's aid societies by only one half of 1%. Children's aid societies are indicating to us that there is more sexual abuse than ever before, and yet there is inadequate funding to deal with these victims.

I also met today with the women's centres representatives. These centres provide important services to women ranging from counselling to crisis lines. They are an integral part of the network of services for women suffering from spousal abuse. As the minister knows, they are seeking $50,000 in core funding for each centre to ensure their long-term stability and vitality and to help them play a vital role in helping to prevent abuse through education and support programs for women. I encourage the government to seriously consider providing this funding.

I encourage this government to take another look at its priorities, to take a look at real action for children and women in this province. Money spent on prevention campaigns is important, but the government now needs to become involved in action, and that's what's lacking in this announcement.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAYOFFS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Again we note in Ontario that 555,000 people are without jobs, 547 people lose their jobs every working day and one plant closes every three days in Bob Rae's Ontario. But instead of talking to Ontario companies about how to get the economy going, the Premier is jetting off to Asia.

Last week my colleague the member for St Catharines raised the matter of recent newspaper reports that General Motors could close down a number of plants faster than people anticipated. Facilities in St Catharines and Oshawa are particularly vulnerable. That means that 20,000 Ontario jobs could be at risk. Premier, why are you going to Asia when you should be going to Detroit to talk to General Motors about how to save Ontario jobs?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I say to the honourable member that I've met and talked with the senior management at General Motors, and I will continue to do that. I don't think that a trip to the Far East precludes other contacts and other discussions taking place. The former Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Mr Armstrong, has been meeting very intensively with officials in the car industry about their investment plans, and we're looking at the worldwide industry.

I say to the honourable member that one of the things I'm going to be doing both in Japan and Korea is meeting with the senior executives from their car industries, which have an important and growing stake in the world industry and in North America. I will also be very glad to talk with Mr Armstrong and others about the further steps that we can take with respect to the companies that are now doing business in the province that are headquartered in the United States or headquartered anywhere, but there is a great deal of work to be done.

To say that a trip to Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong is somehow to be juxtaposed against what's happening in jobs here, I think really reflects an attitude on the part of the honourable member that frankly surprises me. She, of all people, should know perfectly well --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- that the decisions that are made in corporate headquarters all over the world are of significance. We're open for business in this province and are determined to do business with the whole world.

1420

Mrs McLeod: Premier, let me say in turn, in all honesty, it's your attitude which continues to amaze me. It's the fact that, as we keep raising the issue of Ontarians who are out of work, of Ontario companies that keep closing, when you respond to the need to look at the economy, you keep talking about the fact that there's very little you can do about it; it's something to do with the world; it's something to do with federal policies and the best you can do in response is to go off to Asia and talk to overseas investors.

Premier, the point we're trying to make is that you are leaving the country when 20,000 Ontario jobs hang in the immediate balance. You're talking about overseas investment as a solution to the problem and you simply refuse to look at what can and must be done at home.

Premier, we're saying to you, it isn't good enough to tell us what Tim Armstrong is doing. We're saying it is time to turn your personal attention specifically to this question of what's going to happen to the General Motors plants in Ontario. I would ask you -- when you talk about having spoken to General Motors -- since we raised this issue in the House last Thursday, what have you personally done to encourage General Motors to keep its Ontario plants open?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the comments the member is raising and I'm quite happy that she's raising issues last week and this week with respect to General Motors and a number of other companies.

When Chrysler made its announcement with respect to expanding its investment in Bramalea, when Ford made its announcement with respect to expanding its investment, what was the comment from the opposition then? The comment from the opposition was that it had nothing to do with the government; it had nothing to do with the steps we were taking; it had nothing to do with anything at all. It had to do with events that had taken place five and six years ago.

We are going to continue to work closely with all the companies in this province to ensure a continuing investment. We all know the difficulties facing the auto industry. To suggest, somehow, that to go and talk to the industry in Japan and Korea is contrary to the interests of the workers in this province is a truly bizarre intervention by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Final supplementary.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We went through this procedure in December of last year before the last announcement of the closing of the foundry and part of the engine plant in St Catharines took place, and that's some 3,000 jobs, which has devastated my particular community and could devastate others.

You are apparently jetting off to Asia now at the very time -- if we can determine from all the news reports -- that General Motors is making its critical decisions on the closing of plants in North America. Time magazine in its November 9 edition apparently says it's not 74,000 jobs overall but some 120,000 jobs that will be lost at General Motors.

In view of the fact that our community of St Catharines has already been devastated by the notice of closures and that other communities that have General Motors operations, such as Windsor, Oshawa and London, are all concerned about this potential, will the Premier, upon reflection, upon all that he's seeing happening around General Motors, cancel his trip to Asia, make the trip to Detroit to put forward the case to General Motors officials in Detroit that we wish our operations to stay open and that we in Ontario are open for business?

Hon Mr Rae: I can't think of a more negative message to send to world markets than to cancel a trip to Asia that's been planned for several months. This is a hard reality. These things take some time here. The member has constantly put it this way. He did it when he was in opposition. There was only a brief five-year period of complete and total silence.

I don't recall him standing up and asking questions, objecting to Premier Peterson going to Italy. I don't recall him standing up and objecting to Premier Peterson going to Japan. I don't recall him objecting when he himself went overseas. I don't recall any of those objections being made, and I say to the honourable member --

Mr Bradley: When did I go overseas?

Hon Mr Rae: If the honourable member is saying he's never travelled overseas and he takes this as a sign that somehow it is an advantage for the province of Ontario that this has never been done, well then, I'm sorry. I say to the honourable member, if he has never travelled abroad on government business, then I apologize. But I don't recall him ever saying, in objection to Mr Peterson's travelling, that this was somehow a bad thing to do.

Mr Bradley: In the midst of an economic boom. This is in the midst of a recession. You are running away from the recession.

Hon Mr Rae: He says he did it in a boom. A recession is precisely the moment when we need to talk to those companies that are planning expansion, planning new investments and planning their futures in North America --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- that we establish a clear message that this province is open for business, that we want to talk to the world and that we're interested in encouraging investment from all over. That's the way it is.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Premier.

Premier, three weeks ago I stood in this House and I asked you and the Minister of Energy very directly what your involvement was in the forced departure of Al Holt, the president of Ontario Hydro. You refused on that occasion to answer the question.

Premier, you and Marc Eliesen were friends. In a political move, you elevated him to the chair of Hydro and you brazenly tripled his salary. I find it difficult to believe that your appointee, Marc Eliesen, would not have discussed with you the orchestration of Mr Holt's firing. I ask, Premier, what was the extent of your involvement in Mr Holt's firing?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll refer that question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I don't think the answer the member across the way is looking for has changed very much in the last month. First of all, and I repeat as firmly as I can, Mr Holt was not fired by Ontario Hydro or by the board of Ontario Hydro or by anyone else.

The member for Lanark-Renfrew himself got up in this House and admitted openly several weeks ago that the only motion that was ever passed by the Ontario Hydro board gave the chair authority to discuss retirement with the president. The president of Ontario Hydro retired.

Mrs McLeod: Although the Premier has chosen once again to defer the question, I say to the Premier and continue to say to him that his minister's testimony simply doesn't add up. I suggest to the Premier that he look very carefully at the record of what his minister has said. The minister has in the past denied any interference whatsoever. He claimed he had no knowledge of Mr Holt's so-called resignation until he saw a news release, yet the letter he wrote to the board of directors clearly directs them to fire Al Holt.

Reports in the weekend papers confirm what we have said all along: that the Minister of Energy was directly involved in firing Mr Holt, and his account flies in the face of the testimony that has been produced.

If the Premier was prepared to answer this question, I would ask him again very directly how he could possibly explain the contradiction between his minister's statements in the past and what he has clearly done. Minister, how do you explain that contradiction?

Hon Mr Charlton: There is absolutely no contradiction. The leader of the official opposition refers to reporting this weekend -- fairly shoddy reporting, I might add; reports which go through part but not even all of what happened on the public record here in the House.

As I said in the answer to my first question, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, who obviously talked to one member of the Hydro board, got up in this House and made it very clear, after several days of insisting that the president of Hydro had been fired, that all that Ontario Hydro's board had passed was a motion giving the chair of Hydro the authority to talk to the president about retirement.

The only involvement that I have is the letter which I released publicly a month ago, and the rest of the events that occurred occurred at the Ontario Hydro board.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): He wasn't even in the country when you fired him. How can you fire him when he wasn't even there?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Mrs McLeod: In light of the Premier's refusal to deal with this question, I ask him again to look at the facts. We have a minister who refuses to come clean on his own involvement in the Holt affair. We have a utility that is mired in financial management problems. People across this province are furious about hydro rates that have increased nearly 30% over two years. We have a newly appointed chair of Ontario Hydro making $425,000 at a time when Hydro is laying off 2,000 people.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

1430

Mrs McLeod: We have a newly appointed chair of Ontario Hydro who is making $425,000 at a time when Hydro is laying off 2,000 employees. If this is not enough, we have a deposed president who as a result of this government's actions, I understand, received a $1.2-million settlement from Hydro. I ask the minister, how much is Al Holt's firing going to cost?

Hon Mr Charlton: I don't know the amount of the exact settlement with Mr Holt. The reality is that the negotiation was done by Hydro at the direction of the Ontario Hydro board. I think it's very strange and I think the opposition should think about --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: I understand, for example, that they've tabled the 125 motion, that there will be a hearing on this matter in the resources committee in two weeks and I think that hearing will reveal all.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): If the Minister of Energy doesn't know these things, who does know? I don't understand. Out of the loop, are you?

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: Out of the loop.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, I have been given a box of bricks that were once part of a productive factory. I have here a brick for you, sir. I also have a box with a brick for each member of your cabinet, which I'm going to ask the legislative attendants today to deliver to each member of your cabinet.

I have been asked by the Coalition to Keep Ontario Working to send these bricks to you and your cabinet as a reminder of how your labour legislation will tear down this province, brick by brick, job by job.

Premier, by the time you leave for the Far East, your government may have rammed through the most regressive and job-killing legislation, easily the most regressive and most job-killing in all of North America; you may be able to find an example somewhere in the world but certainly not in North America.

Premier, it doesn't have to be that way and I would ask you today, before you leave for the Far East, will you take something on that trip with you that will give you something to sell? Will you repeal or kill or stop proceeding with Bill 40 today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member for his brick. I don't know how many bricks short of a load he is now as a result of the load he's handing over to us, but only time will tell.

The symbolism notwithstanding, I'd just say to the honourable member that if he wants to consider legislation or a policy that is led by any review of what has happened in this province in the last five years, he should look to the free trade policies of his federal friends which were so ardently supported by members of the Conservative Party.

I want to say to the honourable member that we've gone through a very tough recession, a very difficult recession in this province, a major industrial restructuring, and if he thinks it is going to be possible to have a strong recovery without the participation of working people and the organizations they participate in, then he has a very different view of how the modern economy will work than we do on this side. I would just say to him that we have every intention of proceeding with the legislation.

Mr Harris: The letters that are attached to each of these bricks read, "Please keep this brick as a reminder of your public responsibility as a minister to build the Ontario economy, not destroy it through legislation which drives out employment."

Premier, it's not too late. Bill 40 has not passed third reading. Before embarking upon this trip to potential investors, to those who may wish to do business in Ontario, as you indicated, would you not admit that we cannot afford to lose any more jobs and any more investment in the province of Ontario? Would you not admit that a very powerful sales tool you could take with you would be news that you've withdrawn Bill 40?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that it's our assessment of the international situation and with respect to investment in this province that our commitment to infrastructure, that our commitment to training -- I talked to Ford and Chrysler about the reason they chose to make their most substantive investments in North America in Ontario. You want to talk about building? Go and look at the plants and factories that are going up there and the kind of expansion that's taking place there. They said it was the commitment of this province, the training -- it was the commitment of this province to making sure that workers had a chance, and it was the commitment of this province to decent health and social services whose costs were being kept carefully under control. Those are the factors that lead to people deciding to invest in this province.

I haven't heard very much about building from the Conservative Party recently, I must confess. What I've heard from the Conservative Party is a constant denigration of the conditions of life in this province in a way that can only discourage anyone looking to invest in this province. Somebody has to go out there and tell them the good news, and that's my job.

Mr Harris: That statement certainly confirms to me that you've not bothered to read New Directions 1 or New Directions 2, which point the way to hope and prosperity and opportunity for this province. So if you haven't heard good news, you haven't been listening, because we've been giving you lots of ways to rebuild this province, the way it was for 42 years.

The workers of the auto parts manufacturing companies in Ontario, and of grocery distributors, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, the Canadian Tooling Manufacturers' Association -- all of these businesses, all of these companies, all of the investors and all of the workers who work for them are pleading with you for their jobs; they're pleading with you for their livelihood.

These bricks represent more than just factories. They represent the men and women who want to work, and they represent the families of the men and women who want to work. Each brick: In their own words, Premier, they are all asking you to kill Bill 40 before it kills jobs.

I would ask you this, Premier: You said in response to an earlier question that you're going to the Far East to tell the investors and the companies and the governments there that Ontario is open for business, that we welcome their investment. I suggest to you, Premier, that you can't tell them these things. It's not words; it's actions, and every person you talk to will know exactly what is going on in this province --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the leader conclude his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: -- from legislation, from taxation and regulation to Bill 40. I would ask you, Premier, one more time: Will you take them a little glimmer of hope, a little bit of good news, some chance that they might consider Ontario, by telling them that you're withdrawing Bill 40?

Hon Mr Rae: You mention taxation. We've reduced corporate taxation. We reduced business taxes in this province in the last budget to the point now where our taxes are going to be lower than New York's, they're going to be lower than Michigan's, they're going to be lower than Ohio's. We've done that. We didn't get any credit. I haven't seen that in any Conservative Party brochure.

Because of the action we've taken on the health care system, where we now have the lowest rate of increase in the health care budget since the introduction of medicare, the toughest action that's been taken in this province in the history of the last 20 years --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Again, we've had no particular congratulations from the Tories about this. Because we've taken that action, we're now able to say that we are saving employers who are looking to make a comparison between here and virtually any state of the United States thousands of dollars per employee in terms of health insurance costs. Those are facts. Those are the facts which have to be told to investors overseas and indeed anywhere, and those are the facts which I intend to take on my trip overseas.

Mr Harris: With all due great respect, Mr Premier, those are not facts; those are your opinions and they are not held by a single investor anywhere around the world and you know it. That is your opinion.

The Speaker: To whom is your second question directed?

1440

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Speaker, my second question is to the Premier as well.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Association's job action is now entering its fifth week. Ontario's 115 police associations are now debating whether to join that action province-wide. Premier, there does not appear to be an end in sight. I say to you sincerely that this is not the time for an individual's pride; it's not the time for the pride of an office, the pride of a Premier; it's not the time to be digging in your heels. The police are asking for a meeting, and you know that as of this Thursday that meeting will not be possible if you decide to continue with your plans for your trip to the Far East. Will you sit down with the police, with no conditions, before you leave on this trip?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I say to the honourable member that my offer to the Metro association still stands and that offer has been made publicly. I made it as well privately in a conversation with Mr Lymer that I had over a week ago. I indicated to him that provided there was a 48-hour suspension of the job action, as the members have been requested to do by their chief, as Chief McCormack has asked the police association, and as other chiefs have asked as well, of course I would be more than happy to meet under those circumstances.

The Solicitor General met last Friday with the Police Association of Ontario. There's another meeting scheduled for Wednesday. At the meeting that took place on Friday, it's interesting that the people came out of that meeting and it's my understanding they said that the person they wanted to meet with was the Solicitor General. I think that's the way it should be. I think it's entirely appropriate and I'm certainly hoping that we can solve this issue.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, through you to the Premier, we all hope that the situation will end. Certainly, no one is going to win if this stand-off continues. Ontario has a lot to lose. We have some of the finest police forces in the world and some of the finest men and women in the world on those forces.

Premier, since your offer to meet with conditions was not acceptable to the police association, since their request to you, you have found unacceptable, rather than have positions entrenched any further, would you agree to have a third-party mediator sit down with you and with the Metro association to see if we can collectively bring an end to this impasse?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, let me say on this occasion as I have on many, many others, that I don't think there's anybody in this House who doesn't share the view that's been expressed about the quality of policing in this province, about the dedication of the men and women who serve this province in every city, in every town, and throughout the province with the OPP.

It's precisely because of that feeling I have, and the respect I have for the profession of policing and the very profound feeling I have for the police forces in the province, that I think it's important for us to resolve this issue. I think it's important as well for the clear statements that have been made by several chiefs with respect to the importance of people getting back to work and of finding a way for us to establish a long-term dialogue.

I think it's very important for us to create a climate which is based on trust, one of mutual respect and a climate in which we can resolve not only any short-term issues there may be, but build a long-term relationship between the government and the police forces of the province that's based, as I say, on very firm and solid ground and on a sense of mutual respect. That's exactly what I want to do. That's what we intend to do.

With respect to the particular question which he's put forward, I want to say to him that I think the kind of meeting which the Solicitor General had with the Police Association of Ontario --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- and ideas are being exchanged effectively. There's no misunderstanding about what the various points of view are, and that's the direction which we want to continue to take in terms of this dialogue.

Mr Harris: The impasse is with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and with you and your government. This really shouldn't be about who has the greatest willpower. It shouldn't be about who's going to blink first. We know you have the power, and so do they, to break the union if you wish, to break the spirit of the men and women trying to provide police services to this great city of Toronto. They know you have that power. You know you have it.

Mr Premier, you were elected to lead this province, you were elected to act as a leader, and it's time for you to show some leadership. I would ask you today, since you haven't been able to find the wherewithal to simply go and meet with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and with its association, will you today agree to third-party mediation, to somebody acceptable to both sides? Obviously, the Solicitor General is not acceptable to both sides. Some days I wonder why he's acceptable to you. We know he's not acceptable to the police force.

Would you simply agree to third-party mediation to meet with both you and the police union, somebody acceptable to both sides, to resolve this impasse?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to assure the honourable member, because in his preamble he made such a point of saying that he knew how much power and so on was on one side or the other, that I have no particular interest -- none at all, never have had; it's not my approach to life -- in breaking anyone or in doing anything of that kind. That's not how I do things and that's not how this government does things. We want to establish an effective relationship.

If the member disagrees with the leadership which this government is showing or with my own leadership, that's fine; he certainly has that right and that's what a democracy is all about. But I want him to know and I want this House to know that the Solicitor General has the full confidence of this government. He's carrying out his responsibilities in a most difficult time, a difficult moment, and he will be continuing to meet with all the parties involved in an effort to resolve this situation. That's exactly the mandate he's been given by me and by the cabinet.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is again to the Premier, and the Premier will find that this is a day in which we keep returning to issues we have raised over the past week.

Premier, on September 16, your office wrote to the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board requesting an expedited hearing on the York City Centre project. On October 8, the hearing dates were moved up. The Ontario Municipal Board has now confirmed that it changed the date as a result of the request to speed up the hearing.

Premier, the more we look into this, the more we find. We understand that the developer for this project approached your office to request assistance in achieving an expedited hearing because the project is located in your riding. Can you confirm that Drena Inc did in fact contact your office to ask for your intervention with the OMB and, in the face of all this evidence, will you now simply refer the matter of your intervention to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me state categorically that this development is a development which has had the approval and support of this government. This government and the city of York are partners in this development. Therefore, as a matter of public policy, it would be a little strange if this government would take the view that somehow we were going to oppose any decisions made by the OMB.

A number of representations were made to the municipal board with respect to the timing of the hearing, and any decisions made by the board with respect to the timing of the hearing or indeed the outcome of the hearing are entirely up to it. But there should be no mistaking the commitment of the government overall to the proposal which is before the municipal board.

1450

Mrs McLeod: The Premier's response seems to go directly against the understanding that the Ontario Municipal Board was in fact influenced by the request to expedite the hearing. It clearly goes against the previously rendered opinion of Judge Gregory Evans that the weight of a minister's intervention is significant and that a minister cannot have that kind of intervention. Surely the weight of the Premier's office is even greater.

In his response today, I understand the Premier to be somehow saying that it's okay to have his office contact the Ontario Municipal Board, telling it to put a project which is in the Premier's riding to the top of the list. The Premier has already said, and he says it again today, that he supports the project. He clearly wants it approved.

Mr Premier, I would suggest that in addition to the violation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines, there is another issue here which you seem determined to ignore. The Ontario Municipal Board was created to protect private citizens, to allow them to voice their objections to governmental action free of political intervention. I ask you, do you not agree that you have violated your own conflict-of-interest guidelines, that you've violated the principle of non-interference with a quasi-judicial body, that you have made it impossible for the Ontario Municipal Board to carry out its work with independence? In light of all of that, I ask you again, why not refer this matter to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner?

Hon Mr Rae: It is my very firm view, first of all, that there is no conflict. Second, it's my very strong view that the municipal board has the full right and power to determine any issues with respect to either the timing or with respect to the substance of the proposal.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): In the absence of the Minister of Health, my question is for the Premier. Premier, when I asked your Health minister this question some two weeks ago, she simply shrugged it off and blamed the Liberals.

Earlier this year, the Provincial Auditor informed your government that the number of health cards issued outnumbered the number of people actually living in Ontario and that health care for these ineligible people could be costing Ontario taxpayers $700 million annually. This figure, Premier, is based upon the half a million extra cards in the system and does not include the 1.2 million cards whose numbers have been cancelled in the government's computer, yet these cards remain in circulation and can be used by anyone. Totalling the two numbers, the amount of taxpayers' dollars being drained potentially from the system is close to $2.6 billion annually.

On October 22, in order to bring some accountability into the system, I suggested that doctors be required to ask for two valid pieces of identification and that patients be required to sign for the health services they received. Premier, why are you allowing billions of dollars to be wasted by not implementing these measures?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think in fairness to the Minister of Health, who really has been taking several measures in this regard, I should simply take the question as notice -- not brushing it off at all, but because I take it seriously, and I know she would want to be able to have the opportunity to answer the question.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's sad that the Premier now shrugs off the question, after the minister doing the same some two weeks ago. It's a very, very serious question for the taxpayers.

Premier, I want to share with you a story told to me by a doctor in Toronto who is frustrated by the way in which health care resources are being bled from the system by the use of fraudulent health cards. The doctor told me that when she suspected a fraudulent card, she contacted OHIP and was told by a government official, "Thanks for calling, but we can't help you." In other words, Premier, there is no way for a doctor to verify fraudulent use of a health card.

Premier, you've been quick to cut 5,000 hospital beds, you've been quick to deny seniors drugs they desperately need and you've been quick to make cuts that have expanded waiting lists. Given your haste to cut health care services, how do you explain your paralysis when it comes to recovering billions of dollars that are being stolen from Ontario's taxpayers?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I am not brushing the member's question off. I take the member's question far too seriously and, if I may say so, I take the issue far too seriously to ever want to brush it off. If he has that impression and if he would like me to read briefing notes for him, I can do that, but it seems to me he's better off waiting for an answer from the Minister of Health, who can give him a very direct answer.

She does have answers with respect to steps that have been taken with respect to registration approvals, registration analysis, a policy unit and approval of the database in a real effort to deal with a problem which we all recognize as being one which needs to be dealt with. We take the member's question very seriously, and she'll be responding to it.

OFFTRACK BETTING

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Before I ask my question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, let me just say that if anyone in Ontario wants a reason to wear eye protection, they could have looked at my eye last week and this eye this week and they'll wear eye protection when they're playing any type of sport.

My question is for the minister. Minister, in our last budget there was an initiative announced concerning offtrack betting and a teletheatre concept. I know this has the support of the horsemen I've talked to in my riding of Brantford. I have an individual who's very interested in pursuing this, Mr Bob Markovich, a private businessman who wants to invest in fixing up his establishment to provide this service for the people of Brantford.

However, he is a little bit concerned or confused about what the process is to achieve an application for obtaining this licence. Does he have to go to the Ontario Jockey Club, the Ontario Racing Commission or your ministry? Perhaps you could clarify what the process is for my constituent Mr Bob Markovich.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, let me say that the Ontario Racing Commission is right now in the process of expanding the intertrack wagering network in western Ontario in order to fully utilize the existing capacity of racetracks.

When this intertrack expansion is completed, the commission will be consulting with all segments of the racing and breeding industry. That will begin the orderly implementation of teletheatres that we hope to see happening soon.

Mr Ward: The next question I have on behalf of my constituent Mr Bob Markovich is, when will this process be up and running? I know he has sent some letters. Do we know whether or not they are on file, for his benefit? when can we anticipate this exciting initiative being under way?

Hon Ms Churley: We hope this exciting initiative will be under way very soon.

What I can confirm today is that Mr Markovich has indeed been in contact with the Ontario Racing Commission, and he has been advised that his letter is on file. He will be contacted when the Brantford area is considered for teletheatres. We expect that to be happening in the very near future.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier. Premier, if there was one word used to describe your government, I think people would use the word "polarization." You've polarized the business community and labour. You've polarized, in the community, teachers and trustees, school boards and ministries, municipalities and your Ministry of Housing. It's just rampant in the province of Ontario.

And now, because of your refusal to a simple request to meet with the police, you've polarized the police and your government. I, unlike the leader of the third party, think the Solicitor General has done just about everything he can do. He's admitted he doesn't have a green light from the corner office. He's admitted he can't resolve the problem, and clearly this falls to you.

If you refuse to meet with them, if you want to fob it off to him, you can. The question is to you: Why will you, sir, not simply swallow your ego and your pride and meet with the police and discuss the issues they feel are of such serious concern? If you truly care about the safety of the public, which you've said you do, you'd think you'd be demanding a meeting with these people. Premier, I want to know why you continue to refuse to meet with the police on this issue.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I refer that question to the Solicitor General.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): We did in fact have meaningful consultations with all major police stakeholders during the development of this regulation. Since the job action has taken place, I have met with the Police Association of Ontario and the OPPA, the Ontario Provincial Police Association. We have another meeting scheduled Wednesday.

The most recent discussions we've had were very fruitful, very helpful, and I hope that through consultation rather than confrontation this matter can come to a close in the near future.

1500

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): To the Premier?

Mr Mahoney: Well, I would like it to be to the Premier, but obviously it has to go to the Solicitor General.

I heard you quoted on a radio program saying that you don't have the green light, that you can't resolve the problem. I appreciate the fact that it must be extremely frustrating, Solicitor General, for you to convene a meeting, when you know you have no possible way of resolving it. You'd almost want to turn in the limo. You'd almost wonder why you've got this big office and all of this staff and this huge responsibility, when this guy is getting on a plane and going off to the Orient and leaving you to resolve the problem.

What do you say, Solicitor General, when the police associations say to you: "Why won't Bob Rae meet us? Why is it that this government continues to show a dislike and a mistrust for the police associations, the men and women in this province?" What's your answer to them when they say, "Why won't your boss talk to us?"

Hon Mr Pilkey: First of all, the Police Association of Ontario is not saying that at all. The member opposite may be saying it, but that is not the position of those he alleges that kind of circumstance to. They are quite welcome to meet with the Premier of this province, and the Premier, I am sure, is quite willing to meet with them. They have been dealing with me, through the Ministry of the Solicitor General, where the regulation emanated from, and from where this matter will finally be closed.

The only difficulty with any meeting with the Premier is that with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, through Mr Lymer. I have no idea why he wouldn't make a small move of a 48-hour, or even less, stop in the job action to accept the very generous offer by the Premier. The Premier even extended it by way of phoning personally to Mr Lymer at his own personal residence.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you would be aware that for the last 10 days there has been a strike of Ontario Public Service Employees Union workers at Rotherglen Centre, which is a phase 1, closed-custody facility in Ajax for violent young offenders. You'd be aware that many of the residents are violent and have been moved, with your permission, to other facilities, including open-custody detention homes in communities in and around Toronto.

Aside from the obvious concerns of public safety and security, your Bill 40, section 73, would designate this program as an essential service. So my question is, why have you shipped some 12 to 14 young offenders, many of whom are violent, some to less secure, less safe, open-custody detention homes, when, again, your own legislation, Bill 40 says -- where this is unnecessary to enable an employer to prevent danger to life, health or safety?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): Under the current legislation, obviously the provision for essential service is not there in the same way, so if that's the member's question, he is clearly talking about a situation that is an ongoing labour dispute between an employer, not the government, and its employees.

It is our responsibility as a ministry to ensure that the young people who are in the care of this ministry are looked after in an appropriate way when this kind of situation does occur. The responsibility we have to ensure that the kind of custody children are in is according to the orders they've received is one that we're intent to uphold and do uphold.

The children who remain at the centre are there with management staff, and they are limited to those who require that particular kind of care. The transfers that have occurred have been in line with the program planning for those youngsters. So at this point in time, it is our position that our charges have been cared for appropriately and that the employer and the employees must resolve this issue.

Mr Jackson: Minister, that doesn't appear to be actually the case. The fact is that many of these children, as I've said, have been transferred to open-custody facilities in communities in and around Toronto. We have been advised that violent young offenders have been moved to Cassatta in Rexdale, an open detention centre; to Oakwood and Millbrook near Peterborough, again an open detention centre; and one girl was sent to McKinnon House in Oshawa, again an open detention centre.

Last night that young lady threatened the life of another girl in that institution and threatened another young girl with bodily harm. The police were called at 1 am this morning and that young lady, that violent young offender, who you suggest is appropriately placed in an open-custody residential setting, has now been transferred to the York Detention Centre some time earlier today.

Minister, why do you insist that there is no potential risk involved? Why is it that your actions are unnecessary to transfer these young offenders and to put various communities at potential risk, when clearly there is now evidence that several may put those communities at risk? Why are you taking that course of action, based on the evidence I've shared with you today?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I was not aware of the incident that occurred last night and I will certainly look into the allegations the honourable member has made. I agree with him that in those circumstances it certainly does create some concern for members of communities and I can tell him that I will certainly look into that.

The responsibility of the director under the act is to ensure that alternate care is provided appropriately. It has certainly been our information that with the kind of work that has been going on with Brookside, with York Detention Centre, appropriate placements were made. I will certainly review the situation, and if in fact there are problems with that, we will ensure that we are doing everything we can to correct the matter.

GRAND RIVER

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you have received correspondence from the Grand River Conservation Authority and from a number of MPPs in the various political parties represented in this House. We're asking support for the GRCA's efforts to secure funding to complete the development of a management plan for the Grand River as a Canadian heritage river. The Ministry of Culture and Communications has responded and your ministry has certainly expressed some ideas. Minister, could you indicate to the House the steps taken to date by your ministry that will promote this initiative?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I appreciate the member's interest in this project. The Grand River was first nominated to be a Canadian heritage river in 1990. Since his representations, and prior to those, the Ministry of Natural Resources staff has had discussions with staff of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to determine what approaches could be taken by all the ministries and involving them in the development of a management plan which could be completed by the end of 1993 for consideration for designation in 1994.

Mr Farnan: The correspondence I have received from your ministry, while it provides me with some optimism, also provides me with some concerns. Such phrases as "will endeavour to arrange adequate funding and technical resources" and, again, "sources of funding will be explored," are indeed positive, may be indeed laudable. However, there is no sense of security for me in them. They do not provide me with total confidence that the funds will be forthcoming. They could almost be taken for bureaucratese.

Will you commit a guarantee from your ministry that you will not allow this unique opportunity to pass us by? Will you assure the GRCA and the people of Ontario that the necessary resources will be provided to complete the required management plan on schedule? We need a commitment, Minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate very much the member's commitment and the commitment of the Grand River Conservation Authority to this project. I want to assure him that we are making every representation with all the ministries I referred to to ensure that we can find funds and deploy funds so the management plan can be completed by the end of 1993. I assure the member that we are exploring as diligently as possible all sources of revenue for this project.

1510

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Of the several policies that the Rae government is pursuing, there is one that is of particular interest to the rank and file citizenry of my part of rural eastern Ontario, and I suspect it is going to be of growing interest to most members of this House. This is Bob Rae's new used-car policy.

Considering that the NDP has always prided itself on a commitment to working men and women, I want to put to the minister the following case that was put to me by a hardworking young fellow in my office the other day. This young man bought a 10-year-old truck and paid $50 for that vehicle, a value which was sustained by later evaluations. He paid $50 for the truck. When he went a few days later to get the ownership transferred, he was told that he would have to put up six times the purchase price in provincial sales tax payable and that in fact he could submit the evaluations, and two to three months down the road he would get his $300 provincial sales tax remitted.

The minister will know this policy is creating havoc for students and the working poor, certainly throughout my part of the province. I specifically ask the minister, does she believe that her policy and the policy of her government with respect to this new used-car policy is fair particularly to the working poor and students, who, on the basis of the anecdotal evidence which I'm seeing in my office, are the men and women who are paying disproportionately the price of this new policy?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): I thank my colleague opposite for the question. I am aware, as I believe most of my colleagues in this Legislature are, of the used vehicle information program, the package that went out, and some of the responses that we are getting from constituents. The case that you have recited is accurate. I don't know what the waiting time is before someone gets responded to on an appeal, but that is the process that people have to go through.

When the Treasurer went through this legislation, there were a few things we wanted to do in filling in the gaps. The first thing we wanted to do was give a transfer package to consumers to help them be able to identify what kind of vehicle they were purchasing. That package will come out and will be available to the public in February. They will know if there are liens against a vehicle, if a vehicle is really the vehicle they say it is, if there are any problems with the vehicle and what it was used for in the past.

I should also let you know that previous to this legislation there were over 20,000 curbsiders in the province of Ontario who were illegally collecting dollars for themselves. We expect that this initiative will bring $87 million back to the taxpayers of Ontario so that we can continue to support our programs.

Mr Conway: This young man who came to see me is left incredulous that this could happen in Bob Rae's Ontario. Let me repeat what he said. He understands how people who are in government limousines or business people who've got tax write-offs wouldn't understand, but the working poor in Renfrew county, believe me, are going to pay disproportionately the price of carrying this policy. The local member, the local minister, the local union executive or the local business person is not going to feel this nearly to the same extent as those people who came to see me in the last few days. So my question to the minister remains, what do you have to say to the working poor and to students who say that unless there is this kind of aftermarket available to them, they will not and they cannot get access to transportation that will take them to school or take them to work?

We all agree that there are curbsiders and they have got to be dealt with.

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

Mr Conway: My question remains, how can you tell these people who are being asked to pay six times the retail value in provincial taxes, taxes which will be remitted after two or three months, that this is a fair policy, when the bulk of that burden is going to be carried by ordinary people, most of whom are the working poor or young people trying to cooper together enough money and put together some kind of vehicle that will safely get them to school or work at low cost?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I do understand a lot of the information that is coming across. I do respond to constituents myself, personally, and I still do buy used vehicles, so I assume in the near future I'll be at the front of the line at MTO also, and have to deal with it.

These are very real concerns that people have, but we, as a government, have to protect the taxpayers of Ontario. When you think of 20,000 curbsiders and the money that they were making on the side illegally, we as a government have to show some leadership in getting rid of the curbsiders, and this was one of the ways that we in the government decided to do this.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, your education reform document, Everybody's Schools: A Common Curriculum, which you spoke about last week, does not specify a core curriculum with specific goals and objectives for each grade level.

Parents want to know what is being taught and how their children are doing with those skills, and you should have started some kind of process to develop this core curriculum.

Mr Minister, the first objection parents have on this document is that there's no core curriculum. You may be coming up with this, but the second problem is that you haven't asked the public for their opinion, and by the public I mean parents and ordinary, taxpaying citizens.

In your consultation process around what I think you called your formative years consultation process, there were only 30 parents and/or ratepayers who responded out of 900 responses.

My question is, Mr Minister, when will you be having a consultation process so that parents can respond on the core curriculum documents that you have promised to bring forward?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): First of all, let me say to the member opposite, as I did to the Liberal critic last week, I believe, when this same question was asked, that the document she's referring to is a very early draft and that substantive changes have taken place to that document since that time, keeping very much in mind that the kind of direction she was suggesting, and that I've been suggesting, needs to be there, which is that we need a common core curriculum that is much more specific.

With respect to the question that was asked around the public discussion, I would say two things. I am not sure that what we need is a continuing public discussion on the kinds of directions that we need to be moving in. I think that we're clear about those directions and what we need to do.

Having said that, I think we can proceed, and we will proceed, with setting out, in the common core curriculum and in the overall documents that we will be issuing, I hope soon, a direction that we want to pursue.

But that having been said, there will certainly be lots of discussion that will need to continue to happen, both provincially and at the local school level, around how these things are properly implemented and how these changes need to come about, and that, I can say to the member opposite, will happen as part of the process.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. On a point of privilege, the member for Mississauga West.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'd like to refer you to page 26 of the standing orders, subsection 34(a). If you'll bear with me, it says:

"The Speaker's rulings relating to oral questions are not debatable or subject to appeal. However, a member who is not satisfied with the response to an oral question, or who has been told that his or her question is not urgent or of public importance, may give notice orally at the end of the oral question period that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House and must give written notice to the Speaker not later than 4 pm the same day, and file reasons for dissatisfaction with the Clerk before 5 o'clock."

You may recall, Speaker, that last Wednesday I asked a question to the Premier, and stated at the end of question period, according to this rule, that I was dissatisfied with the answer and subsequently filed the appropriate documentation.

Section (b) says, "Where notice has been given and reasons filed, as provided in clause (a), at 6 pm on any Tuesday or Thursday" -- this was Wednesday, so it was the following day -- "the Speaker may, notwithstanding standing order 9, deem that a motion to adjourn the House has been made, whereupon the matter in question may be debated for not more than 10 minutes, five minutes to be allowed to the member raising the matter" -- myself -- "and five minutes to the minister or to his or her parliamentary assistant to reply if he or she so wishes. Where there are several such matters," etc "the Speaker shall deem the motion to adjourn to be carried." That's not the point.

1520

The point that I raise, sir, is that there is a tradition in this House, and you have on a number of occasions made a ruling that was not necessarily based on the exact wording in this document. In fact, last week we had a great deal of discussion and people were upset. I think one member actually threw the standing orders to the ground, saying that if you were not going to rule based on what is here but rather based on tradition or what normally takes place, then these standing orders are not of much use.

The other side of the coin, and my reason for raising this as a point of privilege, is that neither the Premier nor his parliamentary assistant, who I believe is the member for Fort York, showed to respond to what we commonly refer to as a late show, which was my statement of dissatisfaction with the answer. No one else is allowed to respond other than the minister, the Premier in this case, or the parliamentary assistant. No one else is allowed to, so the fact that the rest of the government members left didn't particularly upset me. They left one member, I believe it was the member for York East, in this place to listen and to be part of the debate, but he of course was not empowered to do so, so therefore he could not respond.

So I'm here raising under the standing orders properly what is a legitimate point of concern, of dissatisfaction. I filed the papers properly, did everything that I am supposed to do as a member of the opposition. It seems to me that when the Premier and/or his parliamentary assistant refuses to show, it shows disdain, not only for me as a member but, more importantly, for members of the opposition.

While you may wish to rule on the words that say that a minister or parliamentary assistant may reply "if he or she so wishes," then clearly I accept the fact that in a literal translation of this section of our standing orders they didn't wish to reply, but the tradition in this House -- and that is what you have ruled points of privilege and points of order on -- is that someone responds to members of the opposition. I frankly feel it's not only a personal insult but clearly an insult to the opposition, many of whom stayed, by the way, on that particular Thursday to listen to the debate, anxious to hear the Premier or the parliamentary assistant respond to my concerns. They refused to do so, and I'd like your ruling.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's made his point. To the member for Mississauga West, indeed, first of all, he has in fact answered his own question. The rule is permissive. It allows the minister or the parliamentary assistant to respond if he or she wishes. Obviously there's nothing in that standing order that compels the attendance of a minister or parliamentary assistant.

I understand full well and have great sympathy with the member's contention that because it is part of the standing orders, because it's part of our tradition, that it is best if both the member who raised the matter originally and the minister to whom it's directed, or parliamentary assistant, are in attendance. The member will know that over time there have been numerous occasions on which ministers have, for whatever reason, decided not to be in the chamber.

All I can say to the member is, I understand fully and appreciate fully his concern about the tradition of that particular opportunity, and I can only encourage ministers to, if at all possible, appear in the chamber when a member has filed dissatisfaction.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I've read your ruling today with respect to the specific request to put in writing your decision of last Wednesday, I believe, with respect to moving the House from committee of the whole back into House and then back again into committee of the whole.

I've read this brief recount of the day and what took place. I haven't seen in this particular --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: It's a recount of what happened that specific day.

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

This is not a debatable matter. I have dealt with the issue in fact twice now. Motions?

Mr Stockwell: But the point of order, Mr Speaker, was not that.

The Speaker: You have a different point of order?

Mr Stockwell: No. Well, not really. The point of order was --

The Speaker: Then I ask --

Mr Stockwell: It is different.

The Speaker: No, the member must take his seat. The matter has been dealt with. I am not entertaining a point of order to deal with the matter which I have already dealt with.

Mr Stockwell: But I do have a different point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: A different point of order?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

The Speaker: All right, I will hear the honourable member.

Mr Stockwell: I requested, when I asked that you put this particular decision in writing, that you cite some precedents when you were bringing this forward. I've read your ruling and there are no precedents involved. It was a recounting of what took place.

The Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Stockwell: My point of order is that it wasn't done, and I guess I'm inquiring as to why that didn't take place.

The Speaker: I have dealt with the matter that was brought before me. There is nothing more to debate on. We are not debating the ruling. The order stands.

Petitions. The member for Eglinton.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Eglinton has the floor.

PETITIONS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metropolitan Toronto has passed an ill-conceived market value assessment plan; and

Whereas it is arbitrary and demonstrably unfair to use market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relationship to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas the implementation of such a measure would work undue hardship on the residents of north Toronto, on our long-term home owners, our senior citizens and our tenants; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by further increases,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto, and to consider another method of property tax reform for Metro Toronto."

This has been signed by concerned citizens, and I have affixed my signature since I wholeheartedly agree with it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition signed by 13 people regarding the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday. It's addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act. 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 many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Labour Relations Act was last updated in 1975; and

"Whereas the Labour Relations Act should reflect the needs of today's workplace and today's workforce,

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

"To pass Bill 40, an Act to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act, without further delay."

This is signed by many residents of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I hope I can get this in, considering the arbitrary whims of the Speaker and how he rules, but I'll do my best.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are you asking for a point of order?

Mr Stockwell: No, sir, I'm asking to read a petition.

The Deputy Speaker: Petition? The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: That was just an aside, a preamble to my petition.

I've been requested from the Open Door Evangelical Church, which is in my riding, to submit this petition:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act. 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 many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I will sign this and submit it.

1530

NATIVE EDUCATION

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition of support for Nokee Kwe adult education centre in London:

"We the students of Nokee Kwe are concerned about our present funding situation, as this lack of funding jeopardizes our future and the future of our children. Not all of our students are able to continue with the program without some sort of guaranteed income to provide for our families' basic needs. Nokee Kwe gives each aboriginal student the opportunity to learn and flourish in a safe and supportive environment."

This petition has 239 signatures, and I've affixed my signature thereto.

I realize that the petition does not comply with the format required by the standing orders of this House. However, the signatories to this petition have asked that I submit it to the House based on the statement of political relationships signed between our government and the first nations. They submit that based on a government-to-government relationship, this petition be acceptable to this House.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is from several residents of the province of Ontario. It's to members of provincial parliament.

"Whereas the general level of unemployment in Ontario is extremely high and has caused severe hardship for individuals and families; and

"Whereas hundreds of firms in Ontario have filed for bankruptcy and have had their employees join the ranks of those on the unemployment roles; and

Whereas youth unemployment is higher in Ontario than in all other provinces; and

Whereas General Motors may announce several plant closings with resulting job losses this month and the presence of the Premier in the province is necessary to persuade General Motors to keep all of its Ontario operations open,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to cancel his impending trip to Asia and to remain in North America to present the Ontario GM workers' case to General Motors officials and to respond to important and urgent questions about the Ontario economy in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario."

I agree with this petition and I affix my name to it.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession; and

"Whereas the placement of bilingual highway signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens; and

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding; and

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the direct discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act,

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

CAMPING FEES

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition here with 139 signatures, concerning a decision to charge senior and disabled persons for weekday camping in provincial parks in Ontario.

"Whereas seniors worked for extremely low wages in their earlier years; and

"Whereas many are war veterans who defended our country under very difficult circumstances; and

"Whereas many seniors retired on extremely low incomes; and

"Whereas many retired on fixed incomes,

"We, the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, protest most vigorously the decision to charge seniors and disabled persons for weekday camping in provincial parks in Ontario."

I agree with this and I have attached my signature. It's going to be out of order.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

This has been signed by workers from Windsor, Harrow, Toronto, Cambridge and across the province. I have signed my name to this petition.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 787 signatures. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario re the proposed Ontario investment fund.

"We, the undersigned, are members of CUPE and employees of Metropolitan Toronto and we are totally opposed to your plan to use our hard-earned pension funds for government projects. Our pension fund, OMERS, is created with money which comes directly from our pockets as payroll deductions and indirectly from us in the form of a negotiated benefit matching payments from our employer.

"We do not see any reason for you to create an Ontario investment fund when most pension funds are already doing what you proposed with a great deal more expertise and a solid record of success. Your motives are suspect, particularly when we consider the size of the provincial budget deficit. OMERS consists of money which we are setting aside for our retirement so that we can expect a decent standard of living in our old age without having to be dependent on the government.

"In these difficult times, even the viability of the Canada pension plan is being questioned. We prefer our funds to remain in the hands of qualified people who are free of political obligations, and we want our money to be invested safely and without any reference to special interest groups or political patronage.

"We support the position taken by the OMERS coalition, which is that involvement in any such investments be on a purely voluntary basis."

I have signed this.

PINE GROVE FOREST

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition for the preservation of the Pine Grove Forest.

"Whereas the Pine Grove Forest is a significant wetland forest complex, a portion of which is designated an area of natural and scientific interest on the east bank of the Rouge Valley, a part of the Petticoat Creek watershed in Pickering; and

"Whereas the Pine Grove Forest is an essential gateway to the Rouge-Duffin corridor, thereby providing a crucial link to the Altona Forest, Petticoat Creek and Duffin Creek as well as Lake Ontario waterfront and north to the Oak Ridges moraine; and

"Whereas the Rouge Park advisory committee has recommended to the province of Ontario to include all of the Pine Grove Forest within the future Rouge Park,

"We, the undersigned, urge the Premier of Ontario and the ministers of Natural Resources, of the Environment and Municipal Affairs to protect the Pine Grove Forest by ensuring that the province includes this significant area in a national-provincial Rouge Park. We strongly oppose any urbanization of this natural area."

I've signed my name, and we have names from Scarborough, from Pine Grove and from other parts of Pickering.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed that petition myself.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 72 names from my riding of Dufferin-Peel, specifically Orangeville and Grand Valley. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's with respect to the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We believe in the need for 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 will cause increased hardships on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have affixed my signature to this document.

1540

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the members of provincial government handed to me by the minister Gilles Pouliot. It's an amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We believe in the need for 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 the society in Ontario and cause increased hardships on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my name to this petition also.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have the pleasure of introducing a petition on behalf of the members of St Andrew's Memorial Presbyterian Church, Stavebank Road North in Mississauga -- actually in the town of Port Credit.

The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"Re the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as legal holiday:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need for 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.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I'm happy to sign my name and lend support to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Laughren moved government notice of motion number 20:

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

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The members will know what this motion is for. It's to allow the government to pay its commitments, its bills, up until the end of December 1992.

The members will also know that last Thursday we had scheduled this debate so that the motion could be passed through before the end of October. Subsequent events in this chamber did not allow that to happen, which caused us some concern because of some bills the government will not have been to able to have paid on time.

I understand that while it's not going to affect the cheques for welfare recipients or cheques of the civil servants of the province, nevertheless, there were some contractual arrangements that were not able to be honoured by this government. I don't like to see that happen. I think government has an obligation to pay its bills on time. I think, however, that people do understand that it was the decision of the opposition parties not to allow the supply motion to pass before the end of October.

Having said that, I hope that since this is November 2, members opposite will understand that if the delay continues, every day the delay continues, the problem gets worse and fewer of our bills are paid on time. I trust the members of the opposition will appreciate that. It's not causing government itself any problem. It's the people expecting cheques and expecting contracts to be honoured who will be upset if the motion of supply is not passed.

Having said that, the members of the opposition have a democratic right to debate this item and I'm sure will carry out those responsibilities in a most responsible way. It is not my intention to make a long speech because, given the interest that members opposite have shown on this supply motion, I think they would not want me to cut into any time they might otherwise have to debate this motion.

I would say to members opposite that the times we are going through are unusually difficult. They are not restricted to Ontario. There are difficult times in other jurisdictions that have economies very similar to the economy of Ontario. There are other jurisdictions with our kinds of problems as well, and that's true whether you look at other provinces or whether you look at competing jurisdictions elsewhere in the world, or in North America, for that matter.

I'm sure that members opposite have their view as to what it is that is causing our problems in Ontario. I would simply say that in the province, we have put in place a number of programs that we believe are committed to addressing the cyclical problems of this recession, but even more importantly than that to addressing the long-term structural problems.

Let no one mistake: The recession we're going through is not a typical cyclical one. There are profound structural changes taking place, and we cannot respond to this recession the way governments of the past have responded to previous recessions. It is much different from that: It truly is structural in nature. It is our intention not to respond to every cry for assistance that we hear out there in the province, whether it's from opposition members or whether it's from a particular sector. We simply can't do that if we're going to have any kind of plan that puts Ontario well placed to recover from this structural recession. We intend to do that. It's not going to be easy, but we believe we have an obligation to do so.

We know that the referendum caused a certain amount of instability and uncertainty, but that is behind us now. We must get on with making sure that the infrastructure of this province and this country is rebuilt not simply for the fact that the infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, but because of the jobs that will create and the fact that it will continue to make this province a good place to live, to work and to invest. We intend to continue to do that.

I wish I could be here for the entire debate but since I thought the debate was going to be held last Thursday, I made other arrangements for this afternoon and I won't be able to listen to the scintillating debate that will flow from this motion. I wish I could be, because I do enjoy the supply motion debates. But having said that, I do look forward to reading the comments that the members opposite make and, hopefully, that members on this side will make as well. I look forward to reading that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I was interested to listen to the Treasurer as he indicated that he always likes to see the contracts of this government paid on time. I would like the Treasurer now to tell us why it is that in February and March of last year, when contractors were looking for payments from the Ontario government, that they did not receive payments on contracts which they had already completed and which they were entitled to receive payment for. In fact, it comes to my attention that the government didn't make payments on contracts which were completed well before the end of the last fiscal year till this current fiscal year.

It looked very much like the Treasurer and his people were manipulating the payments they had to make so that they could make their bottom line look just a little bit better. These people are the masters at doing funny things to people in the public sector when they wanted to retire their fiscal year-end at a number well below what it would have been had they met all of their contractual obligations on time.

1550

I don't wish to unfairly go on at length, but it would be interesting if the Treasurer were spot on in his explanations as to exactly what is occurring in this province. He should be telling us why it is that he hasn't shown us the second-quarter final reports yet. Usually, that material is available to this House in the third week of October, and here he is, asking us to provide him with interim supply so he can borrow more money, when he won't tell us the whole story.

What in the world is happening? They won't even share information. But then, that's the way with this New Democratic Party government. They're covering up on all kinds of investigations at Grandview by failing to release the information. They won't give us the fiscal data. They just won't come clean with the people.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I was going to comment and pick up with respect to the second-quarter numbers. I'm very concerned with respect to the second-quarter numbers and whether or not this government is hitting its projections. I think categorically that they're not. I think that, because the revenue projects may well have been overstated; their expenditures I know are in trouble; they have a couple of major expenditures in this budget with respect to the sale of property for $1.2 billion, and they have another $1.2 billion in there with respect to keeping the deficit down.

I think it would have been an interesting debate had this Legislature been able to review the second-quarter numbers. What really takes away from this debate is the fact that this government can't bring forward those numbers, late by a week or so, maybe up to two weeks, and we end up in an interim debate discussion today without any information. The Treasurer wants to go borrow some more money, but we as legislators, as stewards of the taxpayers, cannot be given the information so this could be a really worthwhile endeavour.

I have my thoughts on why this information is not forthcoming: that the numbers are so horrendous, the expenditures are so much over, the revenues are so much lower that they have to put a very specific spin on this and, hopefully, not have a debate in this House during interim supply.

Maybe that's not right. Maybe the proof is in the pudding, when we get the second-quarter numbers and see just exactly how deep in the red this province is, how far off the mark this Treasurer was when he made his recommendations in the budget to this House.

It really irks me to think we can have a debate on interim supply when we can't even see the second-quarter numbers, which, in my opinion, should have been forthcoming last month and really throws into question whether or not this Treasurer knows what he's doing.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It would be easier to vote for supply this afternoon if we knew indeed that the money would be going to the renal dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. I was surprised that the Treasurer, in his remarks, did not make the announcement that the renal dialysis department would be receiving that money that's already allocated -- this is not new money we're asking for -- already allocated for such purposes. I know my colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula would agree with that.

Also, we would have found it easier to vote for interim supply today if indeed we had word that the Premier was going to stay home, not go on his Asian trip but stay home to try to save the jobs of GM workers in St Catharines, Oshawa, London, Windsor and other places around the province. We think there's a major decision coming on the part of General Motors. Just as I warned about this in the fall and in December of last year, I've warned the government again. It doesn't take much warning; everybody reads the papers. And Time magazine in next week's edition will be saying that it won't be 74,000 but rather 120,000 jobs lost.

Or I might have been more amenable to passing interim supply at an early time if I knew that the Treasurer as chair of the treasury board of this government would be designating funds for family and children's services and the need for new facilities both in Welland and St Catharines that all the members have been made aware of.

If we had all of those assurances that from the funds already allocated we in the Niagara Peninsula would be getting our fair share, it would make it much easier. And if we knew we were saving some money by cancelling the Premier's trip, the air flight and the hotel rooms and so on, and concentrating on the province of Ontario, we would probably be delighted to pass interim supply in an expeditious manner.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I just wanted to raise one issue related to the spending policies of this government, which I raised in a dissenting opinion with the government agencies committee, related to the operation of --

Mr Elston: Are those Mulroney glasses?

Mr Runciman: Yes, they are, as a matter of fact; hand-me-downs.

-- an issue related to the operation of La Chaîne, the French arm of TVOntario. During the hearings we had where the former chairman, Mr Bernard Ostry, appeared before us, he expressed concerns about the spending directed towards La Chaîne, what he construed to be a disproportionate amount of moneys going towards the operation of La Chaîne. At the same time they are attracting a very modest number of viewers, they're absorbing something like one third of the budget of TVOntario, somewhere in the neighbourhood, Mr Treasurer, of about $30 million.

I suggested, as part of my dissenting opinion, that we have the Provincial Auditor do a cost-benefit analysis of La Chaîne and also that we take a look, as a government, your government, at the feasibility of providing services to both language communities through the operation of one network.

Since La Chaîne was formed a number of years ago, the same percentage of French-language broadcasting has continued to occur in the English arm. I think something like 14% or 15% of the time is still allocated; if you watch TVO on Sundays, you'll notice that.

It seems to me there should be some assessment in these difficult economic times of what the real needs are out there and how we can most economically meet those needs of both language communities. It seems to me that when you raise this question, you always have these politically correct concerns that are raised, that we shouldn't even be talking about this sort of thing, and here, Mr Treasurer, we're talking about $30 million, which I think you should be taking a very serious look at.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have two minutes to reply.

Hon Mr Laughren: I felt I had to stay at least to hear what members had to say in their initial response. I was somewhat taken aback by the Liberal, the official opposition, response. I mean, for the official opposition, the party that was the government just a little over two years ago, to accuse this government of doing anything creative with numbers takes more nerve than a canal horse. It is most unseemly for the official opposition to do that.

When it comes to talking about the second-quarter finances -- and the member for Etobicoke West also talked about the second-quarter finances -- the second quarter ends at the end of September. There is a long and fine tradition in this province of the second-quarter finances coming out about a month after the second quarter ends, as all the numbers are assembled. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any delay. This government has not delayed the publication of the second-quarter finances. They will be coming out, I hope, on Thursday of this week, which is spot on when it comes to the scheduling of events around this place. So it makes no sense whatsoever for the official opposition and the third party to be complaining about the second-quarter numbers.

You know, I remember when the leader of the official opposition, the honourable Lyn McLeod, became the leader. She said: "I am going to be a leader with a difference. I am going to bring forth constructive options for this government." Well, as someone who thinks about the economy a lot in this province and worries about where we're going, I can tell you that the only suggestion she's had is to lower gasoline taxes. She thinks that's going to solve all our economic problems.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Yes, Mr Speaker. I know the chancellor has to leave shortly, but I want to say one thing in his presence before he leaves. I'm going to be uncharacteristically moderate here this afternoon, and I'm going to deal in his absence with some of the things he said.

But I want to say this: that my friend the chancellor came before the House a couple of weeks ago and released the Economic Outlook. I was a bit vexed at that time and he said, sotto voce, that I was being too theological -- I forget -- dancing on a pin top or something. I just want to say to him why I was angry that day and why I'm still a bit annoyed. My friend the Treasurer is a very fine fellow, a very honourable man charged with the most rotten job in this place. I don't wish him his responsibility. Before he leaves, I want to say why I was annoyed and why the people of Ontario and their representatives in this Legislature should be annoyed.

1600

The minister of finance came to this place two weeks ago and said, in tabling the Economic Outlook -- and I'll read briefly from his statement, the seventh paragraph -- "In our April budget" -- the April 1992 budget -- "we forecast a $9.9-billion deficit for the fiscal year" -- 1992-93. "While slower-than-expected nominal economic growth will reduce our revenues this year, we remain committed to achieving our budgetary deficit of $9.9 billion."

That is hocus-pocus. It is absolutely hocus-pocus, to this extent: For the honourable Treasurer to come in here and say what we all know -- that is, that the third year of this recession has ravaged revenues, I suspect by hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more -- and at the same time to say, "But by the way, we're going to hold our deficit line at $9.9 billion," without any indication now, well into the third quarter, as to how that's going to be done, is to hold this whole process up to ridicule and disrepute. I just wanted to make that comment before he left.

What is the evidence? I'm not here to withhold supply, although I think the day is coming when this Legislature is going to want to withhold supply. Because the Treasurer is right to this extent: These are not ordinary times. We are faced with some of the most serious economic challenges we've experienced in a long, long time. I agree with the Treasurer in his opening observations that no one in this House, irrespective of his political affiliation, should imagine that this is business as usual. My concern is that the Treasury bench opposite is carrying on with a breezy air that it is more or less business as usual, and it is not.

I want to just simply cite some of the data. I see the member for Perth is here, and she's nodding in a very vigorous fashion. You know, this afternoon in New York City, I think a very proud resident of Perth county has taken on a very significant responsibility. John Smale, born in Listowel, Ontario, is by now, I expect, the head honcho at General Motors.

Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, is absolutely right to be focusing our attention now, as he did last year, on how immediate are the concerns with thousands of jobs in this province, now to a substantial extent in the hands of Mr John Smale, proud son of Listowel, Ontario. People had better understand. Mr Bradley is also right in telling this House that Time magazine, which will be on the street later this week, has said in New York today that the 74,000 job loss at General Motors predicted by the outgoing chair, Mr Stempel, a few months ago is expected to be upgraded from 74,000 to 120,000 jobs lost within General Motors.

Everyone knows that Ontario, happily, has a disproportionate number of those jobs relative to our share of consumption within the North American auto business. We produce something like 19% of finished auto products in the auto parts business. We've got about 19% of that market continentally and we consume about 10% of that market in terms of our domestic consumption. I don't want to localize the credit for that -- a lot of people deserve the credit -- but we are very exposed on this General Motor's business.

Mr Bradley said a year ago that he had heard that the foundry in St Catharines was going to close, with a loss of some 2,300 jobs. It happened, and more jobs have been lost there.

I've been reading the Wall Street Journal and reading the American press. I watched PBS the other night, the MacNeil-Lehrer Report, which dedicated its entire program to the auto sector. No one in Ontario or in the country, or in the United States, could watch that without the most nervous concern.

I'm telling you, I think Bob Rae will be high over the Pacific when we get some very bad news out of Detroit and out of New York. I hope I'm wrong. I know that we've a very productive workforce, and I know that the people at the UAW would not want to get even with Bob White and Buzz Hargrove for their separation. I know there will be factors that will support maintaining a disproportionately high level of the GM activity in Ontario, but I'm telling you, every signal I now see suggests that we are faced, and we will be faced very quickly, with painful decisions in the auto industry in this province.

Let me just go one step further. It's not just auto, it's steel. The members of the government back bench will not know what the cabinet now knows, but the Ontario cabinet has had prepared for it an analysis of the state of the Ontario steel industry, and I'm going to tell you, it is in bad shape. My information is that in addition to the thousands of jobs we've lost in Ontario steel in the last three years, on the basis of confidential government of Ontario data, we are about to lose another third of the existing jobs in Ontario steel.

I want to say to my friends opposite, if we start to lose, as we are losing, thousands of jobs in this auto industry in Ontario and thousands of jobs as we have in steel, you want to believe the Treasurer when he says times are a-changing and this is not ordinary circumstance.

There's a great debate currently about Hydro. I just want to cite one statistic. My friends opposite are still talking as though the Hydro choices were the choices of the mid-1980s. Let me say at the outset, were mistakes made in the past? Of course they were made. Mistakes were made by the Peterson government and by the Davis government and by every government since. I want to say that quite honestly.

By the way, I saw some comments from Premier Rae the other day about Darlington. Bob Rae is a bright guy with a better education than probably any of us in this House now that Karl Morin-Strom has gone to the Ontario Northland Railroad. What I saw from Bob Rae about the recent history of Ontario Hydro was laughable it was so facile. It was an embarrassment. I fought some of those battles with him, but I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, when I hear Bob Rae's revisionism around Darlington, it makes we want to retch.

Let me just cite a couple of statistics. I went the other day to my district office of Ontario Hydro and asked for some comments about local regional demand. Let me just cite two statistics. In rural Renfrew county, two and a half years ago the megawattage that Hydro was putting out was 42 megs. Two and a half years later, that's dropped to 25 megs. There you've got one very clear local regional index where the hydro consumption has dropped by over a third in just two years. I asked further how much of that was conservation demand management and how much of it was economic downturn. Answer: overwhelmingly the latter.

Let me say up front I support every reasonable conservation and demand management strategy that all of us, or some of us in groups, can offer.

Let me just add the second statistic. I understand -- I have not had this confirmed but it would accord with my local numbers -- that whereas two and a half years ago Hydro was peaking at 26,000 megawatts, it is today peaking at something less than 18,000 megawatts. If that is correct, and I believe it to be generally correct, I want to say to my friends opposite, that is going to mean a couple of things immediately. It has got to mean that the cash flow at Ontario Hydro is in extremis. The financial implications of a loss of one third of your business, when you are as big, as complex and as capital intensive as Ontario Hydro, must be absolutely astounding.

I hear people -- and we've had the new chair retained in recent days -- still talking about the nuclear option or demand management. Those are all interesting debates, but for the here and now, my friends, they are totally irrelevant. Hydro is today swimming in a sea of excess capacity, and the trendline is down, not up.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Do you want to come to Sudbury and talk about that?

1610

Mr Conway: My friend opposite says -- and I know exactly what she's saying. I was in Kingston the other day talking to those people about their project. My advice to the group in Sudbury is going to be like the advice to the people in Kingston. If these economic trends continue, God forbid, if we get more bad news from General Motors, Algoma, Dofasco and Stelco, that megawattage generally is going to go from where it is reputed to be now at 18,000 megs down to an even lower point.

The issue that is going to be facing this Legislature and any government that comes here for support is not what kind of scheme we're going to develop for demand management or conservation; it is going to be, more immediately, how you're going to get the patient through the night of this most critical surgery. I'm not kidding. As I say, there aren't easy answers.

My friend the member from Lanark got turfed out of here the other day because he challenged, rightly, what the Minister of Energy is saying. On the basis of what I know, I cannot say in this House what I believe to be the position of the Minister of Energy, because the rules of conduct in this House do not allow me. But the member from Lanark was properly on his feet, crying out about the inconsistencies in the government's policy with respect to what's going on at Hydro. I'm not going to get into that to any great extent; I just simply want to make the point.

Bradley is right when he says we are at a critical point in terms of General Motors. I hope and pray that all the strengths the Premier was enumerating about the Ontario domestic auto industry carry us through the day. I hope and pray that Bob Rae is right in that very optimistic assessment. But I'm going to tell you, if he's wrong and thousands more jobs are lost at Oshawa or St Catharines, if what I'm hearing from my contacts in the steel community is right about what's going on now at Algoma, Dofasco and Stelco, then we will not have to wait for too many more weeks before we see some even more alarming news as to what's happening to the manufacturing core of Ontario.

One of the reasons I'm concerned about our current situation in a budget sense is that we're losing the best jobs in the province -- in the country, in many cases. If you look at the Treasurer's document tabled here a few weeks ago and go to table 25 on page 80, there it is written large. We have lost nearly 20% of our manufacturing core jobs in the last three years.

Obviously it's not all the government's fault. I don't for a moment suggest that it's the Rae government's fault exclusively.

We've had some discussions in this place over the last few weeks about other jurisdictions. I've been surprised, quite frankly, that no one on the government side has talked about California. To me, the parallels between Ontario and California in the current environment are interesting, if not exact. Who could have imagined that in the great American republic, we would live to see a day when California was an economic basket case, which is what it apparently is. Part of their problem is that they cannot cope with the peace dividend. Tens of thousands of people are being thrown out of the best jobs in the United States of America. That's why George Bush hasn't a prayer tomorrow night in the state with the largest electoral college offering.

Look at Ontario and look at what's happening, my friends, according to your own latest economic data. We now have an unemployment rate across the province reported to be 11.3%. I think all of us know that it's well above that. We know that in Metro it's over 12%. Let me just cite some of these statistics in terms of young people in 1992, projected. We now have a youth unemployment rate reported to be at roughly 18.8%. We've got an unemployment rate in northern Ontario that's running well above the provincial average. Older workers are being thrown out of work to a much greater extent than younger workers. And on the list goes.

When I look at employment by industry in Ontario these days, I look again at manufacturing, where in 1989 -- I realize 1989 is a bit of an unfair benchmark, but it happens to be the government sectoral employment trends formula that I've got in front of me -- just three years ago it was 1,030,000 jobs. We're now looking at roughly 175,000 fewer of those jobs, and the trend line is moving downward.

Construction: My friend Phillips, the Liberal treasury critic, was commenting the other day. We were told in the spring budget that construction was going to lead Ontario out of the current difficulty. Well, I simply ask you to look at the latest projections that construction jobs this year over last are expected to decline by something in the order of 10%.

My friend the member for Lawrence, Mr Cordiano, was talking to me earlier today about the numbers he's encountering in his part of northwestern Toronto: the numbers of construction workers who are saying that their job prospects diminish by the day.

If you look at primary, if you look at manufacturing, if you look at the construction sector -- key indicators -- they are all trending downward. My sister is a banker, God forbid, in this city and she was telling me the other day about --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): The gloom and doom isn't going to work any more.

Mr Conway: My friend from Downsview opines that gloom and doom isn't going to work any more. I am not here glooming and dooming; I'm simply reading government data and saying that my sister was telling me the other day that on the basis of just looking and listening to her daily clients in the greater Toronto area, there is very little indication from the small business sector that recovery and renewal are just around the corner. In fact, the evidence suggests --

Mr Perruzza: It's looking up.

Mr Conway: Will Caliban not be restrained? I simply say that the indications from the government reports themselves are that the recovery that was talked about and promised six months ago is in fact nowhere in sight, and those are the realities.

I want to talk about revenues, because you heard me say a moment ago that I was very sceptical. I expect my friend the member for Simcoe West and certainly Mr Stockwell will want to talk about this because he in his interjection earlier, I think he was right. Well, people laugh. There's a big joke. Let me just tell you, I'm going to give you another statistic, because I'm just reading the government data.

Let me just ask you to turn your minds to this: We were told in the spring budget that the personal income tax, retail sales tax and corporation tax yields would combine to produce this year something in the order of $25 billion.

Mr Stockwell: Twelve per cent off.

Mr Conway: Mr Stockwell observes, rightly so, that they are off and probably off by in the order of 10%. Well, my friends, do you know what 10% of $25 billion is? It's $2 billion plus.

It may not be true. I just apply the federal data, and in the federal government Mazankowski is admitting that the recession is eating into his revenues in a way he had not expected and he is reporting losses that, if they are applied to Ontario, which by all national economic indicators is among the worst of the economic environments in the country --

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Put us in the penalty box.

Mr Conway: It's not a question of putting people in the penalty box, I say to my friends opposite, but --

Mr Stockwell: It's reality.

Mr Conway: -- the reality of this situation is simply this: If for whatever domestic and international reason we are now faced, as we head into the third quarter, with revenues that are off by 10% on the three big-ticket items, corporate, retail and personal income tax, that means one of two things has to happen. Either you add another $2 billion to the deficit, in which case the Treasurer's comment that his deficit line is spot-on is transparently not true, or you have to squeeze $2-billion worth of program spending out of your budget in the last half of this year.

Mr Elston: Exactly.

Mr Stockwell: And how much is already spent for salaries?

1620

Mr Conway: My friend from Etobicoke and my colleague from Bruce are right. To do that now as you head into the third quarter is virtually impossible.

I'm sorry if this is naysaying. I'm sorry if it sounds "gloom and doom," but I have to tell you, my friends, that the people I represent are concerned about the financial management of every government they have these days. They want me to stand in my place and say, "What's going on?"

I accept that this recession has been more severe and more long-lasting than any of us had ever expected. I agree with the Treasurer that there is very real evidence now that this is something unlike the downturns we've experienced in the mid-1970s, in the early 1980s and in the late 1950s. There is something very significant occurring, and not the least of that significant occurrence is that we in Ontario are losing the core of our wealth production, namely, our manufacturing sector. We have all got to turn our minds to that impending and that occurring reality.

I come back to Hydro. Hydro is not a fixation; for me, Hydro is a very good indicator of what's happening in the economy. I just want my friends opposite, when they go to cabinet or when they go to caucus this week, to ask the Minister of Energy if it is true that Hydro has lost roughly one third of its demand over the last two years. If that is true, any of you who've ever run anything will know that in a corporation of that size and of that capital requirement, that kind of precipitous, ongoing loss in demand and concomitant cash flow will be having unbelievable effects.

Surely we should put aside for the moment whether or not we're going to engage in this kind of demand management or that kind of demand management or this kind of conservation program or that kind of conservation program to simply acknowledge this reality. As I said a moment ago, all of the evidence that I hear and see suggests that in November 1992 Ontario Hydro is swimming in a deepening sea of excess capacity and sinking in a sea of deepening red ink. That is what we're going to have to deal with.

I don't care how illustrious your environmental reputation is, I don't care how good your federal or provincial Liberal connections are and I don't care how meritorious your past public and private sector experience has been; those are the financial realities that confront Mr Strong and his board in 1992, November 2, as they face what must be invidious choices. It cannot be long.

I'm telling you, I mentioned a moment ago the situation that's facing Mr Smale at General Motors. One of the analysts was saying the other night that, of course, because General Motors did not heed the advice and take some corrective action five and six years ago, now it is right against it and it has lost a lot of less painful options. What we will get, apparently, out of Detroit in the next few days is going to be very bloody indeed. That's not me; that's the CBS radio network earlier today, supported by Time magazine. Let's hope they are both wrong.

So what are we faced with at Ontario Hydro? We face some of those same enormously painful questions. The new chairman was quoted, "I'm not particularly interested in nuclear power." I can understand how he feels that way. A lot of people feel that way, but you know what? At this point, that's irrelevant. What you may have to do about that may certainly engage the immediate interest of Mr Jack MacDonald and CUPE 1000. Oh, boy, if I were in CUPE 1000 these days, would I be interested in some of this, because you know what further? It's going to affect my job.

My friend the member for Bruce has been on his feet speaking for the hundreds of people who work in that particular part of Ontario. I'm telling you, there are going to be a lot of people at Hydro affected by the fact that we have some choices now that are not very attractive, and the primary reason for this difficulty is not Darlington and is not a lot of other things, though they are certainly factors. The primary reason that Hydro is in extremis today is that Ontario manufacturing and other economic activities are in dire straits, and that's the problem. Demand is off, and off sharply.

My Liberal colleagues and I take the view that good public policy in this very critical time has got to focus on job creation and an environment that is going to attract new investment and retain existing investment to maintain the current employment base and, hopefully, stop the current haemorrhage and expand the employment base for young, middle-aged and older people from Pickle Lake to Cornwall and from Toronto to Timmins.

But that's not just rhetoric. That commitment is going to mean surely that we're going to have to pay attention to what's happening in our economy and be prepared to make some of the tough, painful decisions that are going to be required if we are going to put some economic reality to the political rhetoric that, quite frankly, we all happily espouse.

I repeat, if the numbers that the Treasurer has given us are to be credited, then one has got to believe that his revenue line is minimally hundreds of millions of dollars off the April projections, and it has got to mean some very substantial additional pressures on the Treasurer and on the government.

Mr Stockwell: They don't understand.

Mr Conway: I've got to believe they understand. I know that I may not be representing this as some of my friends opposite would like, but I do not think that there is very much in what I have said that could be challenged, and if it can, I will be happy to hear from honourable members later in this debate.

Just a couple of other issues in terms of the economic situation. I guess this is a good opportunity for me to make a comment about a couple of local issues. I represent Renfrew county, or most of it; Mr Jordan represents the bottom third. In my area, the forest economy is one of the key employers for thousands of people in little communities like Whitney, Deux-Rivieres and Barry's Bay and bigger towns like Pembroke, Eganville and Braeside. Most of the men and women in places like that who depend -- and I know my friend from South Hastings knows many of these communities -- are either out of work or faced with the prospect of imminent unemployment.

In a place like Barry's Bay or Palmer Rapids, or Denbigh in the upper end of Mr Wilson's riding in north Addington, it's the only game in town. If you're not working in the forest industry, chances are you're going to be forced on to some kind of relief, as we used to say in the old days -- a pejorative term, for sure. I'm just telling you that we've got unemployment rates in the forest sector of unprecedented levels in places like Killaloe, Denbigh, Bancroft, Barry's Bay and Pembroke.

In the absence of my friend the Minister of Natural Resources, I want to say that in communities like Pembroke we've got a veneer mill, Canada Veneers, which employs over 250 people, teetering on the edge, and here I think it is fair for the government today to blame previous governments for some of what was and was not done.

I can say that I looked back on the forest policy of the last 25 to 40 years, and we made some very regrettable errors, not just in government but in the private sector and in some of the collateral activities as well. Our backs are right up against it, and I want to say that those men and women who work at Canada Veneers in Pembroke, who have been coming to see me almost on a daily basis, who are wondering just what their future is, we owe it to them to recognize that forest policy in this province has got to change. We've got to be willing to make some of the tough decisions, some of the tough decisions that are going to affect some of our friends in the environmental movement. I'm not arguing a return to the 1970s, where the attitude was significantly cut and run.

Industry has a responsibility. When people say to me, "Why is there no veneer left in the eastern part of Ontario?" I ask the question, "Who cut it all, and what did they do about helping make sure that there was a new generation of this high-quality material so that those people who work in the veneer mills in Pembroke and Rutherglen would have some prospect of sustaining employment?" Their business has some very tough questions to answer, and I'm not so sure that the answers are going to be very good.

1630

Fortunes have been made in the veneer business in this province, absolutely staggering fortunes, and now we find ourselves in a situation where we have depleted the resource, where we have, in my part of east-central and northeastern Ontario, three or four mills left. If they're going to survive, we are going to have to get together, and soon, to fundamentally reorder public policy and private practice. It's going to be painful, and not too many of the stakeholders are going to like it, but in my view it is the only choice we have left.

If we have not got the will to do that, then people working in the veneer mill in Pembroke, and in sawmills in Madawaska and Eganville and Bancroft, are going to be walking the unemployment lines. I simply want to say on behalf of those people, those men and women who have no easy alternative other than the jobs they've had for many years, that we owe it to them, I think, to make some of the change that is required.

Just in summary, I want to touch on one or two other things. We are currently in a very interesting time politically. I was saying parenthetically to the Treasurer that last night I watched the Perot infomercial, the half-hour. I don't know whether anyone else saw it. I would not be voting for Ross Perot. I think he is a very interesting, quixotic individual with a very healthy ego, which would, of course, entitle him to public office.

I thought that was the most powerful and effective political message I've seen in a long time, because he was able to take some very key economic data particularly and present them to the American people in a way that I think was fair and understandable. I think we had better understand that times are a-changin', not just for people outside of this place, but for those of us elected here.

I want to just say briefly something about the referendum. It was a very good debate. I think it was a very positive debate for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada. But I think there is a reality check that is going to be needed for some people, because I'm still getting the impression that there are people out there in the so-called élite who have not yet understood what happened on Monday. A question was put, a question was debated and a question was settled in the negative almost uniformly across the country.

I read editorials, and I hear certain politicians talking as though Monday really didn't mean very much. I agree with the member for Cochrane South. I believe Monday meant something very significant and very telling. A very significant chapter has closed. My constituents in Renfrew North, many of whom voted in districts four to one on the No side, want me to know and to say that from their point of view, No meant no. If this fixation about an inside-the-Beltway endless constitutional debate among overpaid constitutional advisers and well-paid politicians and editorialists continues unabated after Monday, then democracy has failed in a very fundamental way.

I think what we are hearing from the people, whether it's in the referendum debate here or in the so-called Perot phenomenon in the United States, is, "Elected officials, listen to the people and make sure you hear what they are telling you." I believe that most people heard clearly what was said here on Monday last, and I'm fully expecting that all of us are going to act accordingly.

I want to make this comment as well about the politics of the economy and about politics generally. It is quite clear that the public, whether they are in Ontario or in Nebraska, are cynical about politicians and the political process because they can now see through so much of the patina that we put before them. They know the economy is hurting. They know in their daily lives that things are not as good as they once were. They understand that governments, like families, are going to be faced to make some tough choices.

What people in my county are simply saying is: "Level with us. Give us the goods, give us the information that will allow us to make an informed decision. We're not going to like it -- we may even throw you out of office -- but for heaven's sake, stop lying to us."

I watch this campaign in the United States, and I probably would vote for Clinton if I had a choice, but I'm telling you that I think Governor Clinton is painting himself into a very, very tight corner, because I think he is misleading the American public on key economic choices. Within months, he's going to be forced to look out from the Oval Office and say, "You might have read my lips, you might have read my program, but I can't deliver and please trust me to get it right a second time."

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Bush is trying that.

Mr Conway: Well, Bush has tried it. When he made the comment about, "Read my lips," he, as a bright, knowledgeable, very experienced politician knew that it was a transparent impossibility, and he did it because like most politicians, he thought it would secure firmly his election to the White House.

I'm just simply going to --

Mr Elston: It did the first time.

Mr Conway: And it did the first time. There is evidence that he could have in fact gotten to the White House without compromising himself to such an extent.

Interjection: Why raise it?

Mr Conway: Why do I raise this? I raise it because we have a very, very significant ideological cleavage in this Parliament over the labour bill.

Mr Bisson: Ideological cleavage?

Mr Conway: Yes, an ideological cleavage: That is a very legitimate, political science expression, and if it offends anyone, I'm sorry. But the point I want to make is that this Legislature continues to do battle over Bill 40, with our friends on the government bench saying, and the Premier said it in Sault Ste Marie the other day: "This is the cornerstone of economic renewal. This is the pill that will cure the ailing patient." We've got Liberals and Tories in different ways saying, "Listen, we think this is fundamentally flawed."

I'm saying to my constituents what I'm saying here, that while there are elements of Bill 40 that I can certainly support, overall the policy is untimely, unbalanced and, I believe, in key components, unworkable.

But quite apart from our partisan positions on this subject, believe me when I say that the men and women who are going to generate the economic recovery, the people who by virtue of their private, personal savings or by virtue of their management of a big pension fund account, to an overwhelming degree those people are saying: "We don't agree with you, Bob Rae. We believe that Bill 40 is going to injure, not assist, economic recovery and renewal." To people outside the Beltway, they look at this inside government quarrel inside the Legislature and they say, "Well, why can't they understand?"

It reminds me a bit of my constituents telling me, "Doesn't David Peterson get it about Meech Lake?" You know what? We didn't. We didn't get it, and we got it. We got it real good, and we deserved a good bit of what we got because we didn't listen.

Mr Bisson: You didn't go down because of Meech Lake.

Mr Conway: No, I'm not saying that we went down just because of Meech, but I'll tell you, for a lot of people I represent, it came to symbolize just how out of touch the government had gotten.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): That's right.

Mr Conway: My friend from Guelph agrees.

My point, as we face unemployment rates of an unprecedented kind, as we face over 600,000 people out of work or looking for work, as we face a mountain of debt, is that I remind people it took 123 years to build an accumulated provincial debt of $35 billion. In the space of the four-and-a-half years of the Rae government's mandate, we will, in four-and-a-half years, match or double what it took how many previous governments to build up in over 123 years.

Mr Elston: Shameful.

1640

Mr Conway: It may not be shameful, but it's certainly worrisome, and it is going to substantially reduce the options that future governments, perhaps a future NDP government, will have in respect of the choices they are going to want to employ to provide for good social programs, good youth employment programs and all the good things that the provincial government can and should be doing.

So as we vote interim supply, I guess I'm simply pleading with my friends opposite to look at the facts. The facts are that the recession is marching on, and it's more than just an academic march; it is a march that is having an almost cancerous effect on the economic vitals of the government and of the province.

And some of the traditional remedies that even good social democrats and Keynesian liberals might apply don't seem to be working. We all know that our constituents are up to their necks in taxes, there's tax fatigue. I'm going to tell you, if Mr Laughren and friends think they can march out and add to the tax burden, I think they have another thought coming.

We know, for example, that we can't borrow much more than we've got right now, because increasingly, you see, we're turning the financial management of the province and the country over to Frankfurt and Tokyo and New York. More and more of the provincial and federal debt is being held by people outside the country. That, particularly for social democrats, who have an economic nationalist streak in them, must be abhorrent. But that's what's happening and that's got real and not-too-far-distant impacts.

So I simply say, whether it's on Hydro, whether it's on the deficit, whether it's on programs -- I mean, people talk about new programs and I just simply want to roll over. I heard from another good source the other day, and this wouldn't surprise me at all, that government departments like Community and Social Services are at work trying to find a way to take a billion dollars out of their base budget, and I believe that. Those are the choices we are going to be looking at if this situation does not almost immediately right itself. I suspect that's probably one of the more attractive choices that the treasury committee is going to be looking at.

Let me be local again, and I'll probably offend somebody in Renfrew county. I picked up the paper the other day and I saw where the Ontario government was offering a $40,000 grant to the Renfrew County Walking Club. Listen, I think walking is wonderful, I support walking in every way possible. I have not looked into the details and I'll beg a little bit of indulgence, both here and at home, but my first reaction I suspect was the reaction of a lot of people who I represent: We're broke, we're worse than broke, and we're spending 40,000 scarce dollars to launch a walking club. A walking club. Now, in the salad days of the 1960s or the late 1980s --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Why do you need money to walk?

Mr Conway: That's exactly what my mother wanted to know. You know what? I didn't have a very good answer for her. I say again, I endorse walking and I endorse walking clubs, but we are now in a financial situation that is extremely severe and I believe does not allow us that kind of luxury.

I'm going to take my seat, but before I do -- I know Mr Wilson from Simcoe is going to favour us with an address -- I want to just cite a couple of paragraphs from a recent speech from Senator Rudman in the United States. Senator Rudman is a two-term Republican from New Hampshire who is not running again. He's a very interesting fellow. I like Warren Rudman. He's an iconoclast, as so many politicians in New Hampshire are. But I want my friends to listen to this. I want people to listen to this because this is --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: His running mate, I say to my friend from Guelph, these days is Senator Tsongas, who comes from the next-door state, probably one of the most liberal states, and Tsongas certainly had a pretty liberal voting record when he was in Congress and in the Senate. So you've now got Tsongas and Rudman with the so-called Concord coalition. I want to just read a couple of lines. If anybody's interested, I'll make a copy of this six-page speech, because I think it's one of the most thought-provoking speeches I've read in a long time.

Rudman, in one of his last speeches in the Senate, did an evaluation of the administration tax plan -- he's a Republican, and the administration is Republican -- and then he did an analysis of the Democratic tax plan. He said that both plans were gilt-edged, transparent fictions. They were complete fictions, both the President's plan and the Democratic plan. Having said that, I'm just going to cite a couple of references. He's talking about the kind of debate they're having in the United States, and in many ways it's the kind of debate we're having, or not having, here.

But Senator Rudman, a few months ago, said, for example: "In the next five years" in the United States, federal "entitlement programs are projected to grow by 8.1% annually for a five-year cumulative increase of $800 billion. I repeat, $800 billion, but there has been little discussion of this problem. Instead, the public debate has been about whether, in this same period, to cut defense by $50 billion or $100 billion and to figure out how to spend those savings five times over."

He goes on finally to say:

"I want to continue here for a minute with some personal thoughts. I have been here now for over 10 years, and with all due respect to the castigating and the pummelling that the Congress generally takes, I would have to say that I have never in my life served with so many extraordinary people as I serve with in this body. There is almost no one here -- in fact, there is no one here in whom I do not find some element of redeeming value. Some more than others. But the fact is that we are unable, institutionally, to do what has to be done. We are literally not watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we are watching the entire orchestra. How is it that in the early spring or late winter of 1992, with a federal budgetary deficit reaching $400 billion, with a country in economic disarray; how can we responsibly stand on this floor and talk about doing anything that has even the slightest chance of adding, not a dime, but a penny to" this mountain of debt?

"I think I have the answer. I think I have finally figured it out after 11 years. And that is that we are afraid to level with the American people, because they have been lied to for so long. Maybe 'lie' is a strong word. Maybe we have simply not told them the whole truth. Look at the 1980 presidential campaign, the 1984 campaign, the 1988 campaign" -- and on he goes.

And on we go. I simply resume my seat this afternoon saying that we are fast approaching a point where these kinds of supply motions and supply debates are not even worth the time we dedicate to them if we're not prepared to start looking at some of the hard choices and some of the real options.

I am very concerned, I am increasingly concerned, that this government, that this Legislature fiddle on while the Ontario economy deteriorates in ways that are going to have a very real impact for us today but, much more important, for our children tomorrow. If we got a reality check last Monday in the referendum and have now committed ourselves at all political levels to turn our minds and our energies to the economy, we'd better smarten up and start offering our constituents some of the real choices based on real information.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions and or comments?

Mr Bisson: I listened intently to the member for Renfrew, who always has some valuable contributions to give. I guess all I want to say to the member is that, on the premise of what he is talking about, I think all of us in this Legislature hear what he's saying. But in the description and the verbiage utilized in order to try to get to his point -- I guess what I'm trying to say is that the cure he is looking for is probably a heck of a lot worse than what we're suffering right now.

1650

We as politicians to a certain extent have created a certain amount of the problem we have with regard to the way we're viewed by the public. Part of the reason is the way we sometimes interact with each other inside this Legislature.

Yes, I guess the member is right in that politicians to a certain extent, probably to a great extent, have gone out sometimes a little bit faster than the public is able to keep with us. The only thing I'd want to say is this: Yes, we are going through hard economic times. Yes, there is something called the recession that's going on. Yes, there are people who are hurting in this province, as they are all over North America and in Europe. But to suggest the cure is a radical departure with regard to how we manage our problems fiscally and how we manage those dollars I think is quite difficult, because in this whole equation there are people.

I think the challenge we have as governments is that we have to turn around and say yes, we have to manage down our costs, but we have to be careful in the way we do that, that we don't all of a sudden pull out the rug from underneath a whole bunch of programs and let the people fall where they may, because we know what the costs of that will be.

I think the challenge every government faces, ours or any other government across this country, is finding a way to manage down those costs, at the same time keeping in mind that there are people in those equations and that we have to be careful they're not hurt in the process.

We know there will be pain. I hope I have an opportunity later on in the debate to carry this on, because he raises some points that I think are quite interesting.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Again, my honourable colleague, who has spoken so eloquently about this situation -- I know if he'd had more time, he'd have gone into many other areas that need to be attended to. In the limited time he has been given, I think he has covered a lot of ground. I hope, though, that the government has listened very carefully, because I know he'd have wanted to have extended more about the separate school funding that goes on in areas like my area. They're calling out for the government to act immediately on this. All the promises they have made -- they're looking at an interim supply bill right now, and it doesn't seem that they are attending to the matters that should be attended to.

I recall too that the honourable member wanted to mention, of course, about the anti-racism strategy the government announced, with a lot of grandeur and trumpeting, about spending about $7.3 million that was supposed to be appropriated to that. Only $4.5 million has been actually allocated.

We're saying to the government, "While we're not blaming all the problems on you, you have the opportunity now, first, to have a very constructive opposition that is guiding you in that direction, and we hope you listen rather carefully."

At one time I heard this member making a comment to my colleague that the politicians seem to be ahead of the people. The fact is that the people are always ahead of the politicians. There's nothing wrong with that. We have to listen carefully. We bring back to the Legislative Assembly, listen to what is happening and respond to that. Even the way they introduced this interim supply, right now in dealing with it, tells you that they're not even ready to govern. It's unfortunate that that's the case, but on the other hand it's very fortunate that my dear colleague has addressed that so forcefully.

The child care matter, for instance: People are crying out for more funding and I hope we will have an opportunity in this debate to get into that in more detail.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Whenever the member for Renfrew North speaks, he always has something worthwhile to say and his eloquence is something we always appreciate in this House.

Sometimes it's where he's coming from that bothers me, because certainly when he was in government not that long ago, he had a chance to establish a climate for industry and for the marketplace, and yet during the Peterson years we saw a great number of new taxes levied.

None the less, his point is a valid one today, as he looks at what's going on in the province now. We are seeing the economy in Ontario very slowly beginning to come out of the recession. Certainly at a presentation I attended last week with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, we are seeing signs of growth and improvement. But what we want from the government is to establish an environment for business so that business will feel like investing in itself, or outside investors will feel like coming into Ontario.

We're into an economic climate where not only Ontario is impacted by tough economic days but the North American continent; around the world, in fact. Every country is coping with it. But really it should be the challenge for Mr Rae and his government to begin to establish the kind of working relationship with business and investors, outside investors, so they will want to put their money in Ontario, that they'll invest in Ontario.

I have to believe that part of the problem now is Bill 40 and labour legislation, which is seen by business as being anti-business. When you have a government that's coming along with its own high taxation levels, again having to take the cream of the funding away from businesses, it's a disincentive for business to come along and invest in Ontario.

So when I listen to the member for Renfrew North, I think he makes his point well today and I appreciate what he's trying to say. I think, as well, that hopefully the government will begin to learn some of these basics. So far it hasn't. It has had two years to do something about it, and we haven't seen any progress.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): As I was listening to the honourable member bring his stories out and talk about how tough it is, it reminds me of a Father Mooney, who talked to us at the Lutheran church. We wanted to promote the crisis in rural Ontario and the small businesses being destroyed. He was one who initiated the Catholic rural life, and 10 years ago he realized, because he listened to some economists who said things cannot be sustainable if you're going to allow big business to be competitive against small business, with tax breaks etc that are not fair.

He said, "You know, you can sit here all you want and cry in your soup, but at some point you have to get on with action." So it makes it well that he talks about all the things that we have been blessed with because the seeds were sown, maybe not two years ago or five years ago; maybe even 10 years ago. It makes it sound as if we're the ones who caused the problem. We recognize very much on this side of the House how tough it is.

I listened to PBS-type shows 10 years ago and it irked me that if I could understand that things cannot be sustainable, if governments will not listen to everybody, we are going to be in a mess like this. Those predictions, unfortunately, have come true. Unfortunately, as fate would have it, I'm one of the ones who is here to try to fix it, but so be it. Like any business I've been in during the last 10 or 15 years, I will work it the best I can.

This government has been the most honest and forward in its dealings with the people. As you said, sir, the population out there knows very well how tough it is. In fact, I would say they understand it far more than you or I do.

But one of the things I point out to them is, why did the Liberal government allow Ontario Hydro to spend only in nuclear? Why did the Tory government do it? I'd say it came down to simple things. They listened to a few who lobbied very hard for their nuclear version, but nobody questioned who was going to pay for it.

You talk about the logging thing. Very quickly, in Oregon there was a company that did have sustainable forest -- in Washington. Yet one company bought it, tore the company apart and in one generation destroyed it all. That's the kind of economics we've had to put up with, and yes, we are going to change that.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Renfrew North has two minutes in response.

Mr Conway: I thank my colleagues for their observations. I say in summary simply this: We are faced now, in the third quarter of the fiscal year 1992-93, with some very alarming data. My submission to the House is that the budget, quite frankly, ought to be rewritten, and probably is being rewritten, because on the basis of the latest Economic Outlook information, the projections the Rae government made just six months ago are in fact well off the mark.

My submission is that even the most conservative assessment of revenue losses would put the revenue line off by hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps as much as $2 billion, though I don't know that to be the case. But there is absolutely no question that the recession is eating at the very core of the economy in this province and that we, all of us, have to turn our attention to what that means.

It is true that we've developed over the course of the salad years in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s a panoply of spending for a whole range of good and worthy projects that we may now not be able to sustain on the basis of a shrunken and reduced economic pie.

I'm a Liberal. I may be inherently optimistic. I hope that we can stimulate growth and bring back much of that lost activity. But just because I'm a Liberal doesn't mean I'm some kind of fool, that I can't see what is in front of me. What is in front of me, on the basis of key economic indicators, proves the Treasurer's point that these are very, very different times and they call for more radical action, particularly on the program reduction side, than this government has shown a willingness to undertake at the present time.

If we're going to have any credibility with the public out there, we've got to give them an honest picture, and that honesty's got to begin with the leader of the government, Mr Rae, staying home and dealing with the immediate crisis in Ontario steel and auto and not going off around the world to talk to foreign business.

1700

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate on motion number 20, interim supply.

Mr Jim Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on interim supply this afternoon. May I begin by saying that it is always a challenge to follow the member for Renfrew North, who is indeed an excellent speaker and who makes his points very clearly. It's obvious, in listening to him for the past hour or so, that his years of experience in this House show forth and that he truly is a great representative of the people of his riding. I want to say I don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say and I do wonder where he went wrong in his youth when he became a Liberal, but none the less, I do appreciate his comments and always enjoy his oratory.

The member for Renfrew North correctly pointed out in his summation that the number one issue, as all members know -- and we hear it every day from our constituents and the people in Ontario -- is certainly jobs in this province, and it's the economy. I think the previous member correctly pointed out that the Premier should not be leaving on a six-day jaunt to Asia, that we've not had the Premier in this House over the several weeks that he was running around the province dealing with the Charlottetown constitutional accord. The Premier has only been back in the House a few days, intermittent attendance at that, and now he's off to Asia on a jaunt and I don't think the Premier can justify the expense of that trip. The last time he left the province on one of his world jaunts, a number of significant things happened.

There are serious issues, such as the 500 jobs that are being lost each day that this government's in office, that the Premier really should be addressing here at home. He promised, after the No vote on the constitutional accord some two weeks ago, that his number one priority would be the Ontario economy and jobs in Ontario. We've once again seen a broken promise by the Premier.

But I want to talk about rural Ontario. I know it's an issue that's very dear and near to your heart, Mr Speaker, as a representative of rural Ontario. Much of my riding is composed of farms and good people who are farmers, farm families who are having a very difficult time struggling through the economic downturn and the restructuring in the economy. But that's not new for farmers. It's not new for farmers at all, because over the past many years the farm community has been having a very difficult time making ends meet.

I would say, though, on the issue of funding for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, that I'm absolutely dismayed that we've not only seen cuts in the red meat plan but we've seen additional cuts of 9.5% in the ministry's budget again this year. Farmers are wondering why, when this government, for many years in opposition, proclaimed that agriculture was so important to it and where it got a number of significant votes in rural Ontario in the September 1990 election, it is abandoning rural Ontario.

The first issue I want to raise is of course a local issue in my riding of Simcoe West. It involves Ontario Hydro's plans to build a transformer station near the village of Beeton. As all members will know, under the Liberal government the village of Beeton, along with the township of Tecumseth, the village of Tottenham and the town of Alliston were restructured into one municipality, now called the town of New Tecumseth.

I'm proud to say on one hand that the new mayor of the town, as of the last municipal election, is George McCague, my predecessor in this Legislature. George has been dealing with some very difficult issues as mayor of that new town. One of them deals with this STR project, as it's called, the Sudbury to Toronto Area Transmission Reinforcement project, which is the bureaucratese that comes to us from Ontario Hydro to describe this project.

I want to begin by thanking a number of people in the local area who have worked and are working very hard. They've come together under a group called ROOSTR, which stands for Residents of Ontario Opposed to the Sudbury to Toronto Reinforcement Project. Very forcefully -- they've made the point to me and by sending cards, petitions and letters to the Premier directly -- they're making the point to this government that, if it really cares about rural Ontario, why at a time when, as the member for Renfrew North correctly points out, Ontario Hydro has excess capacity, are Ontario Hydro and this government and the Ministry of Energy hell-bent on proceeding with a project that will consume some 250 acres of prime agricultural land?

All members should know that this area of Toronto is probably the last buffer zone between the greater Toronto area and the rest of the province. It is a beautiful, picturesque area -- Tecumseth township and the village of Beeton -- and this government, in spite of pleas from myself and local residents, wants to drive ahead, consume 250 acres and build a transformer station that cannot be justified. It's indicative of, I think, the theme of my remarks this afternoon, which is that we've really lost any common sense in government whatsoever. You'd have to look really hard around here to find any common sense on the government side. It's mind-boggling.

I want to bring a chronology to the STR project. On July 16 I attended a public meeting with Ontario Hydro representatives and local residents in the village of Bond Head, and at that meeting local residents raised many important questions and concerns. It's my sense that many of these questions and concerns were not adequately addressed by representatives of Ontario Hydro. In a letter dated July 20, 1992, I wrote to the Honourable Brian Charlton, the Minister of Energy, to express those concerns.

What Ontario Hydro wants to do is run a new transmission power line over from Manitoba to Sudbury, down the east side of Lake Simcoe, across the bottom of Lake Simcoe and, right in the Beeton area, create a 250-acre transformer station that is to act as a hub. More appropriately, and what was admitted by Ontario Hydro representatives, in the future this very well could become an octopus. Part of that octopus will extend down to supply power to southwestern Ontario and to the greater Toronto area.

It doesn't make sense, when you consider that the Liberal government did sign an agreement with Manitoba Hydro to buy power from Manitoba Hydro, but because of the real incompetence of the NDP government over the past few years in its ability to deal with jobs and the economy, we've seen a mass exodus of companies and firms leave the province. The member for Renfrew North brought a local example forward in his remarks about how demand is down significantly in Renfrew county. I think the statistics he quoted were that demand was down 50% over the past couple of years. It is the same experience in my part of the province and the same experience in Metropolitan Toronto. Demand is down because we've seen a mass exodus of companies that at one time would have consumed great amounts of power.

Does it make any sense that the government wants to continue with this transformer/transmission station project at a time when the deal with Manitoba Hydro is on hold? Ontario has excess power; therefore, we don't need Manitoba's power. The justification for this line, which was to bring the power in from Manitoba down to southwestern Ontario and the Toronto area, just isn't there.

"At that meeting on July 16, local residents found the justification for the line and station installation to be somewhat unclear and unsound." I'm just reading from the letter I wrote to Mr Charlton, the Minister of Energy, on July 20. "Ontario Hydro representatives cited a planned purchase of hydro from Manitoba as the key reason. I find this assertion somewhat curious, as during the last provincial election your party" -- that's the NDP -- "maintained that with a proper conservation program such a purchase would be unnecessary."

I posed the question in this letter to the minister:

"If the proposed purchase of Manitoba hydro does not occur, will Ontario Hydro still consider this project a pressing need? Furthermore, would it not make sense to address the power concerns closer to the source of the need -- ie, why is the transformer station being put in the village of Beeton area rather than in the GTA? Such a plan would be all the more sensible when one considers that the area of Beeton under study contains some of the province's finest agricultural land."

As I said, "This project will consume some 250 acres and local residents are absolutely opposed to it," opposed to the extent that the New Tecumseth council, under the leadership of George McCague, passed a resolution on September 21.

1710

I want to read that resolution into the record because I think it's one of the best and clearest indications of what is wrong with this project that I've seen to date. It reads:

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has failed to make the case that it needs massive new hydro transmission corridors from Sudbury to Toronto, presumably ignoring their large investment in Darlington nuclear energy and energy conservation programs available; and

"Whereas a recent report from the Ontario Energy Board condemns Ontario Hydro's operations, particularly the poor performance to date of the Darlington reactors, excessive staff levels, excessive compensation levels and the poor record of predicting future growth" -- as an aside, "excessive compensation levels" is stating the case mildly when you consider that Maurice Strong, the new chairman of Ontario Hydro who was just recently appointed by the Premier, will be paid some $425,000 per year plus benefits -- "and"

"Whereas a number of private and public companies and corporations are exploring the alternatives at their disposal for constructing and producing their own energy requirements;

"Now, therefore, be it resolved that the council of the town of New Tecumseth requests that Ontario Hydro take no further action on their Sudbury to Toronto area transmission reinforcement project, since we have serious concerns regarding not only the need for such facilities but also the health and safety of New Tecumseth's residents, the effects upon arable land and farming activities and the quality of the local environment; and further, that we actively oppose the project on an ongoing basis."

I think that best summarizes the objections of local ratepayers to this project, and on September 30, I, of course, made a statement in the House which reflected the sentiments expressed in council's resolution.

In summation on this project, I want to once again thank the good people of ROOSTR. I want to encourage the people of Simcoe West and New Tecumseth to continue to hammer away at the government to help me to continue to bring this issue forward. Keep writing letters. Keep signing petitions. Keep sending those cards into the Premier's office, because we have to keep in mind that in September 1990 when we went to the polls and when I was elected to this government, I suffered through a 38-day campaign where clearly the NDP indicated to the people of Ontario that it had all the answers.

Certainly at that time, I can tell you, from the bottom of my heart, with all sincerity, that the local NDP candidate in my riding would have opposed this STR project, would have been screaming at the top of his lungs about that awful corporation, Ontario Hydro, and the need to get it under control. He even had Ontario Hydro in that list of corporate welfare bums that the NDP used to talk about so frequently in opposition. He pretended, as did many of the NDP candidates -- many of them are now members in this Legislature -- that the NDP somehow had a corner on compassion.

Yes, when I went to the hundreds of doors in my riding of Simcoe West during that election campaign, I was faced with three issues. One was Brian Mulroney, which I could easily answer: I indicated that my boss was Mike Harris and not the Prime Minister of Canada, that we were in a provincial election and that it was not the time to judge the federal party. They'll be judged, I think, within the next eight months; there'll be a federal election.

At the doors I had to deal with the issue -- it was an easier issue, obviously, being an Ontario PC -- of the arrogance of Mr Peterson for calling an early election and the spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax ways of the Liberals, which incidentally we've seen the NDP continue.

Third, I had to deal with what people felt was the person of Bob Rae and the character of Bob Rae, now the Premier of the province. A number of people told me that he was a very smart individual and that there was no way he would ever do the things like allow this STR project to proceed.

A number of people indicated in different ways the tremendous compassion. At that time, you couldn't out-green the NDP. You couldn't be more holier than they were on a number of issues.

If we've seen anything, it's that this government does not have a corner on compassion. If we've seen anything in hindsight, now that we've had the Liberals and the NDP in office, under 42 years of Ontario PC rule, my party has a record on compassion that's second to none, and I make no apology.

We established the schools and the roads that they at one time criticized my predecessors for building, because they said the 401 and the 400 highways were too big and were going nowhere. Well, this afternoon, one need simply get on the highway and see the traffic jam that's there now.

We built the hospitals rather than close hospital beds. We've seen over 5,000 beds closed by the NDP government in the past year, this from a party that pretended to be compassionate. We've seen a freeze on nursing home beds and on beds in homes for the aged. We've seen no movement on long-term care.

In the area of health care, of which I am critic, we certainly see that this government doesn't have compassion. I will speak a little later about the topic I brought forward in the Legislature during the past few question periods regarding the terrible abuse that's going on with the OHIP health card system.

I hope that in the next provincial election the people in the province won't simply go to the polls to kick out a government, as they did when they kicked out David Peterson, but that they'll go to the polls with a positive intention rather than simply booting out a government. When you do that, when you go there simply to mark your X to throw someone out, the chips fall where they may and you end up with this really awful government -- it's about the only way I can politely say it -- a government that's void of compassion, a government that's doing all kinds of things we never, ever would have dreamed it would do.

People ask me on a weekly basis how to get this government out of office. Well, it would take the support of the Liberals and a few backbenchers in the NDP to pass a vote of non-confidence. That's how we get them out of office in our democratic process.

They're doing all kinds of things that no one would have predicted, including allowing this STR project to proceed at the village of Beeton. I think it's immoral. I think it's a crime that a government that at one time talked about preserving agricultural land, a government that recently floated the idea of giving Niagara fruit growers some $20 million to preserve agricultural land, would allow a project to proceed that will usurp, turn into concrete and a massive octopus of wire some 250 acres of some of the most beautiful land in this province.

I hope that when people go to the polls they'll be more positive next time and that they'll vote in a government, because you know in any equation, in any logical or mathematical equation, if you introduce a negative at some point in a sum equation or a difference equation, of course you end up with a negative at the end. When we mix positives and negatives and we want to throw out one government and we want to do all kinds of crazy things, the point that people have to keep in mind is that in our democracy, the way the system was designed, you've got to get the name of the candidate you trust most, the name of the candidate you believe best represents your views and the name of the candidate who won't spend four days a week in Queen's Park or in Ottawa and then go back on the weekend to lecture his or her constituents about what's good for them. That's not what our democracy was designed to accommodate.

Our democracy, when Plato and Aristotle and Burke and yes, even de Tocqueville designed the system, they never envisioned -- and I think this is one of the great problems we're seeing with this government today and indeed with the government in Ottawa -- that politicians would take it upon themselves to decide what's best for their constituents and then, as I say, go home on weekends and lecture people about what's good for them. We've seen that time and time again from this government, which did not learn from the experience of the federal government and the tough time it's going through.

The STR project in Beeton is just one example that I want to raise this afternoon of not listening to the people, of an absolute failure to listen to the people in my riding. I just encourage all the good residents of Beeton and Tecumseth township and the town of New Tecumseth to keep the pressure on, because it was the NDP that invented, as a political tool, the petition and the demonstrations out front. It's come back to haunt them in terms of hardly a day going that by we don't see demonstrations out in front of Queen's Park.

Another terrible ill that's been inflicted upon the good people of the village of Beeton deals with the construction of what we call locally the McKelvey well. It was an attempt, if I may give some history, prior to Beeton being restructured, prior to the village being incorporated with three other municipalities to form the town of New Tecumseth -- I may add, a forced restructuring by the Liberals: no public debate, simply a passage of Bills 177 and 178, and forcing these people to become part of a larger, amalgamated municipality. Somehow the Liberals and the NDP are doing the same thing in the north part of Simcoe county. Somehow these two other parties believe that bigger is better and that bigger government and more bureaucracy somehow brings efficiency. I don't see it, and I've been opposed to these restructurings.

1720

But before they were restructured in January 1990, the village of Beeton council was, I think through no fault of its own, led along a financial garden path that's really led to increases in water rates, over the last couple of months, of 181%. That's the average increase of water rates in the village of Beeton today.

When the well was initially proposed, it was going to be a $700,000 project. In a letter I wrote on October 14 to Ruth Grier -- to which I've not received a response today, but I'm still waiting -- I note:

"The project started at $700,000 to upgrade both the village's well capacity and the quality of its water. By October 1988, the estimate had risen to $2.5 million. Ten months later, the cost to upgrade the well rose to $3.2 million. In June 1990, Beeton council was approached with a new cost estimate for the same project of approximately $6 million. There was one more increase in store to the original cost of $700,00. By January of this year, 1992, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Labour dictated that the final bill would be $6.7 million."

As a result, we've seen a tremendous increase in the water rates paid by the 2,300 residents in the village of Beeton. They cannot afford -- many of them are unemployed. It's a beautiful area of the province, but it's not, by any stretch of the imagination, a wealthy area of the province. We find that many people live there because they want to own a home and they couldn't afford home prices in Toronto so they've moved into Beeton. They're just great people, who came out in full force just a few weeks ago to the Beeton arena, some 400 residents, to scream as loudly as they could that they weren't going to put up with this nonsense from the NDP government.

It's incumbent upon the NDP government to pay the full cost of the McKelvey well, simply because all the way along -- the project, as I said, was originally estimated to cost $700,000, ends up at $6.7 million; the town has had to debenture several million dollars over 15 years, the interest has to be paid on that, and therefore water rates have skyrocketed -- all the way along the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of the Environment couldn't decide, couldn't get their act together, and over a three-year period kept imposing new standards, new rules, new regulations. Unilaterally, the government, Queen's Park, through the ministries of Labour and the Environment, drove the cost of this project up to some nine times the original cost estimate.

It's also seen in the local area, and I think it's true, that because of a filtration and limestone system that's used in this well, the well is very unique to Ontario; in fact, we are told it's a guinea pig project, a pilot project. The people of Beeton certainly feel they're being used as guinea pigs.

As a result of occupational health and safety, as I said, new environmental rules that were being made up by Ruth Grier, the Minister of the Environment and her bureaucrats, the cost of this project went through the roof and some 2,300 residents are stuck with water bills -- I don't think you'll believe how high they are. At that meeting some weeks ago in the Beeton arena, people got up, actually had their water bills in hand, and they were quoting $600 for two months; that would be $300 a month. It seemed to me the average was about $150 to $220 per month for water. It's unbelievable.

Again, I call upon the government, the government that, when it was running for office, pretended to have so much compassion, to have some understanding that the people of the village of Beeton cannot possibly pay the $6.7 million for this project, cannot possibly pay their share of that $6.7 million. It's incumbent upon the government to really show its compassion and to alleviate these people from these tremendous water bills.

The next issue I want to raise on behalf of rural Ontario involves a municipal drain. Last Friday the issue made the front page of a local newspaper called the Enterprise-Bulletin, which is one of the two newspapers in Collingwood. The headline is: "Angry Residents Slam Ministry's Drain 'Bungle': Public Meeting Held in Nottawa." I just want to quote from that. It says:

"The residents said they were frustrated at what some described as 'the inadequate answers and lack of knowledge of engineers and Ministry of Transportation officials'; angry at how ministry's 'bungled' attempts to improve drainage along Highway 24 two years ago have worsened the drainage situation and caused flooding on several properties and fearful they will have to pay for a municipal drain that the Ministry of Transportation now wants installed to correct the problem."

I just want to quote from a local resident in the same article: "Ted Petter reported his basement was flooded this spring and caused a great deal of damage. The drain project being proposed by the ministry could only make things worse," he says. But "The ministry is adamant about wanting the municipal drain installed." Mr Kivell, who is a senior official of the Ministry of Transportation, "pointed out that the township" -- that's the township of Nottawasaga -- "has no alternative but to deal with the ministry's request. Any attempt to do otherwise could result in Nottawasaga township being hauled up in front of a provincial tribunal to explain itself."

That's from the local engineers explaining to the township, "You have no choice but to accept the petition for a municipal drain that's been forced upon the people of Nottawasaga township along Highway 24 by the Ministry of Transportation."

I spoke on October 6, I believe it was, to the Honourable Gilles Pouliot, the Minister of Transportation, about this issue. He assured me in his eloquent way -- and you know how eloquent he can be in the House -- that he was going to get to the bottom of this issue, that he would find out whether his ministry had really bungled this project. I believe the evidence we've submitted to date indicates that when they redeveloped Highway 24 some two years ago, they simply screwed up, they simply failed to properly engineer a drainage system under the highway which would drain some of the properties adjacent to the highway.

It's incumbent upon the ministry not to petition and impose a municipal drain for which the local ratepayers will have to pick up the tab. It's incumbent upon the Ministry of Transportation to get back to the project, to correct what it did wrong in the first place. The Minister of Transportation, just outside in the hallway, just outside of this Legislative chamber, absolutely assured me that he would get to the bottom of this and get back to me. He never did.

I even put it in writing. On October 7, I wrote him, I thought, a very thorough, a very good letter, explaining the pleas of local residents, indicating the tremendous frustration that of course is seen now in the local paper and the meeting that was held last week, frustration that a government that pretended to be compassionate, a government that would never ever do this sort of thing, impose projects on municipalities that ratepayers simply can't afford to pay for -- goodness knows, we're taxed to the hilt now -- that a government with such compassion would never allow the Ministry of Transportation to be heavy-handed in this manner and impose such a damning project on the area.

But the minister has never got back to me, so I'm kind of hoping that by raising it today in the opportunity I have, perhaps his bureaucrats who may be watching the television, his officials, and perhaps the minister himself -- because he's not in the Legislature, I am sad to point out -- will take to heart the words he told me and will actually get to the bottom of this.

Simply, what we're asking for is that ministry engineers, rather than the current situation, which is that they've got their backs up -- we've got an engineer down in London district office, the regional office, who refuses to admit that he could have possibly made a mistake when doing up the engineering drawings and specifications for the development of Highway 24.

We've got bureaucrats with their backs up. We've got a minister failing to respond. We've got a government that says it's compassionate, but by any stretch of the imagination, it has not demonstrated compassion in the past two years.

I ask the government, put your money where your mouth is. Get back to this project, straighten out a mistake that was clearly made by the ministry and don't impose a municipal drain on the residents of the north end of Nottawasaga township. It's unfair, it's uncalled for and it simply won't be tolerated. I can tell you, the local residents are banding together in large numbers to oppose this project and they're quite adamant about it.

1730

Another issue that affects rural Ontario is one that I have raised in this Legislature several times, by raising it in this Legislature and by writing both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Education. It involves the construction of a new school. What we have in Nottawasaga township is what we call Nottawa public school. It's 73 years old. I'll read some quotes from some parents here. It in no way is fit for the purposes of educating students. We have cupboards that are being used as offices. We have a very old structure that has deteriorated to the point where it is indeed an extreme public safety hazard. Occupational health and safety standards in no way are being met in this building. I've called upon the government, again, to put its money where its mouth is, to put its priorities in order and help us to reconstruct a new school in Nottawasaga township.

We've been through all the hoops on this. We've played all the games with both the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Education, who by the way can't seem to get their acts together. We have the Ministry of the Environment saying, "No more rural schools; the day of the rural school is over." The Minister of the Environment told me in this Legislature that actually that school shouldn't be allowed to go in rural Nottawasaga township. It should be just torn down and those kids should be bused to the town of Collingwood, several miles away, up Highway 24.

I guess the government doesn't care about rural Ontario. I guess the government has no appreciation for the good people and the rural way of life that is so widely enjoyed by so many individuals in my riding. It was a very sad day for me when the Minister of the Environment, a minister of the crown, would drive such a stake through the heart of rural Ontario. She's encouraging the Sewell commission and some of her other studies to come forward with recommendations that would really put an end to schools in rural Ontario. It's absolutely crazy. That's the only way I can describe this.

I want to thank Roger Dey, who is a local resident of Nottawasaga township, Collingwood, for bringing forward much of the information I have and many of the concerns of the parents.

On March 20, 1990, again from the Enterprise-Bulletin, we see: "Parents Call for School in Nottawa: Group vows provincial action if request denied."

"About 20 anxious parents accompanied a delegation to the Simcoe County Board of Education here Tuesday night to ask about plans for a replacement school for the overcrowded Nottawa public school."

It goes on to say:

"Because the school does not have a gym, students are bused every week to use other school facilities in Collingwood at a cost of $25,300 a year, said Ms Morrison. She added that over 200 hours of class time per year is taken out because of the bus trips. 'We feel that that is totally unacceptable,' said Ms Morrison."

It goes on to explain the overcrowded conditions and the state of disrepair of the 73-year-old building.

Joanne McKee, from RR 2, Collingwood, wrote to trustees back in April. She said:

"My children are requesting from us to transfer them to a school in Collingwood as they cannot understand and accept that they have to attend a school that is rundown, outdated, overcrowded, no facilities," and the list goes on and on, she says.

Mrs Isobel McKee, who is a very good friend of mine and a wonderful citizen of this province, wrote, back in May:

"We do not want our children bused to Collingwood. We like the small community we live in. Our school is very old and does not have an all-purpose room or gym. So our kids spend too much time on the bus."

The point of all of this is that the government is ignoring rural Ontario and schools in rural Ontario. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. As I said, we've been through all the hoops. The Ministry of the Environment says you can't have a school unless you put it on at least 54 acres of land, so we've backed off opposition to that point, and we've found a new site for the school on 54 acres of land, which is excessive.

I've talked to Ruth Grier personally. I've brought it up in the House many times. She refuses to look at the new technology out there to deal with liquid waste disposal. She refuses to deal with that. She refused to have her bureaucrats do any in-depth studies on what technology we could be using so that school boards like the Simcoe county public school board aren't required to have 54 or 60 acres of land every time they want to build or rebuild or redevelop a rural school.

We've said: "Okay, we can't outgreen the NDP on this one. If that's what the Minister of the Environment is telling the Minister of Education must be done, then fine. But we need the money to do it." On that point, the school is number one on the priority capital spending list for new schools of the Simcoe County Board of Education. That list of what projects would be funded by the Ministry of Education and by this government should have been out last May or June. For some reason, unprecedented in this province, this government has not, to date, released the capital funding list for new schools or for replacement schools. Parents are left up in the air. Children, of course, are just totally run out of the equation. Rural life is just forgotten by this government and is, in fact, condemned by the Minister of the Environment. Local trustees are frustrated, the school board can't do the planning required etc, etc, etc.

My understanding, though -- and it's to say there is some light at the end of the tunnel, I hope -- is that Mr Silipo, the Minister of Education, has heard the pleas of the parents, has heard the pleas I've made on behalf of the residents of my riding, and it's rumoured that this Thursday the government will make public its capital projects list. Having seen the school, having listened to all of the very logical arguments concerning the need for a new school, I hope that of all the projects in the province, a Nottawa public school will be at the top of the new school capital project list this Thursday.

It's certainly my hope, because I am very worried, since the government hasn't released its list, that perhaps it's doing something funny with its funding and we may not have a positive announcement on Thursday. But I once again plead, because there's still time, with the Minister of Education, with this government to get its priorities in order and to fund those projects that the public really wants funded.

The public doesn't give a damn and doesn't want you to do a number of things you're doing. One glaring example comes to mind, and that is the some $100 million this government's going to spend over the next few years, and has already started spending, on driving the private sector out of day care. It's a glaring example of where an ideological disposition, an NDP ideology, a socialist ideology takes precedence for this government over the real needs of the people of Ontario.

What we see in that case is that the government will spend, as I say, almost $100 million, not creating any new day care spaces -- it has set aside another $30 million for that -- but simply setting up so-called non-profit day care centres across the road from so-called profit or private day care centres and driving the private ones out of business, simply because this government believes that "profit" is a dirty word, that capitalism is something that shouldn't be discussed in our schools, and that somehow, in order to ensure that our children grow up with an NDP ideological socialist disposition, it needs to take control of our kids at a young age and make sure they're in government-run day cares.

1740

I want to tell the people of the province what the word "non-profit" means in this case, and it's a good example from my riding. We have a day care in one of the towns in my riding which a woman has run for the past nine years. She's had 25 kids in that day care. The most she's ever made in profit, which she calls her salary, as the owner of that day care is probably $18,000 to $20,000 a year, she tells me.

Under the new non-profit scheme, government comes in. She sets up a so-called non-profit day care centre -- converts her private centre into a non-profit centre. She's going to make more money than she ever dreamed of. She's going to be able to pay herself some $30,000 as executive director of the new non-profit day care centre. She can hire some assistant directors to help her out. The government's going to pay all the bills. The bottom line is there are still just 25 children in that facility. They're getting the same care. They're playing with the same toys. They're getting the same level of instruction that they did previously.

It's a ripoff for the taxpayer, this non-profit business, and it has been an attempt, and I think this government has been somewhat successful over the years, to change the vocabulary of the English language -- and the French language, I guess -- in the province of Ontario, where, as I say, "profit" is a dirty word, where the private sector, which we know creates the real jobs, is somehow to be discouraged and the government is to do everything for us, including taking over the minds of little children.

Before my time expires I want to talk about another issue that is very much on the minds of good people in my riding of Simcoe West. I have had, over my riding appointments each week, dozens of parents from both the north end of my riding, in the Collingwood area, and the south end, the Alliston-Tottenham area, representatives of both the Collingwood Community Living Association and the Community Living Association of South Simcoe. Parents meet with me and plead with me not to close their sheltered workshops for their children and young adults.

I've tried to make it clear that as an opposition member I'm not the one closing the sheltered workshops, that Marion Boyd, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and Bob Rae are closing the sheltered workshops. Why? Again because Marion Boyd, the minister, tells me in the estimates committee a couple of weeks ago that she doesn't agree that these workshops are beneficial to the clients they serve. She was very forceful in indicating -- she went so far as to say that these workshops are abusive environments, that for children who have benefited for many, many years from the protection of a sheltered workshop like ARC Industries in Collingwood, and young adults, developmentally handicapped individuals who have benefited, somehow this government knows what's best. It knows what's best once again and is doing what we never thought we'd see in a democratic system. It's lecturing to my constituents and to the parents of developmentally handicapped individuals that "Big Brother knows what's best. These workshops are bad for you and we've got to close them."

We see the Minister of Community and Social Services taking some $5 million out of the sheltered workshop money, closing down the triministry money that our community living associations depend on and transferring some of that money to the supports to employment program because somehow in this Utopian NDP society, this society that has no relation to reality or common sense, these developmentally handicapped individuals are going to be out in the workforce.

Goodness knows the unemployment rate is at staggering levels for all people in this province. I don't think we've yet developed a mechanism or a program that will see developmentally handicapped individuals fully employed in mainstream Ontario. While I think it's like arguing about motherhood -- of course we all agree that developmentally handicapped individuals should have tremendous opportunities and that the state has a role in helping parents provide those opportunities -- I don't think it's the role of the state to tell the people of my riding that government knows best and that these people are in abusive situations in terms of workshops when clearly that isn't the case. Clearly, the exact opposite is true and the parents truly know what's best for their young developmentally handicapped children and the young adults in those workshops.

It really is mind-boggling that the Minister of Community and Social Services and Bob Rae's government would allow itself once again, on another issue, to get captured by specific interest groups that say everybody should get the minimum wage; sheltered workshops have to go; they're abusive environments. Absolute bunk, and another indication that the government's been captured by -- I could name them, but I won't -- a couple of Toronto-based very vocal interest groups that are being pandered to by this government.

I ask the Minister of Community and Social Services and any member of government to come and tour the sheltered workshops in my riding, meet with the parents. We know we've seen -- I think it's in Newmarket -- where one of the workshops has been closed. The government's alternative has been to gather these developmentally handicapped individuals into a gymnasium now, every morning. Instead of going on a bus to the workshop and producing some wonderful products for consumption by the public and for other commercial enterprises and industries and doing meaningful, productive work, these young adults, developmentally handicapped individuals, are now meeting every morning in a gymnasium. They're being served cookies and orange juice and they're being babysat all day because the supports to employment program doesn't work.

Not everybody can sweep the floor at McDonald's and not everybody wants to sweep the floor at McDonald's. Sheltered workshops have to stay. They're a necessary part of our community. They're an indication of society's compassion and an indication of society's understanding of the needs of developmentally handicapped individuals. For the government to play a shell game, for the government to say it's transferring money from one budget to the other because the other one's going to be more beneficial, simply ignores the wishes of parents and of developmentally handicapped individuals in my riding.

I've carried on on a number of issues. I've tried to bring forward issues on behalf of my constituents in the time allotted with the sincere attempt to have the government listen, to have the government understand what real people are saying out there about what they want from their government, because government is here to respond to the needs of the people. As I said, we're not here, or should not be here -- any members who think their job is to lecture to people what's good for them have simply misunderstood why they should have run for office in the first place. If that's the attitude of Bob Rae and the NDP government, then they should be thrown out of office.

Unfortunately, a downside of the system is that you have to wait for elections, unless we can convince some of the backbenchers in the NDP, who privately will tell you they don't agree with Bob Rae and his cabinet ministers -- unless we can convince them, along with the Liberals, to support a non-confidence motion, we're stuck with them. So facing reality and realizing we're stuck with them for another couple of years, I plead with them to listen to the people of my riding on these very important issues.

One very brief, final issue: It concerns all members of the Legislature. I wrote to the Honourable Karen Haslam on November 21, 1991, concerning TVOntario. It concerns the TV coverage in this Legislature. Most of my riding doesn't have cable TV. Even a number of people who live in the town of Alliston, including my own parents, can't afford the $20 a month, the $21 a month, which may not be much money to a cabinet minister making $120,000 a year, but it's a lot of money to my unemployed father -- can't afford cable, yet they have to wait in rural Ontario, in an area that's not serviced by cable TV, till 12:30 or 1 o'clock at night until question period is repeated. It's absolutely disgusting.

I've written the minister. She referred it to -- I don't even know the chair of TVOntario any more. Some minion over there wrote me back a four-page letter with the greatest amount of bureaucratese I've ever seen in my life, not once answering any of my questions.

The point of my letter was that either you consider Parliament and democracy important or you don't, and if it's important, TVOntario should be televising this House and question period before 12:30 at night. My constituents aren't owls, they're people. Some of them even still have jobs and have to get up in the morning and work, and they can't stay up till 12:30, 1 o'clock.

1750

The other night question period was bumped to 1:10 because there was a home insulation program on. A home insulation program is more important than democracy and question period. Either you believe in this place, which is doubtful at the best of times, and you believe in democracy and you believe that our constituents, whether they can afford cable TV or not, have the right to see and hear what their elected representatives are doing on their behalf, or you don't. If you don't believe in it, tell me; don't send me four pages' worth of bureaucratese to tell me nothing.

I plead with the government. This is something very simple they could do. It should be at 6 o'clock when everybody can watch it, so that cable TV viewers and others are all treated equally in this province, whether they can afford a luxury service or not.

I want to end by simply thanking all members for listening attentively this afternoon. There wasn't a lot of heckling, as is often the case. Perhaps there's some hope that the environment here in the Legislative Assembly, in the chamber itself, is going to improve over the next little while, because I think people are discouraged when we simply scream at each other.

So I, this afternoon, in a very reasoned way have brought five or six very important issues, I've explained the issues in depth, I've given my personal opinion, I've given the opinion of my constituents to the government, and I hope in all sincerity that the government will listen to the pleas of my constituents. The taxpayers know what priorities should be the government's priorities. I simply ask the government to kick out its own ideology, to abandon an ideological disposition and to listen to the real people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much for your participation. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I almost couldn't believe my ears when I heard the member for Simcoe West talk about 42 years of compassionate government under the Tories in this province. He talked about all the things that are going on. He also talked about Ontario Hydro and its situation. I'm sure there are many members in this House who were involved for years, when the Tory government was in power, about debates over transmission lines, about where they went. He's trying to say that their government was compassionate to those concerns. Well, we know that was not the case.

He also talked a little bit about managing issues, and he said he was listening to the member for Renfrew North. He talked about the number of hospital beds, but what he didn't talk about were comments from the hospital association meeting last week, where they were commenting on the fact that the number of job losses was significantly less than what they had predicted; as a matter of fact, I think they said very few. That has to do with leadership and management provided by the Minister of Health and this government. I think that point needs to be made quite clear.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I want to compliment the member for Simcoe West on the sincerity and substance of his comments. I think that on an issue such as supply we have an opportunity in this House to talk about important matters of government, to talk about important matters for our riding and for the province. I think it is very sad to note that when a speaker such as the member for Simcoe West entered into debate in the way he has, the opposition members -- I think I counted 13 of them -- were reading Frank magazine, which is probably the intellectual level of the caucus.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I don't have any difficulty supporting the government's supply bill for those services that are needed by the public, nor do I have any difficulty, of course, in paying our civil service. But I have a great deal of difficulty with the decisions this Bob Rae socialist government has made in terms of funding. One of the areas that frankly breaks my heart is the people who cannot look after themselves. When we deal with some of these areas, some of which the former speaker referred to -- I'm looking at Community Living Mississauga, with a $30,000 cut from its sheltered workshops. That translates into the loss of one staff person and adult day services for seven or eight developmentally disabled adults.

If there's any question here about whether this government cares about people, I just want to read one example of a family affected by the cuts made by this government.

"Mrs A was terminally ill and was hospitalized in August 1991. She died in the spring of 1992. During this, her son J was strongly affected and began to regress. Six weeks of camp were applied for in order to permit J as much social peer interaction and integration as possible. When only four weeks were approved, Mr A hired a babysitter. J's interactions with other children during the seven weeks he did not attend camp were minimal. There was not as much improvement in his social or communication skills as in previous summers, when he attended camp for eight weeks. Hiring the babysitter also placed considerable financial strain on Mr A."

This is not acceptable. This government is not looking after people who cannot look after themselves.

Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did want to correct the record. I indicated that opposition members were reading Frank magazine, but it was the government members; and it wasn't 13 of them, it was 14 of them reading Frank magazine during the debate.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I listened with great interest to the member for Simcoe West. If I heard him correctly, he was suggesting that we solve some very new, very unique problems in the world of economics, certainly in the world of the economy of the province of Ontario, with some old solutions. I think what we have to do is look at exactly what's happening, not just in Ontario, not just in North America, but around the world. There's a lot of restructuring taking place, and what this restructuring means is that the cyclical changes within economies that we've watched, that have come and gone since the last Great Depression, have been corrected or adjusted in ways we've all come to accept -- maybe more or less, I guess.

But let me make it clear to the member opposite that things have changed so dramatically that we have to do things differently. Some of these things we want to do differently are, in my opinion, the sorts of things that create within the members of the opposition all the comments and all the dialogue we hear from time to time. We have to respond to these changes in a way that changes the structure of how we manage this very difficult deficit. I want to say too that governments for many years have done things that we don't think are really good, but it's been a cumulative problem, a problem that we have to address very directly today.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe West has two minutes in response.

Mr Jim Wilson: I won't take two minutes, because we want to have a vote on interim supply and I don't want to be personally responsible for the government not being able to pay its bills. But I do sincerely hope that government members and ministers and the Premier will take to heart some of the suggestions I've made in my comments this afternoon and will truly listen to the people.

I'm not confident that they've understood everything I've said this afternoon, and that was indicated in the responses from the government members just a few moments ago. I think they may have missed the boat. On that note, I think we should proceed to a vote on interim supply.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bradley: I guess there's no time left, is there? I wanted to speak for about two hours, and there's no time left.

The Acting Speaker: Before I recognize the clock, if there is no further debate, and there does not appear to be, Mr Laughren has moved notice of motion number 20 for interim supply.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Laughren's motion carry?

All those in favour of Mr Laughren's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6 of the clock, this House will stand adjourned until tomorrow, November 3, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1801.