The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask for unanimous consent of the House to switch the order of presentation of our ballots between myself and Mr Perruzza. I have spoken to him about it, I have spoken to Mr Cooke and also to my friend Mr Eves. Because of the advent of the 11 o'clock House leaders' meeting, I would ask that unanimous consent be given.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

STANDING ORDERS / REFORM RÉFORME DU RÈGLEMENT

Mr Elston moved resolution number 31:

That, in the opinion of this House,

Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

Whereas recognizing that Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time members may speak to only 30 minutes; and

Whereas recognizing that Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers which in turn makes them less accountable to the House and people of Ontario; and

Whereas recognizing that Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

Whereas recognizing that Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them; and

Whereas recognizing that these rules diminish the rights of the minority to properly voice their concerns and limit their privilege to utilize the mechanisms of Parliament as full and equal members of the House,

Premier Rae and the government of Ontario must withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I bring this to the floor of the House in my private members' time because of several reasons, but one of them certainly is that in order that this place function, the people who are elected to represent their constituents must be able to speak their minds on any piece of legislation.

I have been here since 1981 and I understand, probably as well as anybody, that you will never find a unanimous position in this House on every occasion. In fact, it's very rare that you'll find a unanimous position inside any of our caucuses.

I've been a member of a government caucus, I've been a member of cabinet and I've been a member of opposition caucuses and I can tell you that I understand the dynamic that goes on inside the caucus meetings. I understand that there are days on which cabinet ministers come in to present their material to the caucus members in general and receive a fair bit of intensive questioning as to the ramifications of their particular policy position and whether or not it's within rational, sensible policy to be introduced on the public at large.

I can understand as well what goes on inside opposition caucuses; not just my own, but I can understand what goes on inside the Conservative caucus and the opposition New Democratic Party caucus in the days when it was in opposition. There's intense debate.

The one difficulty beyond anything else is that those debates, in cabinet or in caucus, whether government or opposition caucus, are done in private -- not necessarily in secret, because there are a whole bunch of ways that information gets out. In fact, to the chagrin of government and even opposition caucuses from time to time, the debate itself almost verbatim gets out into the public.

But what happens when this forum, this Legislative Assembly, which is for the very purpose of airing every opinion of every member who represents his or her constituents, is prevented from carrying out its function? You end up with a diminution of the democracy we all respect and desire.

I am putting this obviously from the point of view of an opposition politician who is frustrated, but I can tell you I put it from the point also of someone who believes that some time the Liberal Party will come back to power. Whether that happens sooner or later is with regard to how people vote.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Later, hopefully.

Mr Elston: It'll maybe be later. Who knows? But I do it in the sense that I have an understanding that the people will elect another government at some time, that at some time, perhaps, I will serve in a government administration, and that at some time I will be frustrated in not having the most efficient move of legislation from my desk through this place and into the public domain as a law of this province.

I understand what the desire for efficiency is all about. But I also understand, I think, better than most, because of the issues I handled when I was a minister, that the population in general cannot be expected to understand or even accept the introduction of new policy or changes which radically alter the way the society of which we are members is conducted if they have not had a chance to listen to and to participate, in committee, through letter-writing or some other means with their member, in the debate.

Democracy is an interesting tool. It does allow the majority to have its sway in regard to public policy. That's well known and I respect that, but the element that distinguishes democracy from many of the other forms of government is that it ensures that the minority may speak in a way which puts its position effectively and often, if it wishes, in contrast to the position being established by the majority. If you cannot do that, then you cannot claim to have a democracy and you cannot claim to have a chamber which represents a democratic institution.

We've had very serious differences of opinion and the government knew we would have serious differences of opinion with respect to Bill 40, the labour relations amendment act. So what happened? They introduced Bill 40 and the next day they dropped the new rules on the table and they said: "You will accept these and they will be done the way we want them done so that we can efficiently put this bill through this Legislative Assembly. We don't care if you don't like what we're doing. We don't care that there is a substantial group of people in our society that disagrees with us. We will have our way."

So after three days of second reading debate, we ended up losing any other opportunity to speak to the bill on principle, except as was allowed by the time allocation motion that the new rules allowed the government party to introduce. It shut us down. It did not let the members of the Liberal caucus speak against the bill or for it, if they chose. It did not allow every member of the Tory caucus to speak for or against the bill, as he or she chose. It did not even allow the backbench members or any of the ministers, necessarily, of the New Democratic Party government to speak for or against the bill. In fact, what was happening was that a very small number of people were allowed to speak, when every constituency, right from one side to the other of this province, was affected by this major policy change.

While I understand that policies are not unanimously accepted, there is a sense that there is legitimacy if the people are allowed to put their points, to have their case studied in their council chamber. That's all this place is. Because of the very nature of this place, the majority vote is always going to carry. But what the majority has done with the new rules is to have its way without allowing any venting of any of the opposition -- or virtually none of the opposition -- in this place by those who opposed Bill 40.

1010

It doesn't just stop there. You see, it is a general application of the rule changes, not just for the purpose of that one bill. We have had time allocation, or we have had the threat of time allocation, with respect to several other pieces of legislation since these rules came in on June 22, as I just noted.

We cannot allow this to carry on if we are to allow ourselves to talk about having a democratic society. We cannot allow ourselves to represent our constituents and say, "I will put your case in the Legislative Assembly," when each of the members knows full well here that she or he will have almost no opportunity to put their case when a controversial bill appears.

Most of us don't want to speak to all of the bills. Most of our constituencies are not affected by all of the bills to the degree which requires us to interject on all occasions. As members, we choose the places where our constituents propel us to become involved, or, on occasion, people like me who move from one area of criticism to another to assist schedules of our members speak on more than area so that we can put the case for the caucus as has been determined by our consultations around the legislation.

In any event, we can no longer tell our constituents when we go back that we can assure them we'll speak on this issue, because not only are we not apt to get on the list because of the numbers of people who are present here to speak, but we probably can't even get on the list in committee, because the committee itself is restricted in such a way by the time allocation allowed under these new rules that we are prevented from having any kind of free-rein debate or discussion in those committees that really lets us examine the policy. The rules do that. They shut us down. They prevent an airing of the views of the minority. They do, by the way, prevent an airing of the views of the majority on many occasions. That also is a bad effect of the rules that we have now, and a reason why they should be thrown out.

I am really concerned that we cannot claim to have a democracy with the rules that we now have. The manner in which the time allocation motions have read for Bill 40 and others is such that there is no way that we can even examine the nature of the amendments to the bill which are being put. You've probably heard me on occasion stand and complain that none of the amendments to Bill 40 were read, or at least a substantial number of them were not even read, during the committee time.

We were also told that it doesn't matter any more. Well, it does matter for the purposes of our constituents. It does matter for the purpose of democracy. If we really want to be democratic, we've got to change these rules.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm going to be relatively brief, because I want to leave the majority of the time for our House leader, the member for Parry Sound.

When a number of proposals were brought forward by the government House leader to change our standing orders, our caucus took the position of entering into negotiation with the House leader notwithstanding the manner in which they were presented to us, sort of in a very secretive form one Thursday evening, and we found out about those proposals by the government House leader in the Monday morning papers, not through a proper communication with other House leaders about the kinds of changes that the government House leader sought.

The timing of them also was very unfortunate because we were entering into a debate on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation, Bill 40, which we vehemently opposed and which the government strongly supported. But we looked at it in a constructive sense and said yes, the people of Ontario, perhaps looking in on these debates, were not satisfied with the standing orders and the order of debate. So we entered into negotiations and sought some improvements. Unfortunately, those improvements did not include any of the suggestions we put forward to the government House leader which in our view were not all to the advantage of the opposition but would have been to the advantage of all members here.

In the end, we voted for the changes because we thought of the good intentions, the understanding behind the written words, the understanding not only by the government House leader as to how those rules would be used, in as few instances as possible, but also that the Chair would take the intention of those rules, and in making rulings upon the new wording, would draw an equal line between the government's right to govern and the opposition's right to oppose.

Well, Mr Speaker, I must say that we are not very happy, particularly with the way the Chair has ruled upon these new standing orders. We are not very happy that the Chair evidently now has taken the position that the rules are there for the government of the day and not for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We are not very happy about the way the government House leader has used these rules to cut off debate and to cut off putting forward meaningful amendments.

Our party put forward some 94 or 96 amendments to Bill 40, on behalf of many of the people who came forward during public hearings, during that debate, and some of those amendments were not even read in this Legislature. We find that an insult to the people who came in front of that committee. Therefore, we have found that the working out of these rules, as per our understanding as to some goodwill on the part of the government House leader and a fair interpretation taking into account both the government side and the opposition side, and the understanding we have about how this place works -- we had hoped that the Chair, the Speaker, would make rulings that were fair to both sides.

I must say that after one of his rulings, particularly on a time allocation motion, there was serious consideration on this side of the House for a censure motion against the Speaker. That doesn't happen very often in Parliament. I think the last time that happened was by a former New Democratic Party leader, Donald MacDonald, against John Turner who sat in your chair in the early 1980s. Mr Speaker, we decided not to do that at this time, but we are that concerned about how pro-government the Speaker has become in using these new rules to shut down the opposition. I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that while we considered that, we decided not to go ahead because we believe the integrity of this institution is more important and perhaps we can work this out at some future time.

That is why we will be voting very strongly in favour of Mr Elston's motion today. We do not believe either the Chair, the Speaker or the government House leader has used and interpreted these rules to the best possible way for all members of this Legislature, in the manner in which we thought they would be used when we negotiated and agreed to them back in June.

I guess what I'm saying is that we were perhaps wrong in giving support at that time. At that time, we had thought, in good faith, that we could continue to make this place a constructive, meaningful place for debate of the business of the people of Ontario. Perhaps we were wrong at that time.

At this time, we would urge all members of the Legislature to support Mr Elston and go back to the standing orders, if we want to talk about negotiating the standing orders prior to June 5, and let's negotiate another set of rules so that we can return this place to a meaningful Legislature as it was prior to that date.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cochrane South stood up before you did.

1020

Mr Bisson: First of all, I want to say right off the top that I will not be supporting Mr Elston's motion, and I want to lay out fairly clearly why.

One of the things Mr Elston talks about in his motion is that he is upset, along with some of the people in the opposition, that somehow they've lost their ability to be able to express themselves on a number of views.

First of all, the way the rules applied before, members could get up ad infinitum -- some of the members of our own party have done that in the past -- and speak at length on an issue, not allowing other members in the Legislature to be able to get up in their places to speak.

One of the difficulties we saw under the old rules, let's say during second reading -- let's say we allow, through the process of the Legislative Assembly, two, three or four days for second reading on a particular bill -- is that somebody would get up from one party or another -- and this is not criticizing opposition or government; I think we're all equally into this thing -- one member would stand up and take up most of the time. What then ended up happening was that a lot of members had no opportunity to speak on that particular bill in order to bring forward the views from that person's individual riding, if that particular member had heard from the people there.

One of the things this rule does is that it turns around and limits us as politicians to really try to get to the point in debate, being able to say: "You have 30 minutes in order to put forward your view. If you have 30 minutes to put forward your view, put that concisely so that people out there can understand what your views are. Be more concise about what you're saying."

One of the things that is interesting since the new rules have come into place is that people in my riding and in other places in the province have told me that at least the Legislature is now a little bit more interesting to watch when it comes to debates on bills. Before, they would sit there and watch the same person speak for two or three hours and sometimes two days on a particular bill, and people wouldn't bother watching it. They said, "That person has repeated himself six times over and that's just enough of that." One thing people -- I'm not saying all, but a lot of people -- are saying is, "At least now we're hearing various points of view, which makes it a little bit more interesting."

The other point I want to make is on the question, Monsieur le Président, faisant affaire avec le processus démocratique devant l'Assemblée législative.

M. Elston dit, dans sa motion, qu'il y a la peur que ce processus-là des règlements qu'on a changés ôte les droits des députés de l'Assemblée faisant affaire avec leurs droits démocratiques dans l'Assemblée. Mais les Libéraux, pour se planter ici aujourd'hui dans l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario et parler d'un processus démocratique quand leur chef fédéral, M. Chrétien, veut appointer quelqu'un pour être représentant à l'élection fédérale sans avoir un processus démocratique pour les personnes de cette circonscription-là pour choisir leur député, écoutez, j'ai un peu un problème. Tu ne peux pas parler des deux bords de ta bouche en même temps.

The other thing I want to say very quickly is that the question is the amount of reduced days within the time of the Legislature. The member has put forward in this resolution the question that somehow, because we're away from this place one additional week per year, it's taking away from the ability of people to be in touch with their politicians in the Legislature. Excuse me, but one of the things most people in all our ridings, including those of members of the opposition, complain about justifiably is that members are never in their ridings. Why? Because we spend a lot of time in Toronto dealing with important business within the Legislature.

I think politics, and the whole system as far as what's happened in the Ontario over the years is concerned, have put us in the position where the people of our ridings demand more time from us to be able to be in our riding in order to deal with the concerns of the men and the women in our ridings.

I think that's an equal criticism all members of this Legislature get: The people of our ridings want us there. It's not to say that we shouldn't be in Toronto. Obviously, we wear two hats in our role. We are legislators, but we also are people who listen to the problems of the people of our ridings and try to advocate for change for those particular things. The losing of the one day within the whole sessional calendar to be able to be in our ridings I don't see as a negative thing.

Mr Elston: One day?

Mr Bisson: Or one week; excuse me.

Mr Elston: Two; you'd better start reading the calendar.

Mr Bisson: It is not a thing that I think takes away anything from our ability to be able to do our jobs. If it does anything, it gives us more of an opportunity to be directly within our ridings to do our jobs.

The last thing -- and I would challenge Mr Elston to respond to this particular point -- is that if he believes this -- and that is his right, and he can express himself and I respect his views; I just happen to have a different opinion on it -- I would ask him to tell me at the end of this debate, if he were elected, if his Liberal Party or the Conservative Party were elected as government the next time around, would they repeal the rules and put them back to the same way? I would challenge to see what would happen the next time, if they're fortunate enough to be able to be elected at the next election.

Mr Elston: I already said that would be my position. Why didn't you listen to my debate? Take the cotton batting out of your ears.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Normally we go in rotation. So you accept?

Mr Elston: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Parry Sound.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm going to make my comments brief this morning with respect to this private member's ballot item. I want to talk primarily, I guess, about what I think has been a restriction on the role of the Speaker in the Legislative Assembly as a result of these rule changes, and I'd like to get a few comments on the record.

I just heard the honourable member talking about the rule changes shortening the calendar by one week, but that's not in fact the case. The new rule changes shorten the legislative calendar by two weeks, not one. Originally, the government had requested shortening it by three weeks. I think it's very difficult to explain to the public out there, especially in these times, why we don't want to sit in the Legislative Assembly for two or three more weeks a year, shortening our workload here in this place.

I have constituents like everybody else does. In fact, I represent the fifth-largest geographical riding in the entire province of Ontario and I have more organized municipalities than any other single riding in the province of Ontario, so I know all too well demands about constituents and constituency time. But I also understand I'm elected to come here and represent those people at Queen's Park, and I'm not looking for an extra three weeks a year off at the taxpayers' expense when I should be here doing the business of the province of Ontario in the Legislative Assembly.

Then we go to House leaders' meetings and have the government House leader tell us, "Well, we're going to have to sit till midnight the last two weeks, and we're going to have to introduce time allocation and this and that, because we don't want to be here three weeks a year as we used to be here in the past."

It just doesn't wash. You can't have it both ways. Quite frankly, I'm more than willing to be here right up till Christmas Eve, if need be, and we have done that on occasion in this House, when we had responsible governments that wanted to get business done instead of going home three weeks early. That's so much for that point.

When these rule changes were passed, I would like to say that we were told by the government, and in particular by the government House leader, that the government had no intention whatsoever of using time allocation motions on a frequent basis, that they would be used extremely rarely and only under the most extenuating of circumstances would the government ever think about using a time allocation motion.

Well, these standing orders haven't been in this place for more than about six months -- not even six months; about five months -- and out of those five months, the Legislature didn't sit for two of them. In the last period of time since these standing orders have been in place, they used it on Bill 150, on worker ownership, on the third reading debate on July 21, less than one month after the rule changes were introduced, after three hours and 24 minutes of debate on second reading and two hours of debate on third reading.

That is the government's definition, I guess, of only using this under extenuating circumstances. That's their definition of democracy. I find it hard to believe that any reasonable human being would think that a combined total of five hours and 24 minutes on two reading stages of a bill necessitates a time allocation motion. If they do, they come from a different sort of democracy than I'm used to dealing with. We have those types of countries in the world but they're certainly not democracies.

1030

Two weeks after the rule changes were introduced, the government used time allocation again on Bill 40, its labour legislation. Of course we all know that was the primary reason that these rules changes were brought in in the first place, because they wanted to expedite Bill 40.

They wanted to use time allocation on Bill 40 despite the fact -- and I'm sure the House leader for the Liberal Party will remember this -- that when we sat in House leaders' meetings, the government House leader said that the government had no intention of using time allocation motion, had no intention of using new rule changes on Bill 40, the labour bill. That's exactly what he told us. He told us that on more than one occasion and then he turned around and did exactly the opposite two weeks after the rule changes were implemented.

The first piece of legislation the government decided to deal with when it came back this fall was automobile insurance, which is totally baffling to a lot of us on this side of the House. There are so many economic problems out there. The government said it's committed to issues like employment equity and pay equity. They have stated time and time again that this is what they regard as the number one priority.

What did they bring on as their first, most important piece of legislation after we came back? Automobile insurance has been sitting out there on the back burner for about 15 months and all they do is introduce basically the plan that the former government had, after they -- when they were in opposition of course -- criticized and screamed and yelled about that plan and actually ran a good part of their election campaign against it in 1990. Then when the two opposition parties told the government how long they would need to debate automobile insurance, they threatened to use a time allocation motion again.

At the outset, we may have been somewhat naïve, I guess, because we actually believed what was coming from the government's mouth could be believed. We believed that it was honest, forthright and up front and, lo and behold, we find out that wasn't the case at all. It is somewhat disturbing, to say the least.

I also want to say that there are parliamentary precedents for Speakers having the discretion as to when enough debate has taken place on a particular bill at any stage. That's called of course a closure motion, and even a time allocation motion, without these new rule changes.

Really what they've done is taken away almost any authority that the Speakers had. The Speaker would appear under these rules to be a mere figurehead to watch over procedural matters in the chamber as opposed to having any authority whatsoever; and then the government wonders why on some occasions the opposition is a little raucous and the Speaker has a problem controlling the House.

I think the answer is more than obvious. When you don't deal in good faith with other people you can expect them to become a little bit upset, especially in a parliamentary democracy, I would submit.

I also want to say that I'm a little bit disturbed about two recent rulings that the Speaker has made -- not you, Mr Speaker, but the Speaker Speaker. One was about adjourning the House after 6 pm when the mace was on the table, as it is now. I can't help it if the government House leader didn't craft his time allocation motion succinctly enough or particularly enough, but I find it most galling that any Speaker would refuse to recognize that the House is in session when the mace is on the table. I think that is a totally incorrect ruling. I don't care why the Speaker was in the chair; the reality was that he was and the House was in session. I think the Speaker should very seriously consider retracting or overruling that ruling of his.

The other was a ruling that he made to my friend from Etobicoke the other day when unanimous consent was given to reply. No time limit was set, but the Speaker enforced a time limit arbitrarily.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Thank you.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I beg the indulgence of the House as I have quite a severe cold, so I'm afraid I'll be a basso profondo for my time up speaking.

I would like to say that some of the points that have been put forward by the opposition need to be considered by this House and some I have some sympathy and some resonance with. I would like to say, for instance, that the process by which these changes were introduced into this chamber was certainly questionable. I did not support them. I felt they were a little on the secretive side and did not pay due attention to the form and the respect we need to have for all the members of this House, so I was not very happy with that process.

In regard to the 30-minute time, I think that actually in this resolution as it's been put forward by the opposition, unfortunately the focus shouldn't have been on the 30 minutes allotted for members to speak, because I believe that 30 minutes is enough for members to speak. Having been here for two years and heard the speeches of this House, I have to say there are very few members in this House who can speak concisely and to the point in a short period of time. They tend to ramble, and ramblings and sharings of ignorance are not particularly edifying to this House or to the people of the province.

But indeed I will take the point by the members of the opposition, particularly the member for Bruce when he declaims the fact that the time allocations have been used and even, dare I say, abused by the government. He is right when he says that. We have misused that standing order, and I say that in great sadness. There is no need to whip the opposition with time allocation every time the government wants to move ahead, and I think it is unfortunate that we have proceeded in that particular way.

I want to say, in regard to the rest of the resolution, I disagree with the honourable members when they say we should be spending all our time here in this august House. Indeed there needs to be time with our constituents. I have some 30 municipalities, all of them clamouring to have time with me to speak about their needs and their aspirations as municipalities. To indicate that that is not time well spent but rather to be here listening to some of the things we tend to listen to, I would say is wrong and false and needs to be responded to in that way.

As for the role of the Speaker, I agree again with the opposition on this resolution when they say the neutrality of the Speaker has been tampered with because we have removed some of the discretion our Speaker has. But I would go further and say that is not just because of the changes brought forth by this government.

In fact if we look at the standing orders of our House and compare them to Houses across the country, or even the House of Commons or Westminster, what we see in effect is that the standing orders we have used in this House have limited the discretion of the Speaker to the nth degree. We don't have to take all the blame for that. It has to be apportioned as well to the other parties that have led governments in the past.

I know the opposition members hate to hear these kinds of things, an even-handed approach to this resolution, but they're going to have an even-handed approach whether they like it or not.

Let me say also that I agree with the opposition members, dare I say it, when they talk about the concentration of the power in the Office of the Premier. They are right. They are right, but did this begin with Bob Rae? No. It was the same under David Peterson. It was the same under Mr Davis. It has been a tradition in the last 20 years to have that kind of concentration of power.

Again I look at the member for Bruce and I see him saying that this is not true. He was part of the cabinet; he knows the truth of this situation. Power has been concentrated for too many years by too many first ministers and his party is just as much to blame in this unfortunate situation.

Where do we go with this resolution? On many of the issues that have been brought forward I agree with the opposition members. I agree that they have not been able to --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How can you be so stupid and so wrong. It was agreed to by the three parties in resolution. At least get your facts straight.

1040

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for St Catharines.

Mr Drainville: -- exercise their rights. I agree that they have not been able to give debate as they properly should, that they have been restrained in certain ways. I want to say to that I agree with them. But as far as their saying that we should go back to the rules of before June 22, 1992, I can only say that when they were in government in this House, they were not the ones to stand up for parliamentary reform.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Yorkview, order please.

Mr Drainville: If we are to have parliamentary reform, it will have to be reform that is brought about by all the members who forced the power élites within their own parties to begin to change. That includes the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the people in our own government. Changes need to be made and they need to be made quickly or the people will lose patience, as they already, I believe, have.

Mr Bradley: I cannot think of an issue which, in my over 15 years in this Legislature, has perturbed me more than the changes that have been brought through with the government majority in this House under the orders of the Premier of the province of Ontario.

The reason for this is quite obvious. Those of us who are elected to public office are the official spokespersons for the people we represent. If you want the views of your constituents to be adequately reflected in government legislation, in regulations and in policy, it is absolutely essential that elected members from the constituencies, those who are actually accountable to people within constituencies, have the adequate tools and power to be able to present those views to members of this House.

What Premier Rae has done is something which he can get away with. The reason he can do it is that no one is watching. I think you can best judge people and governments on what they do when no one is looking, on what they do when there is not close scrutiny of legislation or regulations that they bring forward, because it is at that very time that it is their own principles, their own consciences that are ruling, as opposed to the reaction to news media reports or to the comments that might be forthcoming from constituents.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Did you apply that principle --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham West, order please.

Mr Bradley: It is most ironic that in all the years in this House, watching members of the New Democratic Party -- particularly I think of icons such as Jim Renwick and others such as Patrick Lawlor and Stephen Lewis and even the former Leader of the Opposition, Bob Rae, who fought for the rights of the underdogs, who fought for the rights of individual members of the Legislative Assembly and who fought for the rights of the opposition -- it is most ironic and it is most discouraging to see that the Premier of this province, who in his past days fought for these issues appropriately, I believed, and admirably, is in fact the person who is responsible for beginning to diminish the powers of the elected members of this assembly.

By limiting members to 30 minutes of debate on any one issue -- I must say I recognize that in terms of overall time allocation, there are going to be times when the government is going to decide after a lot of debate has taken place, after the Speaker has had an opportunity to determine how much debate is going to take place that a government may well apply time allocation. I recognize that. But what you are doing in effect is limiting members' opportunity to carefully assess, to carefully analyse and to carefully expose the provisions of pieces of legislation coming before the House.

It may be that there are members within a political party who have a lot more expertise, a lot more commitment and a lot more knowledge about a specific piece of legislation. Yet those persons are limited to 30 minutes while another person who does not have that same background, may not have that particular interest, is faced with the fact that he or she is limited to only 30 minutes.

Out there in the general public we know that issues come and go. The only way that an opposition can bring to the attention of the public the fact that there is important legislation before the House that has major consequences for our province, for the jurisdiction over which we rule, is by extending the debate, is by bringing out all of the issues. I don't mean by reading the telephone book, as happens in the United States Congress -- in other words, delay for the sake of delaying. I don't mean by playing tricks. But what this does is it forces the opposition to simply engage in the kinds of theatrics that I don't think are productive to debate.

The reason is that unless we bring the House to a total standstill with some new procedural wrinkle, no one is going to pay attention to it. There will be no story about it. An editor will not accept from someone covering this House a story that doesn't have a confrontation or a new wrinkle to it. The only way that we can then let the people of this province know there's an important issue -- and they can make the judgement after -- is by having a lengthy and relevant debate on that issue. The limiting of individual members to 30 minutes is ludicrous in this regard.

I had a lot to say on the Confederation debate, on the constitutional goings-on that we've had in this province. I was told by the whip of this party, by the person in charge of speaking, that I could speak for 15 minutes. I must say I was insulted by the fact that with all of the issues that were before us in the referendum, an individual member would have 15 minutes. I suggested that someone else take my 15 minutes and utilize that as part of a lengthier speech.

That is exactly what happens in this House. The debate on significant issues is limited by the rules that this House has, and that's extremely important for those of us who are elected to do our jobs.

The other observation I have around this country is the continued concentration of power in the office of the Premier and in the people who advise the Premier and are not elected. I think if a government -- any government, not just an NDP government -- wants to know what the people of this province are thinking, or any jurisdiction is thinking, the best basis is the Tuesday morning caucus meeting of the government side and the two opposition parties.

We are the people who go home to talk to our folks back there, to get the input on a direct basis -- not just what people here in the capital think; not just what the senior members of the civil service think, although that's important and these are experts; not just what the people who surround the Premier think, and they are intelligent people and their viewpoints are very relevant to what's going on -- but what individuals across the province think about the various issues that confront this Legislature.

So we see a concentration of power, through the rule changes, in the hands of Premier Rae or whatever premier follows Premier Rae, and those individuals who sit beside the Speaker and are in the Premier's office. They should have input, by all means. I hope the Premier enlists people from across Ontario and beyond our borders to advise him on many issues. But ultimately the responsibility for legislation and for governing should be in the hands of this House.

I'm concerned that the House is going to sit fewer days. You know, we don't sit that many days in any event. There's a long recess in the summer; there's a long recess over the winter months. Friday, Saturday and Sunday we have a chance to consult with our constituents to be aware of the issues that are confronting individual constituencies. It seems to me that when the House sits fewer days, the House has fewer days to carefully analyse the legislation coming before it.

Jonathan Manthorpe, when he wrote a book on provincial affairs, made the comment -- and I don't agree with him, but let me tell you what he suggested -- that we should abolish constituency offices. That's radical and I don't agree with it, but the reason he said that was that members have become, as he called them, "glorified social workers," people who work on individual problems on a daily basis.

He suggested that the analysis of legislation, the analysis of policy and the debate of regulations was the loser as members concentrate more of their effort on individual case work. It's a difficult balance for all of us, but we must recognize that when any government brings in legislation, it has very significant ramifications for the province. When there's a policy change, when there's a regulatory change, it can impact upon the province in either a very positive or a very negative way.

1050

I think we should be concentrating our time as legislators on those kinds of issues, not simply leaving it to the so-called experts, because there's a lot of expertise in different fields that exists within the 130 constituencies that are represented in the Legislative Assembly.

I'm concerned as well that the role of the Speaker has been diminished. I think over the years -- and I've observed four or five Speakers over the years -- I have had respect for those Speakers. I haven't always agreed with their rulings, but I've had respect.

I remember Jack Stokes, for instance, when we were in a minority situation. One would have anticipated, if one were observing political or partisan things out there, that Jack Stokes, being a New Democrat, would lean over backwards to support the opposition, and particularly his own party, the New Democratic Party. It didn't happen that way. He was a neutral in the chair. He was a very tough Speaker, and he was one who was very fair to members of the House.

I think we have to have a respect for the Speaker and the power and independence of the Speaker if this House is to operate appropriately. If we simply have a puppet or a stooge, which we haven't had, I'm pleased to say, while I've been a member of this House, if we simply have that sitting in the chair, or perhaps even worse, a person who has no power whatsoever, then I think the House declines in importance.

My observation of political affairs in this province over the years has been in fact that the legislative branch of government has diminished in importance, that this place isn't as important as it used to be. If you want to know why some members won't show up on certain days -- and there are always good reasons why it happens, whether personal, government or business reasons. But if you want to know why, when there's a choice of being here or not, people won't be here, it's because in some cases they don't consider this place to be particularly relevant any more; that either they can politically benefit more by being back home in the riding or somewhere else, or in their own minds they simply feel they can be more effective somewhere other than this Legislature.

I think it's important for the government to be as accountable as possible. If we diminish the number of days that we sit, we diminish the opportunity of the opposition and backbench government members to question members of the executive branch of government, the members of the cabinet. I think in a democracy it's healthy that they be held accountable as often as possible; that there be a scrum, as it's called, or a gathering of the news people in the hallway to interview people who are from the cabinet and other places about the major issues of the day.

When you're a minister, you dread heading out into the hallway because you feel that perhaps there's an issue that you haven't dealt with, or an issue that you're perhaps weak on, but that's what keeps us sharp; that's what keeps us accountable. When sitting on the government side, if I know I have to face the opposition with potential questions, if I know I have to face the news media on a daily basis, I'm going to be much sharper as an individual. I'm going to keep much more on top of the issues than if there is not that sense of acute accountability that exists when this House is in session.

I would like to see the full powers of the Legislature restored. I don't agree with the rules which said opposition members should ring the bells for ever. It was a tactic. It works because when you turn on the 6 o'clock news and you hear the bells in the hallway and the news people say, "The bells are ringing," people know there's something happening at Queen's Park.

I hated that. I don't like having to do that as a member of the opposition. I don't like the reading of a number of lakes into the record, but that's been the only way the opposition's had a chance to make its point. I think better it should be made in debate. I think the opposition members, if they cannot carry a relevant debate -- some would call it a filibuster; I call it a lengthy and relevant debate -- if they can't carry on their opposition in that way, then they can't carry out the responsibility appropriately.

I hope the government will reconsider, yet I have the fear that in the back rooms of the government, unbeknown perhaps to members of the Legislature who sit even on the government side, they are cooking up even more rule changes which will restrict and limit the powers of members of this House.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton has had some interesting and, I think, relevant suggestions, as have the member for Mississauga West and others who brought forward resolutions in this House on how individual members can be more effective, because there's a lot of talent in all of the benches. There are a lot of different backgrounds in the benches of the government and the opposition that can be helpful to debate.

I look at the committee system, and that can be much more effective. The member for Victoria-Haliburton has again suggested that the committee system can be much more effective and a less-partisan scene, although that's very difficult under present circumstances. We understand in this House there is going to be partisanship; we are elected as partisans and one might expect that.

I implore members of the opposition, in this case the governing side -- as individuals, not as members of a government -- to support this resolution, to send a signal to Premier Rae and to the government House leader and the chief government whip that they would like to see the changes; that if they are ever in opposition again, they would like to be able to utilize the rules to the full extent to ensure appropriate debate and proper representation in this assembly.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): It's a pleasure to rise to speak this morning. It's been an interesting debate and I've listened to it with great care. However, I have some difficulty with the motion that has been presented to us. It would suggest, for example, that the problem in this House is the Premier. Unfortunately, that is just too narrow, too partisan and, quite frankly, wrong.

The problem in this House, I suggest to you, is the responsibility of every individual member of the House. It's the responsibility of the leadership of our various caucuses. I heard the opposition speak, for example, in terms of the government back rooms. Well, there are government back rooms, but there are opposition back rooms, and to suggest that machinations do not take place within opposition back rooms would be far from the truth.

There is no question indeed -- and I only have a limited experience; I've only been here five years. I've had a few years in opposition; a couple of years now on the government benches. There is no doubt that there is frustration both in government in getting legislation through and in opposition in having one's voice heard. But I have watched with considerable admiration House leaders, my own House leaders, both in government and in opposition. I've watched the House leaders from the Liberal and Conservative parties, the member for Bruce and the member for Parry Sound, knowledgeable and certainly wise in organized manipulation of procedures, and at the same time they can stand with righteous indignation and say, "You know it isn't working." Yet all House leaders have had a part, with the support of their caucuses, in the breakdown of the democratic process which would allow voices to be heard.

I suggest to you that the greatest tragedy of all is the lack of respect for the office and the Chair, for the Speaker of the House. It is extremely sad when the Speaker has to fight for control in a chamber where that control should be absolutely given by every individual member when a Speaker asks for order. Members on both sides of the House can take some responsibility and blame for this.

If we want this House to be truly effective, then we must cooperate with the authority and the direction of those we elect to sit in the chair. That, I suggest to you, from the constituents in Cambridge, from residents across this province -- when they look at this chamber, it is not the manipulations of the House leaders and the various caucuses; it's not the directions laid down in terms of procedures by government. What is at stake? What is at stake when people tune into this place and in horror say, "Is that the way to conduct business?"

They're not talking about the fact that a member has 30 minutes to speak on a subject. I believe 30 minutes is more than ample to speak on a subject. What people see is a lack of respect for authority, and that authority, Mr Speaker, sits in your chair, and in any given question period you can come into this House and you can see that authority abused. It is too sad, but if all of us in opposition and in government could get our act straight and abide by the authority of the Chair, we would be far advanced.

1100

Mr Elston: It's pretty obvious that the government will shut us down on this again, and I don't say that I'm surprised. I know they don't want us to raise opposition to their policies and their programs.

The people who have spoken in opposition to this resolution have a hollow ring to the language they have used to construct their arguments. People who pretend that something is happening in here that approaches democratic activity are being unhappily fooled by their leadership. I cannot understand how these people can stand here and defend the elimination of the freedom of speech in this place.

I wish to thank the member for Carleton, the member for Parry Sound and particularly the member for St Catharines, people who have had long experience here and who have gone through both opposition and government time. While all of us experienced the frustration of not being able to resist the Davis government in the days it was in power, and while those of us in the Liberal Party witnessed the frustration of being a government that couldn't always get its legislation through in a timely fashion, none of us wished to replace the democratic institution we have with something which prides itself in pure, unadulterated efficiency for the passage of public policy.

Democracy is not about efficiency. Democracy is about allowing people, particularly the minority in this province, to speak out and have their minds and their feelings understood in their opposition. If it was the right of every member to stand in his or her place to speak for 30 minutes on any bill he or she chose, perhaps that would be helpful. But the new rules prevent that from ever happening. No member will ever be able to speak for 30 minutes if he or she happens to be the 35th member of the Liberal caucus. We have to allow the members the right.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

TAX REFORM

Mr Perruzza moved resolution number 32:

That, in the opinion of this House, whereas housing is a basic human right; and whereas our current property tax system is regressive and bears no relevance on ability to pay; and whereas successive, large, property tax increases have propelled property taxes to the highest levels ever; and whereas the unemployed, low-wage earners, pensioners and others on fixed incomes have great difficulty in paying their property taxes; therefore, priority should be given to reforming the property tax system by removing the education portion of property taxes and shifting the burden for education to a more progressive form of taxation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I introduce this resolution here this morning because in my life as a politician, as a trustee on the school board, as a municipal councillor and now as a member of this Legislature, the single biggest issue people have taken up with me in my years in politics is precisely the issue of property taxes and their effect on people who can least afford to pay.

The property tax is generally seen and regarded as being a very regressive tax, a tax that essentially bears no relevance to ability to pay, a tax which is inherently unfair and quite frankly punishes the middle class of this province. It punishes very directly the middle-income earners and the low-income earners and people on fixed incomes and pensioners across the province.

I'd like to start off by putting the property tax in some kind of perspective. As you know, property tax in this province has been around since the province has been around, right from the first days of settlement in fact, and has progressed as such. It's traditionally paid for municipal services. It's traditionally paid for local school services as well.

But in recent years it has become abundantly clear to all parties and to former governments that this particular tax is very regressive and very difficult to deal with. We often hear the Progressive Conservatives talk about the good old days when they were in office in this province. Quite frankly, they tinkered with the property tax. They often tinkered with the education portion of the property tax: In 1969 they brought in their variable percentage grant plan, in 1971 they introduced ceilings, and so on and so forth.

The reason why they kept tinkering and adjusting it was because you could never achieve any sense of fairness. There will always be inequities built into the system. There will be inequities between communities; there are inequities between municipalities; there are inequities between regions. In some areas more moneys have been spent on education; in some areas less moneys have been spent on education. They continually tried to make those kinds of adjustments, and quite frankly, that never worked.

We often hear the Progressive Conservatives talk about the good old days when, in 1975, the provincial share of education funding was at 61%. What that means is that education is essentially funded in two ways: One is through the local property tax base; the other is through provincial grants which try to offset some of the inadequate assessments across the province.

So in 1975 the former Progressive Conservative government funded education to the tune of 61%. Well, by the time they were booted out and by the time they left office in 1985, that share had fallen to 44%. What this means is that more of the burden, more of the emphasis was placed on the local property taxpayer.

The Liberals were no better, quite frankly, because when they came to office in 1985, between 1985 and 1990 what you had in the province was unprecedented growth. In fact, they had so much money coming into this place they were literally buried under it and they didn't know what to do with it. They threw it here, they threw it there, they threw it everywhere, but very little went to education, because during those very heavy growth years the education portion of property taxes across the province increased to the tune of 45.4%, as listed here in this document that's printed by the Ministry of Education.

So that was essentially the Liberal solution to the property tax quandary, to the property tax dilemma, and here we are. To backtrack a little bit, both parties did all the studies, did all of the research with respect to this particular issue. Going back to 1985, I have here the Report of the Commission on the Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in Ontario, a report commissioned by the Progressive Conservatives and essentially handed over to our Liberal colleagues when they were the government.

1110

In this report the experts and the analysts spoke very clearly. I quote from the report from the experts. It reads:

"We recommend:

"24. That the government of Ontario introduce an education property tax credit program for residential and farm ratepayers and that the program be financed by an education tax on personal income."

Did the Liberals listen to this advice? No, because the Conservatives had received a similar kind of advice from their experts, advice which was left unheeded. Quite frankly, in 1990 the people in this province had enough of the Liberals as well and you know what happened to them.

In 1990, another further report commissioned again by our Liberal colleagues, a report entitled the Third Report of the Select Committee on Education. What did they do? They did precisely what the previous analysts and experts did. They recommended that you move towards a more progressive form of taxation, that education be removed from property taxes because low-income earners, middle-class Ontarians, people on fixed incomes and pensioners couldn't pay the heavy increases in the education portion of the property tax.

I quote from the report, to quote just very briefly the experts:

"The local share is raised virtually entirely from property taxation, which is seen to be more regressive; falling more heavily on those with less ability to pay than income and other forms of taxation. The question then becomes: Are all citizens being asked to pay a fair share of the costs of education? Is education finance being raised in an equitable way?"

The answer is no; very clearly it's no. So further experts recommended that this be done. In fact, they have a recommendation here in the back and they say they recommend that:

"23. The minister should establish a task force to examine options to make the tax base for education funding more progressive."

They should have done that, but obviously, as you can see, it isn't something they moved on, and quite frankly I think Ontarians spoke loudly in 1990 and they said, "Enough is enough."

I say again that the education portion of property taxes is regressive. It unduly penalizes low-income earners, people on fixed incomes and middle-class Ontarians and seniors, and they haven't been able to deal with the successive property tax increases that have been heaped on them. Quite frankly, this problem will continue to grow.

So the question begs to be asked, why is it that the PCs didn't listen to the experts? Why is it that the Liberals didn't listen to the experts? Is it a question of money? It may have been. For the Liberals in 1985 to do what the reports and the experts have said would have cost them $1.5 billion to phase in over a number of years. That wasn't excessive.

I think the issue for them was an issue of governance. They didn't want to deal with the sticky question of education governance. It's a tough question to deal with, there's no question, but I think that at some point someone's going to have to move in this direction. I think the issue of education governance is something that has to be dealt with. I think we have a responsibility to deal with it and we have a responsibility to move in this direction.

I'd like to conclude briefly, before I give my colleagues an opportunity to be able to debate and speak on this question, by saying that we have the studies, we have the experts and they have all spoken very clearly and very loudly. It's time to move now, and I ask my colleagues to accept these recommendations and move now in this direction.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I am pleased to rise today to participate in private members' hour to debate Mr Perruzza's resolution, which on the face of it repeats, as he pointed out, the recommendations of a number of studies over the course of a number of years.

His resolution, however, is very simplistic in light of that enormous work that has been done. It's simplistic because what Mr Perruzza has not acknowledged in this resolution is that if you remove one form of taxation or one form of revenue, you have to replace that with another. A resolution that comes forward after all the years and the studies of work that just says, "Only do one-half of the equation," is bordering on the deceptive to the people of this province, who would want to know what would be the implications of supporting this amendment.

I want to share with you, Mr Speaker, what I believe some of the implications of support for this amendment, in its present form, would be and why I believe it is wrong, premature, simplistic and irresponsible to support this amendment and this resolution in its present form.

The reason I believe this is that if you were to remove education from the property tax system -- let's say you were moving to the personal income tax. You would have to raise the personal income tax rate in this province by 13%. That's what the shift would be. Imagine what an increase in personal income tax would do to those very people who the member opposite has expressed concern about: a 13% income tax increase for middle-income earners, a 13% income tax increase for seniors, a 13% income tax increase for people on fixed incomes.

Do you know why what he's suggesting is so impractical? Because without looking at what those implications are for those people, you don't take into consideration the fact that many of them pay their property taxes through their rent. How would you ensure their rents went down? You couldn't guarantee that. So not only would they see a 13% increase in their personal income tax rate, but they would probably be double hit because you couldn't guarantee that they would see a reduction in their property tax through their rent.

You start to now see the complications of this very simplistic resolution, well-meaning as it is, and I'm not questioning the member's motivation; I am questioning the approach he's taken because it is extremely simplistic.

I would also question this member because he's been ranting and raving about what previous governments did or did not do. I want to point out to him what his own government did in the area of tax reform. First, they set up a tax commission. They have sent to that tax commission a whole host of issues relating to how we are going to pay for the important and valuable services that the people of this province expect, need, demand and require.

They have sent to the tax commission the whole question of how we're going to fund education, and more than that, education finance. I think that is an appropriate referral, because I've come to the conclusion, after having spent five years in government, that maybe there are two or three people in the Ministry of Education who actually understand how we finance education; those funding formulas are so complicated.

Interjection.

Mrs Caplan: I see the member for Sault Ste Marie agrees that there might be three who understand. I certainly do not understand education finance. It is very complicated.

When you're looking at a system of funding, you also have to look at clarification of how it's financed, and a simplistic change in how you fund it may not have the result you expect it is going to have.

One of the other things his government did, while professing concern for those people who are having difficulty paying their property taxes, which he suggests are regressive, is that his government removed -- hello, are you listening? -- the seniors tax grant, the $600 that was designed to help those people pay for their property taxes.

What you did was you turned it around. You took it from a grant to a tax credit. That tax grant was designed to give senior citizens relief in paying their property taxes. In the name of tax reform, you didn't do anything about that, but you did remove that tax grant. You took away that $600. You changed it into a tax credit so that it is even more difficult now for some seniors who had relied on that grant to assist them in paying their education taxes, in paying their property tax bill.

I would say to you that your change from a tax grant to a tax credit was hurtful to some of the seniors of this province because at the same time you removed $100 million overall from that program which the seniors of this province had relied upon.

1120

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Hurtful to whom? Which ones?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): No, it's not. Be fair.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs Caplan: I'm just laying out for the members of the government and this House the implications, the effects of their own programs. They don't like it, and I understand why --

Mr Wiseman: Be fair, Elinor. You've been briefed.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. When the speaker says "order," he expects the members to obey. These are the procedures of the House. I would ask you to respect that.

Mrs Caplan: I do understand that the members of the government caucus are feeling a little provoked. Certainly, the member for Downsview, when he raised this issue, had to expect that the record of this government would be discussed and debated at the same time as this important issue that is before us today.

I want to point out to the member as well that there are a number of programs in place that help senior citizens and medium- and low-income earners. A number of municipalities have what they call their loan program, and that gives people with equity in their homes an opportunity to borrow or put a lien on their property to pay their property taxes. That's especially helpful during this time of recession.

I know in the case of North York that is a no-interest loan that's payable and due when the house is sold. So there is no additional burden on the person. They get to use the equity they have in their home and it allows people to stay in their home rather than having to leave it and move on at a time in their lives when perhaps they would just like to relax and enjoy their home environment and not have to think about moving.

How we are going to raise the revenues to pay for all these services becomes very important. I noticed just this week that when it came to a discussion of tax reform, this NDP government sent out a very mixed message to Metropolitan Toronto council.

They said, on the one hand: "We accept the fact that you are an autonomous, duly elected body that has responsibility for property tax reform. You should have the power, as every other municipality has, to change the way you levy your property taxes so that it will be fairer." We all know how unfair the present property tax system is in Metropolitan Toronto. "We are going to bring in enabling legislation to let Metropolitan Toronto proceed with its tax reform." Then the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in the same breath, said: "We, however, are going to tell you what we're not going to permit five years from now. We are going to tell you, Metropolitan Toronto, that we're not so crazy as to think we're going to be in government five years from now, and so we're going to make some political comments and send this back to you for further consideration as part of your legislation."

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that under Metropolitan Toronto's plan my constituents would benefit. Under Metropolitan Toronto's plan many of the people the member for Downsview has expressed concern about, those people who are middle- and low-income earners, senior citizens and tenants, would benefit, yet we've seen this government try to have it both ways. They talk about fairness, they talk about equity, they talk about tax reform, but when they realize the implications of what a specific proposal means, they get cold feet or they try to have it both ways on both sides of the issue.

That's why I believe Mr Perruzza's resolution is so misguided. You cannot have a thoughtful debate about how you are going to raise the revenues you need for the education of the children of this province unless you take a look at, "If you don't do this, what are you going to do instead?"

I would say to Mr Perruzza and to the members of this House that if you vote for Mr Perruzza's resolution, what you are saying is that a 13% provincial income tax increase is acceptable to you. What you're saying is that this kind of huge shift is acceptable to you. You haven't examined the burden or the implications or what that would mean, not only to individual taxpayers; you don't know what that would mean to the businesses, which also pay. Businesses also pay a very significant portion of education tax through the commercial assessment. What would you do about that, Mr Perruzza? Would you remove commercial assessment as well?

There are many, many questions that this resolution raises. It offers very few answers and I do not believe it is worthy of support. I believe it is simplistic and I also believe it is another example of a member of the NDP caucus saying one thing that sounds good -- a lot of rhetoric and, frankly, a lot of hot air. When it comes to doing anything, they do nothing, or in fact they do the exact opposite of what they said they were going to do.

I will not be supporting this amendment. It is misguided and irresponsible.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. We normally follow the rotation, but if you allow Mr Sorbara to speak the last two minutes and twenty seconds, I will do so. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Thank you. I appreciate the indulgence of the other members in the House.

I think this is one of the really significant resolutions that have appeared during private member's hour, and while I wouldn't agree with all of the preamble of the member for Downsview's motion, I simply want to put on the record that I support this initiative wholeheartedly. I think it is long overdue that this Parliament and the government of Ontario begin to look at the dramatic transformation of the taxation system that this implies.

I agree with my colleague the member for Oriole that not all of the pieces of the puzzle are present here in this resolution, but we need to start somewhere. Education is too important and too thoroughly a provincial responsibility to leave it as a matter to be put on the backs of property taxpayers.

Certainly, my colleague the member for for Oriole is right that the property tax that individual citizens would pay would go down, and that those funds would have to be replaced from some other tax from some other source. My own recommendation is that in conjunction with this, we would undertake the first dramatic reform of the income tax system in the province of Ontario in years and years and years.

Yes, there are other problems involved there as well, because for the time being we use the federal tax base to determine what the rate of provincial income tax would be, at least for individuals, not for corporations. But the bottom line is, is it fair any longer to put the cost of education on the backs of property taxpayers?

My answer to that is no. I say it is high time to start to change that system, and I want to congratulate my friend the member for Downsview for bringing forward this resolution. I myself will be voting in favour of it. I hope that we see a large number of government members standing in their places and supporting this resolution, because that would send a clear message to the Minister of Education, who frankly has shied away over the past two years from all the big issues. This would get him out of his seat and into the arena where we really need reform.

Again thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence in letting me speak at this time.

1130

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak to this resolution. On the surface, the resolution looks quite constructive and it appears quite positive. I'm just going to read the last part of the last sentence: "...priority should be given to reforming the property tax system by removing the education portion of property taxes and shifting the burden for education to a more progressive form of taxation."

On the surface it sounds great. All of us who pay such a major portion of our property taxes towards the cost of education couldn't help but think, "Well, this looks like a good idea," but that's where it ends. Unfortunately, that's where this resolution ends. It says "a more progressive form of taxation." It doesn't say what that form will be.

It is kind of interesting, I think, and probably significant, that this motion comes from a member of the current government, the current government that has raised taxes even more than the previous Liberal government did, the current government that continues to reduce its support for the cost of education at the local level.

The percentage of support from the provincial government to the local school boards has decreased to the point where this year it was a whole 1% increase over last year, but overall the proportion of support between the province and the local municipal taxpayers for the cost of education has been going in the wrong direction for the last seven years.

I will tell you that although the provincial average is 53% of the property tax for education, in the region of Peel and in the city of Mississauga that proportion is 62%. In Mississauga, 62% of our taxes go to the cost of education.

It's also of course really interesting to hear a member of the current socialist government say that the people of Ontario spoke loudly in 1990. If the member for Downsview thinks the people of Ontario spoke loudly in September 1990, all I can say to him is, he ain't heard nothing yet.

Wait till the people of this province speak loudly whenever this Bob Rae socialist government has the courage to call the next election, be it 1994 or 1995. There will be such a resounding statement by the people of this province at that time, when they say to the Bob Rae socialist government, "We have had it up to here. We are finished with the unnecessary taxation and cost-of-living increases in this province," which are directly attributable to this government.

I think it's terribly sad, and those members of his government who are laughing this morning will be laughing on the night of the election, because I hope they'll laugh instead of cry when, as my colleague the member from London likes to say, "They kissed their seats goodbye."

That's really what is going to happen to them, because the public understands very well when you change the rules for the property tax rebate for seniors. That's a very significant thing that took place with this government, just as it was equally significant when the former Liberal government added to the burden of the school boards the cost of employer health tax and reduced class sizes.

The Liberal government didn't go out and talk to any of the administrators or the school boards of our educational systems in this province and ask them if reduction of class size in grades 1 and 2 was a priority. They certainly didn't come to the region of Peel and speak to my school boards, where in the Dufferin-Peel separate school board almost half the students, 43%, are in portables and they already didn't have enough room for classes in the sizes we already had.

Those kinds of decisions have cost the taxpayers of this province million of dollars which they could not afford. The irony is of course that when you change the rules down here in the ivory tower at Queen's Park and say, "Thou shalt do this, this and this in the school boards," which add to the cost of the education system across the province, they don't first go and talk to them and say: "Is this your priority? Is this your choice from your point of view?" Oh, no. The government down here mandates the programs, tries to make itself look good and then falls flat on its face when the reality hits that all it means is a heavier, increased burden to the property taxpayers.

I think it's important to place on the record that there are other provinces in this country which have the same responsibilities we have in Ontario and their governments seem to be able to provide a different level of support for the cost of education. That's significant for their property taxpayers, because they don't face the same burden we face.

In Quebec it's 91.1%; in British Columbia it's 80%; Prince Edward Island -- you wouldn't think they would have an awful lot of money -- pays 100% of education funding; in Newfoundland it's 95%; Nova Scotia, 80%; Manitoba, 71%; Alberta, 63%; and Saskatchewan, 51%. Isn't that significant, when we can't even struggle our way back up to 60% on average across this province, let alone the fact that it's less than 40% in the region of Peel. Pretty significant figures, I think.

Certainly, the position of our caucus is that we agree that the current education funding formula is clearly inequitable, complicated and places too much of the burden on the residential tax base. Our party strongly supports the need for a new funding formula based on the principles of equity and fairness.

I also would like to place on the record that the impact of this resolution of the member for Downsview, if in fact it were to become a policy of his government, which is highly unlikely of course, is that it would require a 17% increase in provincial income taxes.

One other thing that I think should be said here this morning, because I totally support it, is that in addition to other positions by our party on this subject, we have endorsed the idea of unified school boards. The unified school board model would allow the public and separate boards to maintain their curricula and programs, but they would share administrative support services. Cost savings could be achieved in the areas of transportation, purchasing and administrative overhead.

Our party is committed to a full review of the education finance system. We will be developing a position in conjunction with the work of the Fair Tax Commission on this issue. Obviously, when we look at the situation as it exists today, it cannot continue. We are taxing people out of their homes. They've finally -- I'm particularly speaking of seniors -- reached the point where they've eliminated their mortgage and they can't afford to keep their homes because they can't afford the property taxes.

The property tax burden is a direct reflection of the downloading from the provincial government, particularly the last two provincial governments, on to the local municipalities and school boards. That situation cannot continue. It is totally unjust and unfair. I will support any changes that we can help to bring about where we can have a more equitable system for funding the educational cost in this province. I would like to leave the balance of my time to my colleague the member for Simcoe East.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cambridge.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I'm happy to speak today on the resolution of my friend the member for Downsview concerning property tax reform. It's a private member's resolution and it may not be framed in the context in which I would have placed it myself. Nevertheless, as an individual member, I will support his resolution.

1140

Members of this House are aware that work is currently being done with regard to property tax reform by the Treasurer's Fair Tax Commission and through the Ministry of Education's education finance reform project. Once the work is completed by the ministry's reform project group, the Minister of Education will then be in a position to prepare options for a new framework for funding of elementary and secondary education in Ontario and to bring these suggestions forward for consideration.

We do not know what those options will be at this stage. In this respect, I would like to speak on tax reform regarding education. Currently, our funding system for elementary and secondary education is based on a 1968 model that is based on two principles: first, equality of educational opportunity for all pupils in Ontario and, second, equality of tax burden on local ratepayers.

This model is not adequate to reflect the educational system that is in place today as the two principles are no longer being met. Therefore, a new funding framework must be developed. The present model does not address equality in the tax burden on local ratepayers, nor does it address the requirements of equality in education for all Ontario students.

It is a fact that in 1976 the provincial share of education expenditures was 60%. Today it is much lower, standing at 39%. The reason for the decrease in cost-sharing by the ministry is not, however, because of cutbacks, but rather because school board budgets increased faster in the past 10 years than provincial grants and the consumer price index.

In 1991-92 expenditures by school boards were $12.7 billion. Of this the province provided $4.9 billion, and the remainder was raised through local taxes on residential property, commercial property and businesses. This year the total expenditures are estimated to be close to $14 billion. Reform of the current system of tax collection is necessary, but the solution is not easy and the task cannot be taken lightly, nor can we expect quick-fix solutions. This is not the style nor the approach of this government. Tax reform and education finance is extremely complicated. We must take the necessary time to fully explore all the implications of such reform.

It will, however, be achieved through a partnership, the true cooperation of all involved. School boards, the province, municipalities, parents and community organizations must work together, and we must keep in mind that we all share the same goal, to provide the best possible education for our children in a healthy learning environment.

Along with education finance reform, the Fair Tax Commission is looking at the entire property tax system. Any changes or reforms of either must coincide so that tax changes are fair to everyone, to both the property taxpayers and indeed all taxpayers.

In concluding, I just want to note that in bringing forward this resolution, the member for Downsview continues an approach that he has taken in this House of being logical, thoughtful and sensitive in areas that require reform. He's to be commended for his resolution.

He will be encouraged by the fact that property tax reform is currently under review through the Treasurer's Fair Tax Commission and the Ministry of Education's education finance reform project. Members of his riding and property taxpayers across Ontario will appreciate his efforts to promote fairness and equity for property taxpayers and will no doubt applaud his initiative. The member for Downsview sets a good example, a good role model for all members of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: There are six minutes left, I believe, for the member for Simcoe East.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to take part in this debate this morning dealing with this resolution with regard to removing the education portion off the property tax bill.

For many years I have indicated that the tax portion on many property tax bills has been a burden on many people in this province, and especially on our seniors who have lived in their homes for many years and have sat there and are paying property taxes and have seen this education tax increase. It's really put a lot of seniors in a position where they may have to sell their homes.

In debating this resolution this morning, I want to relate back to an item I read with regard to the Agenda for People, "Restoring Education Funding/Property Tax Relief." This is the very issue we're talking about here this morning, and this is what the Premier said:

"The Liberals like to talk about international competitiveness and preparing for the next century. Yet they've broken their promise of 60% funding for elementary and secondary schools, putting the squeeze on quality education and property taxes.

"New Democrats propose raising the provincial share of education costs to 60% over five years, providing a solid base for a better education system and lifting some of the load of property taxes.

"The cost of this initiative over the next two years would be $1.5 billion. That's also $1.5 billion in property tax relief for Ontarians. We want to reverse the punishing increases in property taxes which hit seniors and low-income people especially hard."

That's this very same government that on August 19, in its Agenda for People, when running for election against David Peterson's Liberals, made this promise, made this commitment on property tax funding.

What we have here this morning is a backbencher from this government bringing in a resolution to remove the taxes of education off the property tax. I find this an unacceptable type of legislation to be dealing with when they made a promise, they made a commitment, of 60% funding to be restored within five years, and in essence it has gone down. What types of games are these people playing with the taxpayers of this province?

Sure, I agree with the resolution with regard to reducing the property taxes. As I've indicated, there are many people out there who find it an extra burden on the property taxes. Then we look at the budget of the ministry of the Treasurer with regard to the seniors' tax grants and how they have been changed. We look at the costs and the increased levies they are allowing the municipalities to charge, thereby increasing the cost of housing in this province. And that's part of this resolution: "whereas housing is a basic...right." That's what we agree with. But this resolution, in putting these issues forward, is very contradictory to what they said when they were running for election. I find it hard to accept, when this government indicated with regard to education taxes how it wanted to increase the levy, what the province pays, back to 60%. In essence, it has gone down.

You know something? We sat here, and yesterday the Minister of Education made the announcement he's going to make an announcement today of what's going to happen with regard to the capital funding. What should have been announced back six months ago is being announced today.

We find it difficult to look into all the aspects of the effects of this, removing this property tax with regard to education. It's been indicated this morning that 17% would have to be added on to the income tax. But there's got to be a better way, there's got to be more accountability in the whole education system in the province of Ontario.

Some members have indicated that Bill Davis and the government previously brought in the full funding for the separate schools. We all know that Trudeau and Chrétien brought the Constitution home, and in that Constitution it said, "There shall be two fully funded school systems," those being the Protestant school system and the Catholic school system. Bill Davis was right in what he did, because that was in the Constitution. He had no choice, because if it had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, he would have been challenged and he would have lost. He did what he thought was right in the interests of the taxpayers of this province and for the education system of this province.

There are many people sitting over here now, chirping away, who don't know what happened within the Constitution. They don't realize what's going on with regard to the education system. We know what's happening. We know there was a promise made of 60% funding and we have now seen this promise has been broken.

1150

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): The economy and taxes are the two key issues in the province today. Last week I had a chance to speak with a lot of my constituents, and those are the two key issues.

I commend the member for Downsview for bringing a proposal for some reform of property taxes. This has always been an issue in my riding, and until we address it, it will always be an issue. In my riding, the seniors are upset. In my riding, the people on fixed incomes are upset. They claim and they feel that the amount of taxes they pay on their property is too much, it's just too high. They can't afford it any more and they're losing their homes. This gives us some hope.

I can tell you, when I came to this Legislature this morning, I felt there was no way that anybody in this Legislature could vote in opposition to this particular resolution, but after chatting to some of my colleagues in the House, I find there is a possibility that some people may turn their backs on these seniors. They may turn their backs on these individuals on fixed incomes who cannot afford their property taxes.

I want to make it very clear that's what you're going to do if you vote in opposition to this resolution. How could you possibly live with yourselves in turning your backs on those seniors who are on fixed incomes and who can't afford their property taxes? How could you possibly live with yourselves if you vote against this resolution?

It gives us some hope, and hope is what the people of Ontario want at this point. The economy and taxes are the two key issues. This addresses one of them. Actually, it addresses both of them; they're both tied in.

You are going to hear a lot of argument from those who perhaps have a little more money than some of us. The ability to pay taxes, a system that would allow for that, has never been high on the priority list for those who have money, those who are going to have to pay a little bit more in taxes, but it's fair. I commend the member for Downsview for having enough guts and enough stamina to put up with those arguments.

I share the same area pretty much that the member for Downsview shares, and I know a lot of the problems he is encountering I encounter as well in Yorkview. We're side by side. I can tell you that property taxes are --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would you please keep your conversations down.

Mr Mammoliti: I don't know why people don't want to listen to this very important speech.

As I was saying, I can tell you that property taxes in our two communities, mine and Downsview, is the key issue. A change in property tax would provide some hope for those in our communities.

I urge every one of you in this Legislature today to vote in favour of this resolution. I urge all the backbenchers, all the MPPs in this Legislature, those who aren't paying attention at this point as well, to vote in favour of this resolution. It's important. I hope this goes through.

Mr Marchese: I stand to support the resolution introduced by Mr Perruzza as a very good resolution, and I want to make four points.

The first one is to agree with Mr Sorbara, the member for York Centre, who has taken a very balanced and reasonable position on this. We do not always agree, but on this particular issue I have to say we agree. That's my first point.

The second point has to do with the current tax system. The current tax system, as the resolution says, is a very regressive one. It's regressive because it's not based on ability to pay. It bears no relevance to their ability to pay, as when we speak of seniors and when we speak of people who are on low income. We have situations of people living next door to each other, one making $200,000 a year or $100,000 a year and someone making only $20,000 or $30,000 a year, paying the same amount of taxes. That's how unfair the current tax system is, and that is why we need to be able to change it.

It's true, as some members have said, like the member for Oriole, that there are some concerns. They are legitimate and they have to be addressed. She says, for example, that some tenants, who would be paying income tax if we change from the current system to an income tax system, would continue to be paying income tax, but would they be able to get their rebate once property taxes went down, once we've removed the education portion? She correctly raises a good point. We would have to make sure, once we have worked the details out, that that is addressed, and I agree with her.

There are other issues of governance, and it is true that if we collected income tax, there may be no reason for boards of education to exist, and we would have to look at that. It has serious implications in terms of income tax concerns, governance concerns and concerns for tenants, and they have to be addressed. But let's not confuse the principle or the concept of this resolution with the form or detail of the principle. As Mr Sorbara says, the pieces will come later.

Mrs Caplan, the member for Oriole, raises another interesting concern. She says we've removed the tax grant for seniors now and we've shifted to a tax credit, and she suggests by it that we will hurt seniors. I question not only the veracity of her remarks but also the honesty of her remarks.

What we have done is very consistent with a principle similar to the kind of motion that we put forth. What we're saying is that those seniors who are making $23,000 or less will continue to have the $600, and in fact in most cases they'll be making a lot more. Is that inconsistent with the kind of resolution we have here? Absolutely not. In fact, we're saying consistently that those who have less should be getting more.

As a concluding remark, I want to say that we want our government to address the issue of education funding reform and begin in a gradual way to achieve equality and equity for those who have the least.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, you have two minutes, plus whatever remains.

Mr Perruzza: I'd like to pick up once again very briefly where I left off. The point was made by one of my Liberal colleagues, the member for Oriole -- and she spoke very directly to this particular issue; that is, the issue of removing education from property taxes, getting the burden of education off the backs of middle-income earners, middle-class Ontarians, seniors, people on fixed incomes and low-wage earners. She talked about the difficulties this would pose, because if you did this, you would somehow have to go to some other form of revenue and find the same amount of money.

To put that in perspective, what that says is that we cannot move away from a regressive form of taxation because we raise X amount of money and therefore we would have to go to another, more progressive form of taxation and raise exactly the same amount of money. That's the argument. That's the point that the member for Oriole was trying to make.

What this says to me very directly is that what she's talking about is, "Let the poor pay not in proportion to their income, not in proportion to their abilities, but in proportion to the house that they need to live in, that they must live in." That's what the member for Oriole is saying. What she is saying is: "Don't make it progressive, don't touch the top wage earners, don't touch the fat cats, my friends, because if you go after them and they are making $100,000 a year, $500,000 a year, $1 million a year, their share is exactly the same as that individual or that family which is making $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year in combined income." That's what the member for Oriole, my Liberal colleague, is saying, and I find that obscene. I find that kind of argument, that kind of rhetoric coming from my Liberal friend totally unacceptable.

She talked about tenants. How do you ensure and how do you secure that you give back to tenants any scale-back, any reduction in the property tax portion they must bear? You only need to go through the reports. You only, I say to my Liberal friend, read the reports you commissioned. It's in here. You can do it a number of ways. One of the most direct is just simply giving them a rebate. Send them a cheque. We have the facilities in the Ministry of Revenue. We have the high-tech computers. Calculate what their portion is, how much they've paid, and send them back a cheque. That's simple enough. It's not as convoluted and as complicated as she would make us believe.

My Conservative friends' classic argument is, "Raise the provincial share to 60%." Well, doing that doesn't lower the property tax rate that people can't afford to pay.

I will not yield, I will not bend on this issue. I hope many of my colleagues do essentially the same and I hope that we do not rest until the task at hand is done.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for private members' business has expired. Will the members please take their seats.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, I would ask you to refrain from talking.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 32, standing in the name of Mr Elston. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I'll wait. When you're ready I'll continue.

Mr Elston has moved private member's resolution number 31. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Please take your seats. Pursuant to standing order 96(f), the recorded vote on this ballot item is deferred.

TAX REFORM

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 31, standing in the name of Mr Perruzza. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

Mr Perruzza has moved private member's resolution number 32. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Call in the members for a vote on ballot item number 32; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1205 to 1210.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Will the members please take their seats. Mr Elston has moved private member's resolution 31. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Jordan, Kormos, Mahoney, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Nays

Akande, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Perruzza, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Wessenger, White, Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 27, the nays 31.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 27; the nays are 31. I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' business have been completed. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1214.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I stand here today to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services to intervene before it is too late.

The Community Network of Childcare Programs is a non-profit, community-based organization that has worked closely with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This organization is providing essential, cost-effective support for members of the city of North York child care community. The CNCP has been a great help to the community-based, non-profit child care system in North York. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has benefited from CNCP, as well as the citizens of Ontario.

It's for this reason that I was alarmed to hear that the ministry has not yet committed to continue to support CNCP for 1992-93. CNCP will not be able to survive on its current membership fees and fund-raising revenues alone. They're not in a position to ask their members to provide more funds. It's imperative that CNCP receive a commitment to continue funding in order not to jeopardize the important services that ensure quality child care is provided in Ontario. CNCP provides services to child care centres which are funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

They're not asking for new money. They're simply asking for security and a commitment to what they have. Time is running out. Action must be taken. Please, Minister, intervene and do not betray your commitment to non-profit child care support.

DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): It's with some regret that I must again draw attention to the silly and harmful behaviour of bureaucrats who are attacking agriculture again in this province.

In recent weeks, Ministry of Health bureaucrats have been charging cheese plants for not refrigerating cheese curds immediately upon manufacture. Anyone knows that cheese curds, for as long as cheese has been made in this country, have not been refrigerated, and curds are meant to be eaten fresh and squeaky. In fact, modern science tells us that the lactic acids produced in cheese curds at room temperature kill harmful bacteria that would actually grow if curds were refrigerated, another example where plain common sense does not prevail.

Unfortunately, the fact that traditional measures are safer and have been proven safer means nothing to the bureaucrats working for the Ministry of Health. These bureaucrats play God, and nothing changes their opinion. Ontario's milk and cheese producers are being forced to absorb unnecessary court costs in order to defend themselves against these irresponsible and ill-informed bureaucrats who are allowed to run loose.

If the Minister of Health is looking at ways to trim her budget, I can point out that these so-called inspectors are the first ones she should be cutting. No matter what the excuse is, there is no legitimate reason why these charges should have been laid before any reasonable and sane investigation. Cheese curds are made to be eaten fresh.

ZIGMUNT SOJKA

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of the death and life of one of the greatest environmentalists my riding has produced: Zigmunt Sojka, known better as Ziggy. My friend died November 5 at the age of 74.

Less than two years ago Ziggy received an Ontario Senior Achievement Award in recognition of his brave fight to save our environment. Ziggy, a resident of Fenwick, was president and founding member of the Niagara Residents for Safe Toxic Waste Disposal, a citizens' group which today continues to battle Ontario Waste Management Corp's bid to construct a toxic waste treatment plant in west Lincoln.

Under Ziggy's leadership, the citizens' group successfully lobbied municipal, regional and provincial governments. Ziggy was smart in his fight against the OWMC. He refused to use a negative approach. Instead, he suggested positive alternatives. Newspapers throughout Niagara have written colourful stories on Ziggy and his crusade against OWMC, a crown corporation created a decade ago by the Progressive Conservative government of Bill Davis.

A native of Poland, Ziggy immigrated to Canada from England in 1954 with his wife, Sheila. Ziggy's four children were raised to be "environmentally friendly."

Ziggy was an active and well-liked member of his community. Prior to his retirement he was a boat builder, construction worker, carpenter, farmer and store owner. He was a soccer coach, president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, an active member of the St Catharines District Labour Council and an active member of my riding association.

It is individuals like Ziggy who make Ontario a wonderful province in which to live. He'll be missed dearly by those who knew him and those who will be fortunate enough to live in a cleaner, safer world because of him.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): It's really a sad day when the NDP government is forced to dredge up two-year-old announcements in an effort to generate good economic news. Witness this week's declaration by the Premier in Asia that because of his visit, Japan's Kubota had decided to expand its Orillia plant to the tune of $10 million. The Treasurer stood up in this House and said that this is why Bob Rae went to Asia.

Well, the Premier and the Treasurer should have searched back a little bit in their clipping files, because Kubota made this announcement two years ago. They made the announcement before this government's string of $10-billion deficits; they made it before its changes to the labour law; they made it before the NDP government destroyed this economy with its foolish economic policies. But the Premier is still trumpeting this news as if it happened just this week.

With 547 jobs disappearing every working day in the province of Ontario, Bob Rae should have stayed home in Ontario and not tried to stage-manage this old news to justify his junket to Asia. The Premier should stay here, should be talking to the people at General Motors, to the people at Ford, to the people in this province about their economic future instead of going over there and bringing out old news, trying to pretend that he's made some major coup and misleading the people of this province.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The Interim Waste Authority will announce the dump short list tomorrow, and this will continue the unwelcome process of locating three megadumps in York, Durham and Peel started by Bob Rae and Ruth Grier.

There will be no rejoicing. What the IWA and the government are doing is wrong.

Bill 143 takes away property rights and legal rights of individuals and municipalities. It's wrong because it's touching on environmentally sensitive lands and prime agricultural lands. It's wrong because the government refuses to look at other options such as rail haul or incineration. It's wrong because submissions to the IWA were denied after August 6. It's wrong because the boundaries are limited to the greater Toronto area. It's wrong in so many ways.

But, I'll tell you, we will not surrender. The people in York, Durham and Peel will not give in to this government.

Front 1 will be against the government itself. We will have a political battle against Bob Rae and Ruth Grier. The garbage queen of this earth will be run off it. This government will be put to ashes. We will not allow these government policies to be initiated.

The second front will be a technical front on the IWA itself, to make the IWA examine all the facts. The people out there are ready for battle. We've had two months' rest while they've been putting this together, and when we start into this, the people will triumph and this government will fall, and one of the reasons it will fall in 1995 is because of its dump policy, its garbage policy -- and all its policies are garbage as well.

1340

EVENTS IN OXFORD

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'd like to comment, on a more positive note, about two key events that I attended during constituency week.

The first one was on the weekend. I attended the third annual Monte Carlo night put on by the Princeton Optimist Club. I should say that the Princeton Optimist Club has been in existence for only three years but in that time it has been very active in serving the needs of the community. I was very pleased to be at the Monte Carlo night and to make the draw on the raffle for a brand-new truck. I was very pleased to do that, and the winner lives in the village of Princeton. The Optimist Club continues to do very good work in that community and the community was certainly out in full support. I want to congratulate all the organizers of that.

The second event I attended on the weekend was the opening of the new facility by the Good Beginnings Day Nursery. They have been able to finally, after moving around from many temporary sites, find a permanent site at the old Berean church on Devonshire Avenue in Woodstock.

The Good Beginnings Day Nursery has a very strong reputation of providing good quality day care for the community. It is a non-profit day care centre, operated mainly by the parents of those individuals. These two examples show, when people put a great deal of dedication in, what they can accomplish in the community of Oxford.

LANDFILL

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): His worship the member for Markham made a statement with respect to the Interim Waste Authority and the list that will be released tomorrow. I say to members that the Minister of the Environment has again misrepresented the situation; these sites will not be interim at all. They will have a lifespan of at least 20 years. The interim sites that belong to this minister are the expanded sites at Keele Valley and Britannia.

The news that's going to be made tomorrow has many communities in the region of York, Durham and Peel shuddering with dread. Many of the groups were formed to fight this government's heavy-handed, dart-board, ill-advised, nonsensical, absolutely outrageous selection process and they're gearing up for another round of rallies and demonstrations, the likes of which Mrs Grier, as Minister of the Environment, has never seen nor ever could have contemplated.

I want to remind members and the minister that she has only herself to blame for the incredible chaos that exists in the regions. It's her own fault that she's now commonly referred to not as the Minister of the Environment but as the minister of garbage.

The minister's Interim Waste Authority promised residents who live in the vicinity of potential dump sites that they would have at least two days' warning before the short list was announced. None of the residents had that warning and had no idea that the list would be announced until they read the government's PR spin as reprinted in this morning's Globe and Mail.

Residents and citizens groups feel betrayed once again. They feel let down by this government. That PR spin, reprinted, talks about Mrs Grier as an ardent environmentalist -- an environmentalist, I say, who has betrayed the trust of the people of this province, who has violated every fundamental environmental principle as she has started this terribly ill-advised, absurd process.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise to once again bring the matter of the northern health travel grant program to the attention of the Minister of Health.

As the minister is aware, there are three requirements which Ontario residents must meet in order to qualify for this program. First, the applicant must live in an area designated as part of northern Ontario, for the purposes of the program. The second requirement is one of distance. The third requirement dictates that the general practitioner who refers the resident for specialized medical treatment must be a northern physician.

As a result of the third requirement, there are still some residents in the district of Parry Sound who are being denied access to the program. I have held several discussions with the Minister of Health regarding this matter.

I do want to recognize the fact that it's under her supervision that changes have been made to the program allowing most Parry Sound residents eligibility for the program. However, the third requirement still prevents some Parry Sound constituents from receiving specialized medical treatment because they are ineligible for the program.

The situation has been further exacerbated by the closing of the Burk's Falls and District Hospital and the recent death of Dr Bev Hallam. Many residents of the southeastern part of the riding must now travel to Huntsville in the district of Muskoka in order to consult a general practitioner. These residents are barred from participating in the northern health travel grant program.

The minister has been reviewing this regulation for close to a year now and I believe sufficient time has passed to allow the ministry to come to a decision on this matter.

SHAW FESTIVAL

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today to congratulate the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake on its record-breaking 1992 season. Members will have received a press release from the Shaw Festival outlining details of its success, and I would just like to take a few moments to highlight some.

The Shaw Festival was so successful this year it broke all previous records set for paid attendance, with almost 279,000 people taking in this season's performances. This represents an increase of more than 33,000 tickets over 1991.

The Shaw is clearly a cultural force in Canada and indeed in North America, and for the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake it holds special significance as one of the town's principal employers and as a leading tourist attraction.

Most recently, the chamber of commerce paid tribute to the Shaw by naming it the Business of the Year in Niagara-on-the-Lake. While the company as a whole is responsible for this success, I feel certain individuals must be singled out and congratulated for their outstanding efforts. These individuals include the artistic director, Christopher Newton; the administrative director, Elaine Calder; the marketing director, Anne Trites; and the publicity manager, B.J. Armstrong.

It is indeed a tribute to the administrative and artistic creativity of the Shaw Festival that it would achieve its most successful season to date in some of the worst economic times we have experienced in decades. After such an outstanding year, the people behind the Shaw have certainly earned their moment in the spotlight. If you missed the 1992 season, join us for 1993.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a former member from the riding of Port Arthur, who's seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Jim Foulds. Welcome to our gallery.

APPOINTMENT OF CLERK ASSISTANT AND CLERK OF COMMITTEES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It is my great pleasure to announce to you today the appointment of Mrs Deborah Deller as clerk assistant and clerk of committees in replacement of Mr Smirle Forsyth, who resigned recently for health reasons.

Mrs Deller has worked for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in various capacities since 1979, and we all wish her the best of good fortune in her new responsibilities. I would ask members to welcome her to her new position.

Interjections: Speech.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I'd like to move unanimous consent that Ms Deller be given 30 minutes to address the Legislature.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Agreed.

The Speaker: I don't know, from the table.

Mrs Marland: But the Clerk doesn't know that.

The Speaker: Not normally.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): That's not normal? When has that ever stopped us?

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I must say before beginning a ruling that the normal courtesy of providing a ruling only when the member who rose to his or her feet to bring a point of order to the attention of the Speaker has been set aside at the request of the member for Ottawa South, as he expressed to me that he felt the ruling was more important than his particular attendance. With your indulgence, we set that courtesy aside.

On Tuesday, November 17, 1992, the member for Ottawa South (Mr McGuinty) rose on a question of privilege concerning developments arising out of the proceedings that occurred at a meeting of the standing committee on resources development during its consideration of a matter designated pursuant to standing order 125. The member for Bruce (Mr Elston), the member for Parry Sound (Mr Eves) and the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) also spoke to this matter.

At the outset, I want to remind the House of previous rulings related to proceedings in committee. The Speaker cannot rule on a procedural matter that occurs in any committee of this Legislature unless the request to do so comes by way of a report from that committee. As Speaker Edighoffer indicated at page 44 of Hansard for March 21, 1990, "Matters arising out of the proceedings before committees should be settled in the committee, and only if a report comes forward from the standing committee to the House dealing with the member's question of privilege could this matter be studied by the Speaker." This has been our practice both before and since that time.

I have to say, then, that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to clarify the procedures with respect to the issue raised by the member for Ottawa South.

Members will know that there is a well-defined procedure for the issuance of a Speaker's warrant and that the requirements of section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act must be met before the Speaker exercises a discretion to issue a warrant.

1350

Section 35 of the act states that:

"(1) The assembly may at all times command and compel the attendance before the assembly or a committee thereof of such persons, and the production of such papers and things, as the assembly or committee considers necessary for any of its proceedings or deliberations.

"(2) When the assembly requires the attendance of a person before the assembly or a committee thereof, the Speaker may issue a warrant directed to the person named in the order of the assembly requiring the person's attendance before the assembly or committee and the production of papers and things as ordered."

The process to be followed under this section of the act is very straightforward. When a person refuses to attend the proceedings of a committee, the committee may, upon the passage of a motion, report to the House its request for the issuance of a Speaker's warrant. The House must then adopt the report of the committee before the Speaker may act.

Section 35 clearly requires that it is the assembly that may command and compel the attendance of a witness before a committee and that if the assembly requires such attendance, the Speaker may issue a warrant. The Speaker cannot issue a warrant at the request of a single member of the assembly or even at the direct request of a committee. The Speaker may only exercise a discretion to issue a warrant upon the passage of a motion in this House.

On occasion, the assembly has delegated its authority in this regard to a committee. Such was the case when the subcommittee of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly was authorized by an order of the House dated December 19, 1991, to request the issuance of a warrant by the Speaker without the intervening step of making a report to the assembly.

Even under standing order 125, decisions such as those concerning the issuance of a Speaker's warrant require the adoption of a motion first by committee and then by the House.

Members will realize that passing motions either in committee or in the House is the only way that the House can express itself. In our parliamentary system, a motion is adopted or rejected upon the counting of a majority either in the affirmative or negative. Therefore, I can only repeat that the correct procedure in this case has been followed and that there is nothing that the Speaker can do on his or her own initiative, first of all because it's a matter arising out of proceedings in committee and secondly because the motions necessary to initiate this process were not passed.

I thank all the honourable members for their contributions.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Dealing with your ruling just made, Mr Speaker, I would ask that you provide us with some direction in writing as to what your ability is now to protect the rights of the minority in fulfilling their obligations or allowing them to have their obligations fulfilled under the standing orders.

As I had raised the issue with you yesterday, effectively we're given the right under the standing orders to have a 125 in committee, but the number of government members in committee can now overrule the minority, ie, the opposition, and kill the intent of the standing order. I require, I guess, some clarification or understanding as to how the standing orders are to be carried out if the will of the majority on the committee is always allowed to kill any opportunity of bringing people in front of the committee for the purpose of fulfilling the obligation this Legislative Assembly has to do a 125 motion at the behest of the minority.

The two items I need some clarification on from you are (1) when and how does the Speaker intervene to make sure that the minority can have the obligations that the standing orders, at least prima facie, place on the government to allow us to have some say in committees, and (2) at what stage can you intervene to make sure that we have some abilities that are not always overridden in this assembly by the majority?

I would appreciate that clarification, because there is no way now, at any time, that we can carry out the intent of the standing orders as initially amended by this House, not just by this government but in our time and now as subsequently re-amended. That's my first one.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, I understand the concern he expresses. There is nothing in what has happened which is in violation of the standing orders, and that's very clear.

What the member speaks of, however, is something which was contained in his last sentence, ie, the intent. The intent is something which a committee will have to wrestle with to determine whether its own proceedings are something the committee is comfortable with. All your Speaker can do for you is to ensure that the standing orders are adhered to, and that's precisely what was looked into.

The member will know full well that in a majority Parliament, whenever there's a vote, there is always the possibility that the majority will prevail and the majority vote will determine the outcome of a subject.

I understand the frustration the member expresses. I must say to the member that the matters that arise in committee must be dealt with in committee. If members want changes to the committee system, that has to be addressed as well in our standing orders. They need to be changed if that's the intent of the member's submission. Indeed, from time to time, parliaments do take a look at their committee system and initiate parliamentary reform. That may be of interest not only to the honourable member for Bruce but to other members in this assembly.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, my second point of order has to do with some events yesterday evening, getting close to 6 o'clock. It's with regard to the use of language by one of the speakers for the New Democratic Party.

I stood on a point of order -- I haven't got the words here; I meant to bring them with me -- when the opposition was accused of telling untruths in this House. I raised the issue with the Speaker at the time and he said that because no particular member was identified, it was not unparliamentary. I then interjected, I believe quite wrongly, but I did it anyway to provoke the issue, and said that the government members lied. That clearly was unparliamentary, but I did not identify any particular member in accordance with the ruling given by the Speaker who was then in the chair. There was no difference in that regard in the two statements made, both by the speaker from the New Democratic Party, who accused us of lying, and me when I accused the government of lying.

My view is that we have to clarify what's going to take place in here. Both myself, the member for Bruce, and the member for Etobicoke West were called to order by the Speaker, as I think he should have rightly called us to order, who asked us to withdraw. We withdrew. But the ruling was that the member across the way could call the opposition collectively liars and get away with it.

I've been given the Hansard at this moment. I can find the exact phrase.

Mr Speaker, I would ask for a ruling from you as to the merit of that incident and how it was that we were required to withdraw and the member for Durham East was not required to withdraw. He was asked, after everything else had happened, if he thought it would be of interest to him to withdraw.

There must be fairness in this place, and the casting of aspersions in the manner in which it was done yesterday was such as to disrupt the proceedings here. In fact, under the standing orders, a Speaker can call a member to order when he does that and when the intent of his remarks is so to do.

Mr Speaker, I would ask for your ruling and await your deliberation on the incident of yesterday.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, there are a couple of points that I think need to be made here.

First of all, any point of order that's brought to the attention of the Speaker must be dealt with immediately. Having done that, the moment has passed and it is not something that can later be resurrected.

However, on a larger point -- I appreciate what the member for Bruce has brought to my attention -- as the member will know, I have a deep concern about the language that often is heard within this chamber. Unparliamentary words should not be used at any time, whether they are directed at an individual or a group of members. It is not acceptable. I don't know how we can conduct the public business in a civil way if we resort to using unparliamentary language. It does nothing but inflame the situation and does not lead to calm, reasoned argument.

The point that the member for Bruce makes is a valid one, and all I can do is to ask all members to exercise as much restraint as is humanly possible so that we can conduct our business in an orderly way. I appreciate what the member for Bruce has brought to my attention.

1400

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to raise a point of order, in light of your ruling here today, with respect to what is going on in the resources committee and standing order 125 and your ability to issue or not issue Speaker's warrants under section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act.

I think it should be understood that previously we had standing order 123, which was basically the same thing as what is now standing order 125. The purpose in the previous set of rule changes for having standing order 123, and now 125, as my honourable friend has stated, was to give the opposition parties and the minority in this place -- because at the time when those rule changes were made there was a majority government in place -- the whole purpose of those negotiations and changing the standing orders and changing the rules of procedure was to give the opposition and the minority an opportunity to have a procedure by which they could have an issue that was in the public interest dealt with for 12 hours at a time.

The net effect of this majority government's actions in committee, combined with the ruling you gave here today, I would submit to you, totally does away with standing order 125, previously 123; totally does away with the intent of good faith negotiations by the then Liberal majority government in the province of Ontario with the then minority party, which was the New Democratic Party.

How ironic it is that they were the ones who negotiated, along with ourselves, standing order 123 and now they want to do away with it altogether. They don't want this issue dealt with. They don't want these people from Ontario Hydro to appear before the committee.

In effect, they are stifling and really doing away with standing orders 125 and 123. I would like an opinion as to whether or not that in fact is being done. If that's the case, how can any of us deal in good faith with the government on any issue?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On that point, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: On the same point? All right, briefly.

Mr Conway: If you'd rather not, I'm quite prepared to do this another day, except to say that I think the member for Parry Sound has a very good point. I was involved in those negotiations. What we have now, and I might say not for the first time, is a first experience that reduces the provision 125 to a near nullity if not a nullity per se, and that was not what was intended. It was certainly not the intention of those people who negotiated that particular provision.

If you look at standing order 125, it is clearly indicated in the provision that the steering committee shall meet and the steering committee shall essentially order the business for that particular reference and that the full committee will be bound by that direction. Now what we have here --

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): That is different than Speaker's warrants.

Mr Conway: The government House leader says this is different than a Speaker's warrant, and to a certain extent that is true, but the Speaker's warrant issue in this connection ties I think very directly to the point that the member for Bruce and the member for Parry Sound have elucidated, and that is the ability of the government majority to essentially nullify a private member's initiative through standing order 125.

If that is in fact what the New Democratic Party in government wants, then I think that is an enormously important point for them to make. I would submit that it is pointless to consider applying that standing order and I want to say the mischief-maker in me looks forward to the date, not too many years into the future, when this precedent can be applied to the very people who wouldn't tolerate it for a moment if they were in opposition. If that's what they want, if that's the precedent they want, I'm not going to complain too loudly, because I will be pleased to apply it to the New Democrats at the first opportunity, which apparently won't be too many years off.

I say in conclusion that we, as a Legislature, should be embarrassed at the notion that the will of a committee to inquire into a government agency or some kind of government action can effectively be frustrated when members of the community to be inquired into conspire, at the behest in this case of the government, to simply not appear, and therefore the will of the parliamentary committee and Parliament itself can be merrily flouted. I can't believe there is any self-respecting member of this Legislature who wants to leave that precedent in our books.

The Speaker: With your indulgence, if the member would just take his seat for a moment, the matter is quite clear actually. Regardless of whatever understanding or sympathy I may have for the member's position, the principle remains intact that a matter concerning a committee must be dealt with by a committee.

I must say to the member for Parry Sound and the member for Renfrew North indeed, if there is a strong feeling that the intent of standing order 125 is not being upheld and it is not functioning properly, then one of two courses is open: either to try to effect a change in the rules or to try to negotiate a more effective resolution of this, perhaps through the House leaders.

As always, if there's some way in which my office can be of assistance in trying to ensure that the full intention for our standing orders as they affect committees is upheld, I am more than pleased to do that.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: In respect to the member for Bruce's complaint, I'd like to refer you to page 3336 of Hansard. Yesterday I made a comment during my address that members of the opposition were guilty of distorting the truth. This was challenged, and in Hansard it's recorded that I rose on my feet and unequivocally withdrew that.

Also -- that was directed towards the third party -- I sat down, I was challenged by the member for Mississauga, I think it is South, and I rose again and withdrew that remark in respect to them. So I did withdraw those remarks and I don't know what the member for Bruce is talking about.

The Speaker: First, I prefer that we lay this one to rest. The matter was dealt with yesterday. I appreciate its being brought to my attention. My only observation is that no withdrawals would ever be necessary if no unparliamentary language were used.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday in the resources committee -- and I do believe we required your direction in this matter -- the subcommittee of the resources committee made a report pursuant to rule 125(b) indicating that certain individuals had been requested to appear, the invitation had been made and they had not responded. As such, in that report they then made a request to you that a Speaker's warrant be issued.

My point is this: Under rule 125(b) that type of report is in order and under rule 125(c) a report of the subcommittee is deemed to be a report of the committee. What happened yesterday is that the report of the subcommittee was not deemed to be a report of the committee; it was called for a vote, and that report of course did not carry.

My request to you, Mr Speaker, is a clear ruling that where there is a report of the subcommittee under rule 125(b), then as a result of 125(c) it must be deemed to be a report of the committee, thereby allowing the Chair of the committee to make a report to this Legislature for final determination. I believe that to be the rule under 125, not only in intent but in substance, and I believe what went on in the committee yesterday was an error which requires your guidance and your ruling.

1410

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga North, I appreciate his interest. The matter must be dealt with in committee. The only report which we can deal with here in the House is a report that comes from a committee. Any report that's dealt with by a subcommittee must then find its way to the House, and only at that point can we deal with it in the House. It's very, very clear both in our procedures, our precedents and indeed in our reference material. If the member is unclear about the process, certainly I would invite him to talk with one of the table officers. The process is very, very clear.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Today I am pleased to inform members that the Ministry of Education will provide $301.7 million in grants for our 1992 school capital program.

In the fiscal year 1995-96, we will help build 21 new schools and 40 additions to schools through grants totalling $180.2 million. Our 1995-96 non-growth projects, which include six new schools replacing older facilities as well as renovations to 92 existing facilities, will receive grants totalling $52.9 million. The projects announced today will provide new accommodation for 30,240 students.

Another $34.2 million in grants urgently needed to fund 174 junior kindergarten facilities will flow in the 1993 and 1994 fiscal years.

We also have $34.4 million for emergency and contingency capital needs between now and the end of 1996.

Our program will fund a total of 333 projects valued at $409.7 million. This is in addition to our Jobs Ontario Capital announcement made earlier this year of $46 million towards capital projects valued at $65 million.

I am pleased to inform members that this significant investment in Ontario's infrastructure will also help to create jobs and revitalize the economy. We expect this construction will result in jobs for Ontarians equivalent to one year's worth of work for an estimated 3,643 people.

I also wish to outline new strategic directions the ministry and our government are taking to achieve better delivery of services and programs in more cost-efficient ways and in more cost-efficient facilities.

As members may be aware, the Ministry of Education has recently concluded extensive consultation regarding community-based multi-use school facilities. By combining the location of our schools with appropriate and complementary community services, such as community centres, libraries, community colleges or day care centres, we can enhance the quality of community life as a whole and provide a lasting community resource.

A condition for funding the 1995-96 new facilities will be that the boards receiving these grants re-examine needs with the community involved for the possibility of incorporating multiple uses into the school facilities.

At the program stage, boards will be asked to show that they examined their projects in light of the multi-use initiative prior to receiving ministry approval. The ministry will provide a detailed analysis and review process to the boards affected.

Although not all of these projects will become multi-use, we are beginning to chart a sensible new course for the future. In keeping with this new direction, I wish to note that 27 of our projects will include child care centres in our schools, which will accommodate 1,130 children.

In the future, we expect most of our project submissions will be firmly rooted in this community-based multi-use approach. The current economic climate has forced all of us to seriously explore every means of cutting costs and spending wisely. I am convinced that multi-use schools will give the people of Ontario the highest possible quality service for their tax dollars, both in times of restraint and in times of prosperity.

These changes, combined with other initiatives under discussion, will allow us to move forward in tackling the historical disparity between the need for new pupil places and the numbers that can be accommodated.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I guess the word "finally" escapes one's lips and dances across the chamber floor. But in listening to the minister's statement, particularly the announcement about the capital for the 1995-96 year, one wonders why this could have not been done in the usual fashion and at the usual time, in the spring, when then the school boards would have been able to incorporate it into their planning so that they could have gotten on with the job. This does have an impact, because we want to have a flow, a three-year planning term for school boards. So this late announcement -- here we are at almost the end of November, November 19 -- has caused problems for school boards.

With this announcement, I think the first thing one wants to say is that we implore the minister, when they are doing their capital projects for the next budget year, to make those announcements in April or May, following the Treasurer's budget, so that school boards in fact are going to be able to plan as they have. Because again, if we go back to the discussions in the 1980s, what school boards were asking for was, "We want to have a multi-year period in which we know what funds are going to come so that we can properly plan." That began. This government has indicated that it was going to follow along with that plan, but in order for that to work, we have to do it at the same time each year.

The minister hasn't commented in his statement today, but both my colleague from London North and I have drawn attention to the capital funding proposal that has gone forward to school boards and to which they were asked to respond by the 10th of this month, that this could in fact bring about significant changes in the way in which school capital will be allocated in the future.

All I will say at this point to the minister is that I think it is important that we have a full discussion within this Legislature of the nature and terms of those proposals, because I'm sure the minister is getting responses from school boards, as am I, as is the member for London North, that express a great deal of concern in terms of how that proposal is going to go forward and precisely what the terms and conditions will be.

In this announcement today the minister has also gone on to outline what he calls "new strategic directions" with respect to community-based, multi-use school facilities. This approach is one which we ourselves had been developing as a government, and I think in principle is something that everyone can agree with.

There are several cautions which I would like to remind the minister about as he goes forward in bringing this in. Clearly, and the first note, is that in some communities there will not be a need for a multi-use school, simply because other facilities such as the libraries or community centres, what have you, are already there. So I would just urge the minister as this is being implemented to demonstrate flexibility, to not put a lot of roadblocks in the way of boards which need to get on with the construction of specific schools where this is not going to be required.

The other thing is that the minister has said this will kick in in the 1995-96 capital year. It is for that year that the minister has just made these announcements. Consequently boards, as I understand it, are going to have to go back and look at the proposals they've made in the light of this new direction. In a number of cases boards which have spent considerable time in developing the projects that they have may well be linked to projects that were agreed upon for last year or the year before in terms of the ordering of the construction and the development of those facilities. So again, I think the ministry has to show flexibility in implementing this policy so that we don't get hung up in a lot of red tape.

With that, we are glad that finally this announcement has come forward. We expect to see the next one in the spring.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I would just like to thank the member for York North for forcing the government to make this announcement today.

1420

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses? Third party.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): In response to the Minister of Education, the word "final" is an understatement, but we do have the announcement today. I'm going to begin by saying that really what this announcement does is to allow school boards, if in fact they do want to build their schools before the 1995-96 school year -- most of those school boards, or many of them, will choose to debenture all of the money. All this capital grants program today really does is that the announcement tells school boards they can debenture; that's all it is. This is not real money until 1995-96.

Of course, this whole program of forcing school boards to debenture and borrow money before they get money from the government was begun by the Liberal government some five years ago, and I have to say this is the way Ontario is going: borrow, borrow, borrow. When we were in government -- I have to tell you I was on the school board for some 15 years -- we never debentured anything. One of the statements that a former Minister of Education made to me when we asked for school board funding for capital for overcrowded schools in London was: "Do you have a debenture? Do you owe any money? Because if you don't, you're not eligible."

In the last four years since I've been elected, there are no rewards for good fiscal management, and this kind of debenturing and this kind of capital announcement which goes back for some five years is not appropriate. I have to tell you that although I'm standing here and I'm happy that the province of Ontario might be able to build these schools in 1995-96 -- they may be able to; let's hope they can -- the direction we're moving in right now doesn't give us a lot of hope. I'm still happy that some of the school boards will at least have permission to move forward.

With regard to our Jobs Ontario Capital grant, I'm not certain how that's moving forward, but the minister does tell us this creates jobs and revitalizes the economy. Yes, it does; if school boards want to go out and borrow all of the money in order to build the schools in the next year, it will in fact, this year, revitalize the economy, but only because local taxpayers are going to be borrowing money and having to pay interest on that money, a very inefficient way of governing the province of Ontario.

I should tell you that the paper that went out to school boards for input with response to the implementation of debenture financing, where the government seems to want to set up yet another big agency of government just to handle debentures, the Peel Board of Education and others have sent their responses to myself, and I have to tell you this: "The board wants to convey to you in the strongest possible terms our deep concern about the proposal and the philosophy underlying it." That letter is to the Minister of Education.

I'll also talk about multi-use school facilities. This is not new. I sat on a committee that looked at community use of schools, multi-use school facilities in 1974, some 18 years ago. It's not new. I will also tell you that at the program stage, boards will be asked to show that they examined their projects. So the multi-use initiative, if they haven't already got it in, will in fact delay school boards that are wanting to build immediately. This will delay them. I have to say, "Caution," to the minister on that. I hope you won't be delaying school boards that are at least in the category of urgent.

In the end, I wish to note the 27 projects will include child care centres in our schools, and if in fact those are community-based child care centres, I congratulate the minister. I think that may be a good use of space. But I will also say that the $32.2 million that's going towards the junior kindergarten facilities, that's their program; they should be paying 100% for that, especially where boards don't want to do it. So I can only say this is not something the government should be proud of, in spite of the fact that it's making announcements.

In the end, why don't we know what schools are being built? Why do we have to wait till tomorrow? I want to phone my school board today. I don't want to wait for Mr Winninger to phone, like he did yesterday. We want to know today what schools are getting this money.

The Speaker: It is time for oral questions.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm going to ask for unanimous consent that the Minister of the Environment rise in her place and make a statement with respect to the GTA list she'll be releasing tomorrow, rather than abdicating her responsibility and doing it in a secretive fashion outside of this place. I'm asking if my colleagues could grant unanimous consent for the minister to face up to her responsibilities here.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the Minister of the Environment to make a --

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: No. I heard one "no."

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): On behalf of the government, I'm pleased to note that tomorrow, November 20, is the anniversary of the day that the convention for the rights of children was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, and we have unanimous consent to make a statement today.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: I think all of us in this assembly will also agree that this is a date to be marked and to be celebrated with pride every year. Since the convention's passage at the UN, over 119 member states have ratified it, and Canada is among them.

The convention is a very significant document which establishes that a child is a person with legal and moral rights which the state has promised to defend. In 1990, this Legislature was unanimous in expressing its support for the United Nations convention. Our continued support is extremely significant and helpful to the cause of the rights of children.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out special protection for children based on the universal declaration of human rights and the declaration on the rights of the child. The UN community of nations recognized the need for this convention because children, as a group, require special care and attention and are more vulnerable than other human beings.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes and aims to protect basic social, economic and cultural as well as civil and political rights for children around the world. It gives children -- a child is defined as any individual under 18 years of age -- the right to survive, to be protected and to develop the right to have a name and a nationality.

The convention emphasizes the important responsibilities parents have in the upbringing of children.

The convention also espouses the ideal that children should grow up in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding with the protection and assistance necessary for full development of their personality. This is essential for children so that they may become responsible, contributing adults in society.

This week we heard disturbing reminders of the severity of child poverty in Canada and the continuing need for all of us to work towards an end to child poverty by the year 2000. Moving towards this goal and maintaining the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is made a greater challenge than ever before by the difficult economic conditions we are currently facing.

This provincial government remains committed to supporting programs which promote the wellbeing of children. We will continue to ensure that cost-effective and strategic use of tax dollars will support the children's agenda in a responsible and effective manner.

My ministry continues to work in collaboration with other ministries towards the integration of services for children in order to best benefit Ontario's young people. The goal of this integration is to create a cohesive network of services and programs for children. This means an interdependent and integrated system which supports parents and guardians in their child-rearing efforts and which is accessible and sensitive to the cultures and lifestyles of the people who use it.

This integration will result in services which are accountable for the benefits they provide to children, youth and families. It will also create greater efficiencies in the way services are provided.

Here I must make note of the progress we have made towards this priority in the area of child care. Extensive consultation has been completed on a reformed child care system in Ontario. Policy is presently being developed to respond to the advice we received from parents, care givers and the public on an improved and more affordable system.

A child care management plan has been developed and is being implemented across Ontario by my ministry to increase the availability of services that will meet the needs of parents and children for nurturing and caring support.

At the interministerial level, the interministry committee on services for children and youth has been developing provincial directions and an action plan to guide the integration of program services and policies for children and youth.

The secretariat is in operation to support the committee and it will focus on promoting integration at the local level and on reducing interministerial barriers to service. The intent is to improve effectiveness and efficiency of existing services and to consolidate the government reform initiatives that are already under way. It is only appropriate that this secretariat will coordinate Ontario's implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of children.

1430

On the ministry level, the Ministry of Community and Social Services is moving ahead with a number of projects to help us integrate services for children and families. Work has been initiated to establish a new policy framework and action plan to guide the future development of specialized children's services in Ontario. The framework calls for a cohesive, integrated system of specialized services for children and families, with appropriate linkages to health, education, recreation and other sectors. It includes short-, mid-, and long-term strategies to achieve this objective and others to ensure that children and families benefit to the greatest extent possible from available resources.

We consider the money we spend on our children to be the very best investment we can make in the future. By providing support and services and in some cases protection for children today, we can help them grow into strong, contributing adults, effectively preventing the need for additional and perhaps more expensive social services down the road.

Our efforts on behalf of children must take into account certain realities. It is a reality that approximately 40% of all people benefiting from social assistance in Ontario are children. It is also a reality that when people stand in line at food banks, many are taking home food to feed children who might otherwise go to bed hungry that night or to school hungry the next day. This government is currently developing ways to help families and communities provide healthy nutrition for our children.

Further, we know that doctors and hospitals are not the beginning and end of health care, particularly for young children. The full spectrum of health and the future of Ontario children is also dependent upon a clean environment, stable and healthy families and a safe, secure existence within a supportive community. Research indicates that without these supports in a child's life, there is an increasing likelihood that psychological and physical problems will take root and continue to affect their lives into adulthood. Then begins another intergenerational cycle. As a result, we all pay as a society. We must break that cycle by ensuring that the rights and responsibilities outlined in the convention with respect to our children are put into effect through our policies and practices in this province. It is in this spirit that together we can mark and honour this anniversary of the day the convention for the rights of the child was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise, first of all, to join with all members in this House in support of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As the minister has indicated, some two and a half years ago, on a motion by the former member for Riverdale, David Reville, we had an afternoon's debate in this House which I think was a very positive and constructive debate on this convention and the various things that remain to be done to ensure that not only in Canada but more particularly in this province we could indeed give meaning to the rights of the child.

I think that, quite frankly, what we on this side of the House were looking for was that the minister today, in noting this day in terms of the United Nations convention, would have been more specific on actions this government is going to take for children, because if there has been a profound disappointment -- and there have been many disappointments with this government -- it has been the lack of action with respect to children and programs for children.

There have been a number of major works that have been done on children and the kinds of programs we have for children in this province, ranging from the Ontario Child Health Study, which set out the kinds of risks and the kids who really are the ones we need to help and why we need to help them, to the Children First report, which was brought to this House by the present government but had been started during the period of government of the Liberals, to the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program, which sought to establish a series of projects around the province to give meaning to the rights and to the entitlements of children.

But for the last two years what we have learned and what we have heard back from this government in terms of really improving the lot of children in this province has been a lot of words around interministry committees, consultation and processes, but without signs of real action.

The minister has indicated that, in her view, the area of child care is one where they have shown positive action. How can she say that in the face of the fact that there are 14,000 children currently waiting for subsidy while 5,500 spaces sit empty? Yet today in the Minister of Education's speech, he announces there are going to be a further number, over 1,000, child care spaces made available, but there are no subsidies to fill those spaces. Yet we all recognize the importance of child care, not simply for the children but for the families and particularly single-parent families for whom, without that child care, it becomes very difficult for the single parent to work, to take skills training and the like.

The Jobs Ontario program promised 20,000 spaces but only 38 are being used at the moment. We have seen no action there. With respect to abused children, we're aware that there's a six-month to two-year waiting list for therapy and counselling of abused children.

Children's aid societies all across the province are facing tremendous financial hardships. Indeed, in a number of areas they're having to cut the preventive programs, the ones that all of the various children's services experts tell us are so important and so needed. Those primary prevention programs are not able to go forward.

High school youth: Increasingly, we see this terrible problem where there are more high school young people who are no longer living at home but for whom there is not adequate housing in this province. In my own area, the community services council is actually developing a housing list to be used by people in secondary schools so that they can find housing.

Street youth: Earlier this week, we talked about the problems that face street youth, particularly around counselling with respect to drug abuse, with respect to all kinds of issues they face. What we have is a whole series of problems out there where we are not seeing positive action.

I want to end with providing what I believe is a constructive approach that will bring all members of this House together to work with the government in trying to ensure that the commitment that each one of us individually has made to the United Nations convention, both two and a half years ago and today, can become a reality.

The minister has made reference to her policy framework for children's services, which is being discussed with children's service providers around the province. The minister is aware that last spring the standing committee on social development, with the support of every member of that committee -- all three parties -- agreed that we ought to look at the whole question of children at risk. I believe the minister agreed with that at the time.

This week my colleague from Ottawa-Rideau reintroduced that same motion as well as introducing the motion which the group from Campaign 2000 had urged that all members of this Legislature support towards the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000.

What I would ask the minister is to urge her party to agree to have the standing committee on social development look at this issue and come together so that we can collectively give meaning to the United Nations convention here in the province of Ontario. I think we would all look forward to working together because this is one area where I think there is agreement that we want to work together.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): It's a privilege for me to respond on behalf of my caucus colleagues with respect to paying tribute and acknowledging International Children's Rights Day, which will occur tomorrow all over the world. It is the anniversary of the passing of this United Nations convention resolution from 1989.

I'm sure all members of the House would be aware that Canada and our government took a leadership role in the development of this resolution and, in fact, sponsored the congresses that led to this very, very important resolution.

It declares that every child on the face of this earth is a person with legal and moral rights which their state is obliged and obligated to uphold and to protect.

1440

Children under the age of 15 comprise 1.4 billion people on the face of the earth, and they are the most vulnerable victims of catastrophe, whether that be a civil war, whether it be natural disasters, whether it be apartheid, whether it be famine. These children are our most vulnerable victims, and yet half of the world's refugees today -- half of them, seven million in all -- are suffering under these circumstances.

Closer to home, here in our country, in 1990 when the last comprehensive statistics were taken, there were as many as 370,000 children living in poverty in our province. On International Children's Rights Day we as legislators should use this opportunity to reflect on how we have committed ourselves in our political acts, how we have established the necessary priorities for our work in this chamber to dedicating ourselves to improving the conditions of the children in our communities and in our province.

I listened very carefully to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I must say that in my eight years in this House, this is the first time I've seen ministerial statements time transcend its essential purpose and become an opportunity for the government to make at length a statement about its policies and its procedures and its expenditures. Well, if this minister has made this choice, then it is only fair that some of the facts that were missed in her presentation be put on the record on this most important and significant day.

Despite our province's affluence, one out of every six children in Ontario lives in poverty, with more than 60% of those children coming from single-parent, mother-led families. I call on this Rae government to listen carefully and to approve the resolution to end child poverty in Ontario, which was put forward by the Ontario Social Development Council in conjunction with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I know that we have been approached, the Liberal caucus has been approached, and so has the government. I wish to state for the record that we are anxious to have this government proceed with that resolution and to commit its government's policy and priorities to ensuring the rights of children.

Some 150,000 children in the city of Toronto are, through circumstances beyond their control, having to attend a food bank in order to get food on a monthly basis in this city of Toronto. If we listened to Gerard Kennedy and the 26 social agencies and volunteer agencies that are coordinating the food banks in the greater Toronto area, we would know of the thousands of children who are adversely affected by poverty and where there are no known programs addressing this issue: in my own community of Burlington, almost 1,200 children a month attending food banks.

This government raised the issue of what it was doing. I want to remind the minister, in the context of the needs of children, of the rights and the moral obligations for our government to uphold the law.

Your government has cut the special services at home program in Grey, Wellington and Waterloo counties. I am advised that two families have abandoned their children to the children's aid society because of the lack of funding, in order to provide the necessary respite for those families to survive as families. That is what is going on in the province of Ontario. That is the nature of the commitment that we in this House, on all sides, have to recommit ourselves to.

There are still 10,000 children on waiting lists for mental health services in this province. I talked to a family where the two daughters and the mother were sexually assaulted. After the second suicide attempt of the sexually assaulted daughter, the mother took herself off psychiatric support services, because her daughter was still on a year's waiting list in our province. These are children, and those are the services that are not necessarily the priority of the government. We did not hear that in the minister's statement today.

I want to remind the minister that she is entitled to bring in her day care policy, as she made a statement in this House, but the truth of the matter is that her policies divide families. Where a child is receiving a subsidy in a non-profit centre or in a commercial centre, her government has clearly stated that if the second child in that family needs day care services, he or she can't be with an older brother and sister. They must be taken away and put to another centre.

Is that an appropriate policy for a government to recognize International Children's Rights Day? Does it not fly in the face of a child's right to be with his or her family, to receive those services?

Children's aid societies, briefly, are being cut back at a dramatic rate, all with deficits and nothing from this government in terms of how it is reorganizing its priorities to deal with those concerns.

There are more issues affecting children today than are being discussed or debated in this House. It impels us to make that a priority for all three political parties represented in this House.

I call upon this government not to spend its time developing the minister's statement today and all the wonderful things she thinks her government's doing, but to recommit itself to the children of this province, who quite frankly will be very vulnerable unless this government refocuses and recommits itself to the children of this province. I ask you to do that as we observe the United Nations day for the rights of children everywhere, but especially here at home in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and it has to do with the bleak outlook that's facing the unemployed workers in the province.

The minister will know that the plant closure numbers that just came out show that 1992 is going to be a record for plant closures. We see that we've lost one out of every five manufacturing jobs, and when this Rae government came to power, Ontario's unemployment rate was the lowest in the country. I see here in September that British Columbia has a lower rate, Alberta has a lower rate, Manitoba has a lower rate, Saskatchewan has a lower rate and New Brunswick has a lower rate.

My question to the minister is this: Why are the numbers continuing to get worse? Bob Rae promised that the economy would be better now. Why are these unemployment numbers, the plant closure numbers and the manufacturing job numbers continuing to worsen, Mr Minister?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology: The member is correct. There is a major restructuring that is taking place not just in Ontario, but throughout North America, and indeed the industrial centre of Canada would be expected to suffer the most at that time. But I can tell the honourable member that we recognize there's a major problem. We are working with the various industries and with the sectors.

The Minister of Skills Development and I made a major announcement today in terms of retraining with a new plastics centre at Humber College. We are working with other industries not just in the plastics industries but in the auto industry, because Ontario has to become more competitive.

Over the last 10 years, Ontario's productivity was lower than any of the G-7 nations with the exception of the United States, and that was because of the actions -- the inaction, if you want -- of the previous two governments, which didn't see that there was a need for an industrial strategy then to make us competitive and to increase productivity.

Thanks to the work of our Treasurer --

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

Hon Mr Philip: -- there are major incentives for companies to invest in machinery, to become productive and to increase the kind of productivity so that we can be competitive.

Mr Phillips: The answers are silly. I would say to the minister that you came in with the lowest unemployment rate in the country, and now virtually the majority of the provinces have a better rate.

You will be aware that yesterday the government released a major study. It had to deal with 1,300 workers who were affected by plant closures, a major study, a track done over three years, and that study is extremely disturbing. What it shows, among other things, is this:

These were 1,300 people who were laid off due to plant closures. It says here, as one of the conclusions: "Only 70% are currently employed, 30% still not working. Of those that are working, the vast majority are earning substantially less money now than in their previous job." In fact, 20% of them are earning $10,000 or more, less than they had in their previous job. It tracks in very tragic terms the bleak outlook that faces laid-off employees due to plant closures.

My question to you is this, Minister: Why are the Rae policies not creating the necessary jobs to help these people to get back into meaningful, significant, full-time, well-paid jobs?

1450

Hon Mr Philip: No one knows more than this government or is more empathetic than this government on the plight of the workers who, in this economic centre of Canada, one of the economic centres of North America, are facing these kinds of hardships. I meet with the business community on a regular, daily basis and I understand the problems.

We took over a government at the bottom of a recession. We didn't call an election as our solution to a problem. We took over a government at the bottom of a recession and we have been implementing some very specific policies to make us more competitive, indeed, policies that are recognized by other states in the surrounding areas that are suffering even worse than we are as a result of the North American recession.

Our sector partnership fund, for example, that is being looked at and being implemented by a number of sectors, will make various sectors, such as the telecommunications industry which has just turned out a blueprint for competitiveness in that industry, and the minister, Ms Haslam, deserves a lot of credit for working for that industry --

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

Hon Mr Philip: Other industries, the auto parts industry: We're investing heavily in the auto parts industry. The Ministry of Skills Development just announced an $18-million program to make the programs more competitive in that industry. We are working and we are moving ahead with those programs, and companies are investing here. Ford invested $2 billion in this province. That's the largest investment any automobile company has ever made anywhere in the world.

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Philip: They made it under an NDP government, not under a Liberal or Conservative government.

Mr Phillips: I say again your answers are silly. Who cares when elections are called? They care about some action from you, and I want to ask you very directly, Minister: With all the plans you've got, your own economic plan for next year calls for unemployment rates to continue at the same level they are right now. Is that your plan, that you will just have the unemployment rate continue at the same level next year? I want to ask you directly, is a 10.6% unemployment rate acceptable to you as a minister and to Bob Rae as the Premier?

Hon Mr Philip: No, a 10% unemployment rate is not acceptable to this government and it's not acceptable to any government. Nobody would want a 10% unemployment rate, nor want a 9% or an 8% or a 7%. But if you look at the productivity rates in this province under the Liberals and Conservatives, and indeed in North America, you can see there has been a major problem about which the governments that have been in power here have had blinkers on, as have the American governments, and we're having a major restructuring.

This government has recognized that. We're the first government to come out with an industrial policy that actually has been endorsed by both the union movement and by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. We have a Treasurer who understands how he has to reduce certain taxes to industry in order to make it more competitive, and we have a Minister of Skills Development whose innovative programs are increasing the skills level in this province. We're doing something. You did nothing.

DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Following upon my colleague's questions about jobs in general, I want to talk about jobs in a particular part of my region of eastern Ontario. Let me say at the outset that I understand there is much occurring in the economy today that the province in and of itself might not be able to do a lot about.

I want to talk about 55 jobs at the St Albert Cheese Cooperative in that wonderful county of Prescott-Russell, just out of Ottawa. My question is to the Minister of Health, and it's essentially this: Is she aware that at that century-old farmer cooperative, 55 jobs are now in jeopardy because the health officials, acting under regulations of Ontario's Health Protection and Promotion Act, are taking that cooperative to court because the health officials refuse to allow that century-old farmer cooperative to continue to do what it has done without any difficulty for almost a century, namely, to sell millions of dollars worth of fresh cheddar cheese curds, not only to people in --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Well, we laugh, but I want to say that these are 55 jobs in rural eastern Ontario at a farmer-owned cooperative. These people have done well in tough times. They face very real pressure from the Quebec competitors just across the river and many of these jobs will disappear --

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

Mr Conway: -- at that cooperative if these health officials insist on applying the full spirit and letter of those, I don't believe particularly practical, regulations.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): As it appears that the member has certainly looked into this important issue with respect to his constituency, and I can understand his concern, I'm sure that he's aware that the health inspectors and the medical officer of health are taking action with respect to a product that at this point in time they are labelling as a hazardous food product. A hazardous food product, under the regulations, must be either refrigerated or served at a hot temperature, so at this point in time we have a problem with cheese curds being sold that have not been refrigerated immediately upon production.

I know that the dairy has a concern with refrigerating the cheese curds immediately upon production because it changes the texture of the cheese curds and they are no longer squeaky, according to the owner of the dairy, so there is a problem there.

Quite frankly, what amazes me is that in regard to what sounds like it could be a very serious health hazard because of what's being said -- apparently, hazardous foods like cheese curds at the wrong temperature are hosts for pathogens which can cause diarrhoea, other symptoms, even death -- it's interesting that we have in fact lived with cheese curds being sold at room temperature, fresh, for many years and we don't seem to have a pattern of that illness.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: That raised to me the very same question of concern that the member has raised, and we have asked that the various people and the researchers who have been cited in some of the articles be called together for an investigation of this and a determination of whether or not the criteria that the factories are being judged by are appropriate.

Mr Conway: I appreciate the minister's response because I know her to be a reasonable person and what I want to restate --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I'm deadly serious, because we're talking about jobs. We're talking about --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I want to say that a lot of breast-beating goes on in this place about jobs and how jobs are lost because of international factors. These 55 jobs have been in that wonderful rural community southeast of Ottawa for a long time and these farmers have worked damn hard to keep those jobs and to meet a good domestic and interprovincial market. I will not see government red tape run those jobs out of Prescott-Russell, and that's the real issue.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Distorting the facts.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: The Minister of Transportation talks about my distorting the facts. Is the government aware that the farmers' cooperative at St Albert, a year ago, because of its concern about health and safety issues, retained an eminent microbiologist, Dr Hill, from the University of Guelph, who in an opinion which he has made public states that providing those cheddar cheese curds at room temperature, which is what the consumers want, is probably a safer and healthier thing to do than what the health officials are now insisting upon, which, Dr Hill says, is likely going to cause the very health troubles that the health minions are trying to avoid?

Is the minister aware of Dr Hill's professional advice to the farmers' cooperative? On the basis of that advice from an eminent microbiologist and on the basis of decades of experience where hundreds of thousands of us in that region and across the central part of Canada have happily consumed that wonderful agricultural product made in eastern Ontario, and there has been no difficulty, will she not agree to call off her health minions and let these people keep their jobs and meet a very good agricultural demand?

1500

Hon Ms Lankin: I don't know why the member is yelling and sounding as if he's upset. I've actually agreed with him that I think there is a concern and that has been brought to my attention.

His specific question was whether I am aware of the research that has been conducted by Professor Hill at the University of Guelph. I'm certainly aware of the references to it. His work was unknown to the officials within my direct Ministry of Health until the discussions started to take place with the dairy. We have been made aware of it and we have invited Professor Hill to attend the meeting I have spoken about, which is going to be held within the next couple of weeks.

I might just point out to the member, as he talks about health minions and red tape, that our health inspectors in our public health units do do a very important job, and I'm sure he would agree with that. The public health units out there, I think, and the member would be very concerned if I were to directly interfere with or call off medical officers of health who are quite independent in terms of enforcing the legislation.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: However, all of the questions he raises, I think, are serious questions and they will be the subject of the meeting which will bring together Professor Hill, people from the ministry and from the public health units to try and resolve this very issue.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, a final question and I want to make the point: Any of us who know this farmers' cooperative and its products know that there's no evidence that there has been any health issue at all over the decades. Let that be clear. We have the opinion of Professor Hill which indicates that freezing the curds is very likely to cause the problems that have not occurred to date.

Having regard to the fact that the health officials from the local health unit acting under regulations of the provincial statute have harassed this cooperative, have taken the cooperative to court and a court date has been scheduled for early December, will the minister give me an undertaking, and more particularly the farmers who operate that cooperative and the men and women who work there, that she is going to move swiftly to unravel this red tape, to call off this kind of harassment, and will she give me the undertaking that she will do this expeditiously so that we cannot only keep the squeak in the curds but keep those jobs in eastern Ontario and not force the jobs across the river to Quebec?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think we need to take the humour out of references to the squeak in the curds and those sorts of things and actually deal with the issue that the member's asking here. He's asking me to call off a medical officer of health and health inspectors, public health officers with respect to the job they're doing in enforcing legislation and regulation. That's a very, very dangerous request that he is making of me.

The information that they are acting on with respect to the regulations is a belief held by those medical specialists with respect to a particular product and with respect to health standards. I wouldn't interfere in putting my judgement, a political judgement in their place.

However, everything the member has said makes sense. We've had this product for years. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of a problem. Why is now that we're starting to enforce it when we haven't in the past? All of those, I think, are very reasonable things.

There seems to be some independent research. We have already called a meeting of these people together. It will be happening before the end of November, before the court date in December. We saw an issue that needed to be acted on and I think we've acted on it. Thank you.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Treasurer. On Monday, Treasurer, I was asking you about your dismal record on job creation and on the economy. I also had made some comments about the Premier being in Asia and what kind of success he was having in scaring off business investment there.

You indicated that contrary to others, you'd just received a release, a message from Osaka, Japan, where our Bob was having lunch during his Asian junket. You told us that Kubota, a heavy machinery manufacturer, just announced right after that luncheon, having met with our Bob and that speech, a $10-million expansion in Ontario.

Treasurer, for the thousands of unemployed men and women who are desperate for good news from this government, I thought today I'd lob you an easy one and ask you if you'd just give us some further details on this expansion.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The leader of the third party asks an appropriate question. I must say when I used the reference of Kubota, it was in response to receiving a wire report that came off one of the wire services. I can't remember which one now.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Bob Rae's wire service.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, it wasn't a Bob Rae wire service.

I learned subsequent to that -- I appreciate or sort of appreciate the leader of the third party reminding me of it -- that it was not as recent an event, quite frankly, as I thought it was when I used it as a reference.

Mr Harris: I thought there might have been a statement today from the minister indicating that the Kubota announcement is a year and a half old. It has nothing to do with Bob's visit to Japan or this government. In fact it's really an indication that you are very, very out of touch with Ontario's economic realities, that you are desperate for any little bit of good news, that you'll grab on to anything even a year and a half old.

Mr Treasurer, let's get down to realities. Barron's national business and financial weekly, just out, is very much in touch with what's going on in Ontario. In this issue, a currency expert blames Canada's poor economy largely on your NDP policies. Barron's weekly indicates things such as this:

"Can I say something that maybe you would know if you lived in Canada? Canada today is run by socialists. Ontario is 40% of the economy, and Bob Rae of the NDP is Ontario's Premier."

"Q: NDP stands for -- ?

"New Democratic Party, but essentially it's a socialist party. Mr Rae has done and is doing and will do everything to introduce socialist policies. His labour laws are horrible, absolutely horrible. They are a throwback to Russian communism."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Harris: He goes on and says in this article things such as:

"People are moving their facilities, their factories away, to Buffalo, to northern New York, anywhere else. There will be no more manufacturing activity in the province of Ontario."

Treasurer, Mr Deputy Premier, all the business analysts from around the world internationally and within Canada are telling you your policies indeed are crazy, that they're loony, that they're costing us jobs and investment. Will you finally acknowledge the fact that your plans so far have been a disaster and will you bring in a new economic plan immediately?

Hon Mr Laughren: As an avid reader of Barron's, I did read that article and I was taken aback by the language in it and the antediluvian views of the person who was being quoted. The person who was being quoted in that article is someone who admitted that he was selling Canadian dollars short and then runs down the Canadian economy and potentially reaps benefits from selling the Canadian dollar short.

I ask you, is that the kind of person you want to quote in this assembly? Is that who you're basing your research on now, someone who refers to this government as being communistic, for heaven's sake? I thought that kind of language went out with the McCarthy era and I certainly am surprised and appalled, if not shocked, by the fact that the leader of the third party is still living in that kind of Stone Age.

Mr Harris: Let me say to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer that I thought that kind of language had gone out with the Stone Age, had gone out with McCarthy as well. I was surprised at the depth of animosity, of bitterness, and the lack of understanding that your party, your government, has towards business and investment that it would provoke this kind of reaction from responsible business people.

This is not the first time a respected international business magazine has slammed your government's handling of Ontario's economy, embarrassing us worldwide. Two months ago, Forbes magazine sent the same signal to the global investment community. "Stay out of Ontario because of Bob Rae and the NDP," they said. I say to you, Ontario still has much to offer, but we are losing ground. We're losing ground fast and, as a result of your government, we are losing credibility.

1510

Treasurer, you won't listen to me. You wouldn't listen to the plans we gave you, to the New Directions documents, to the 60 pages of economic renewal, to the 50-odd pages of directions we gave you to reform the apprenticeship and the college and the university system and the education system. You won't listen to the people who create jobs. You won't listen to people who invest. You won't listen to leading business magazines.

I am now come down to this: Who is it, Treasurer? Who is it that has your ear? Who is it that is advising you? Who are you listening to?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party stands up on his supplementary question and says that he too doesn't like the kind of language that was quoted in that article, and yet he himself uses it as a reference point when he asks his first question. Either the leader of the third party is going to use that kind of language in this assembly or he's not. If you want to persist in spreading the word and quoting people who use language that's so outrageous and so outdated that then you attach yourself to those kinds of views as well, then you live with that, my friend; you live with it.

The leader of the third party gets on his feet and makes references as to whom this government is listening to. I want to tell the leader of the third party that nobody else in North America has put in place the kinds of programs we have put in place for the long-term benefit of this province.

Mr Harris: That's right, and that's why we're such a disaster. That's what we've been trying to tell you. Nobody else is being so stupid, not one province, not one state. That's exactly what we've been trying to tell you.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: I've always heard that profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to express itself. If the leader of the third party wants to sit over there and call me stupid, I guess it's his privilege to do so, but I don't know what he thinks he's accomplishing for the unemployed people in this province with that kind of language.

The Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Harris: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, but when the member gets up and suggests that I called him stupid when I did not -- I said his government, his policies were stupid. I stand by that, but not the Treasurer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the Treasurer conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try not to be provocative, but the leader of the third party, first of all, makes references and quotes someone who refers to this as a communistic regime. Secondly, he stands up on his feet and calls us stupid. If the leader of the third party has sunk so low that he has to resort to that kind of language and those kinds of references, then I think he's bankrupt of any ideas that are fruitful at all.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Harris: That shoe's a pretty good fit.

The Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Solicitor General and it has to do with news reports today in respect to the fact that a repeat homosexual paedophile is going to be "dumped" in Toronto. This individual is responsible for at least 22 sex-related convictions. The National Parole Board of Canada indicated it believes he might reoffend and he is being placed in Toronto, apparently on to the streets, without direct supervision. I'm wondering if the Solicitor General of the province of Ontario is aware of this and what reaction he has to this news.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I gather from the question from the member opposite this is an action of the federal government through the Canadian parole system. On that basis, I'm not able to react to him. If there is some information in our jurisdiction that is appropriate, I'd be prepared to pursue that.

Mr Runciman: All members of the House heard earlier from all three parties in respect to the rights of children in the world and specifically the rights of children in this province. Obviously this was a major story in one of the Toronto dailies this morning, so I'm surprised the minister is not at least apprised of it by his staff if he doesn't read the papers himself.

I want to give the minister some information in respect of what's happening in other jurisdictions. For example, in Washington state, police officers in similar situations go door to door with a photograph of the offender, warning the community and the neighbourhood that this man is going to be in the area and advising them that their children should not talk to him. We had a situation recently in Metro Toronto where a rape victim is now suing the Metro force for, in her view, not issuing adequate public warning.

So I'm asking you today, Minister: Are you prepared to issue similar directions to the Metro force if indeed this individual is placed in Metropolitan Toronto, that police officers will be given the authorization and direction to go door to door in these communities, wherever he's located, warning families and warning children specifically that this is an individual they should avoid?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Not that I don't mind hearing from the member on any number of matters but, as I indicated previously, this matter he raises is in the federal jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, I suspect this is a federal corrections matter, not a provincial corrections matter. I might return the question to the member opposite if he is aware of what actions or public declarations or warnings the federal Solicitor General, Doug Lewis, has indicated with respect to this matter.

Mr Runciman: I think most Canadians, certainly in the Conservative Party of Ontario, have grave concerns about the actions of the parole board in this country. We have limited ability at the provincial level in terms of what we can do about that, but there are certain things you can do as the Solicitor General of this province. I'm asking you specifically about things you can do. What I'm really indicating is that this minister today, by his lack of responses, is failing to give clear assurance to the families in Metro Toronto that their children are going to be protected from this individual who's responsible for 22 sexual offences.

What I'm saying is, don't just sit back and blame it on the federal government. You have a responsibility and an obligation to provide public safety, and I'm saying do something. Make sure police are out there, warning the communities that this dangerous offender is in their midst.

Hon Mr Pilkey: It seems to me that the member is confusing the responsibilities, as I say, of the federal correction ministry. As memory recalls, in the Muskoka area very recently, Doug Lewis, the federal Solicitor General, who should be well known to you, was in front of that community as a result of a lack of notification with respect to this. I suggest that perhaps the member follow that course of action if he wants this matter publicized.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Mr Speaker, you'll recall that yesterday I asked whether hospitals would be facing increased or changed --

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): You get up and say you care for the rights of children and then you say something like that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Leeds-Grenville come to order so the member for Halton Centre can pose her question.

1520

Mrs Sullivan: Yesterday I was speaking with the minister in question period about the increased difficulties that hospitals will face as a result of lower provincial funding than the 2% increases which were promised last January. Today I want to turn to the issue of the workers associated with lower than promised transfers.

The hospital training and adjustment panel was set up so that hospital workers whose jobs were eliminated this fiscal year as a result of the minister's policies could be retrained. As a result of staffing cutbacks that have already taken place, some 20 people are already in training, and hundreds of others will of course access that fund.

I'm asking the minister today, first, if she will make public any and all studies that she has conducted within her ministry which would identify how many more hospital jobs would be cut, given a transfer increase less than 2%; second, what impact more staff cuts would have on the adjustment fund and its costs; and further, if the minister will commit that all hospital workers whose jobs are eliminated as a result of a less than 2% transfer increase will be guaranteed access to retraining and to the resources to pay for that retraining.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): The member's question, again, is based on the assumption of a change in the level of transfer payment from the forecast that was presented in the Treasurer's statement back in January. At this point in time, as the member well knows, that's an issue that is being reviewed and being decided, and until there is a decision and the Treasurer makes an announcement, it is premature to speculate that there will in fact be a change in the 2%.

Concerning the question that she asked with respect to worker adjustment and training, she's right, we have just now moved into phase 2 of HTAP, which has freed up $25 million dollars to be available to start to retrain workers, and there are some workers who have just moved into the program.

The number of workers who would be able to access those funds and what will be available of course will depend on the outcome of the next year or so with respect to the number of workers in need of assistance. The fund itself is a finite fund at this point in time. It was a total of $30 million, and we expect that this will actually go some significant way.

If the member remembers when in fact we set up the fund, the projections for that point in time --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- were some 14,000 layoffs of workers. We have in fact at this time experienced about 600. I think the fund will be in place for some time and will be helpful to a number of workers.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister will know that there is considerable uncertainty among hospital workers as a result of speculation with respect to the transfers that has not been put to rest. The minister will also know, and I know she understands, that hospital workers who are being displaced need retraining to work in community-based or other public health services.

The delivery of services in a hospital is very different from the delivery of services in a home or other community-based setting. However, due to the NDP government's lack of attention to community-based health care services and the absence of any announcement on long-term care, workers who have been cut from hospitals are being trained for jobs which don't exist.

I'm asking the minister if she would commit today to providing appropriate resources to the community-based and public health services so that hospital workers who are on the street and who have been retrained or are being retrained will have jobs to go to after they finish the training.

Hon Ms Lankin: The member raises what I consider to be a very important question and one that is, I think, one of the most significant challenges facing us in the health care sector as we're going through reform and restructuring. Our attempt to provide good quality services and maintain the quality of services while we shift from the way we do things, from illness treatment to health promotion, from institution to community, is all well and fine, but we really do need also to attend to the issue of workers in the health care sector, and I appreciate her concern about this.

Over the next number of years we do have multibudgeted figures available for investment in community, in long-term care, and we hope to be moving forward with our plans in that and in the next budget year to see some expansion in jobs in those areas. I think we can start to do the retraining with those jobs in mind and try and make those matches.

There are some areas where there is actually growth that has been budgeted for, in community health, for example; a number of new community health centres each year. We are going out on a request for a proposal for new birthing centres based in the community, an exciting new way of delivering health services. In each of those areas we have sent letters with the funding --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes, I will, Mr Speaker. We've sent letters with the funding that have requested those agencies through look through lists of laid-off workers. We're trying to close the loop on this and have a worker adjustment program in the health care sector that really works.

The Speaker: New question.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding the legislation for the Toronto Islands.

We know full well the legislation is now being passed for second reading today and that it allows the island residents to live on the island for 100 years for a buck a day, which this government considered a reasonable and fair rent, which anyone else would consider to be absolutely unbelievable preferential treatment for two polls that voted NDP.

Funnily enough, I got a call today from one island resident, Ms Wilma Fraser. Ms Fraser told me she's absolutely embarrassed that you should do this. She's offended that you would give her this kind of preferential treatment and the islanders preferential treatment.

She also told me that most of these islanders are not original islanders. She told me that only a handful are original islanders. She also told me that on her street of nine homes; four of them are used as cottages, by a lawyer, a CEO, professionals who in fact have full-time residences in Rosedale.

So what we have is a government that is passing legislation --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Stockwell: -- that will give residents of Rosedale cottages on the Toronto Islands, in a park, for a buck a day for 100 years. Is this the kind of fair and equitable social treatment that we can look forward to in the future from your government?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The other day the member was saying they were all socialists on the island. And they actually would phone him? The member can take the numbers and play around with them in any way he wants, but the fact of the matter is that the whole issue was examined by Richard Johnston, who discussed the matter with Metropolitan Toronto, with the city and with the people who live on the island and came up with the plan to preserve a community, to preserve a neighbourhood in Toronto. One of the things that makes the city of Toronto such a good place to live is that neighbourhoods and communities have been preserved, and that's something I think governments should be promoting, not trying to put down.

I don't subscribe to the position that the honourable member takes, that what should happen is that the people who live on the island should be evicted and their homes bulldozed. That's not something a civilized society would engage in.

Mr Stockwell: Firstly, as usual, the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't even understand what position this party and I have taken on this issue. If you don't care to listen, I accept that, but don't regurgitate untruths. That's not what I said in the past.

Secondly, I want to ask the minister, is this the kind of legislation you are passing, which I find absolutely offensive, that someone who probably earns six figures can have a cottage on the island in the middle of a park for a buck a day for 100 years, when there are single mothers, seniors, people on welfare in the streets in this city looking for housing, and you're housing people who are earning six figures potentially and living in Rosedale, with a cottage on the island?

My question is this: Mr Minister, will you not examine the assessment rolls, the income levels of these people you're housing for a buck a year, a buck a month for a 100 years -- a buck a day to ensure that these people --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: Will you examine the assessment rolls, Mr Minister? I don't find this funny; I find this offensive, absolutely offensive.

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

1530

Mr Stockwell: I ask the minister, will you examine the assessment rolls to find out if these people who are living in these cottages at taxpayers' expense for a buck a day for 100 years are in fact living in Rosedale in the winter and earning six-figure incomes? That's the least you can do to ensure that taxpayers' money is being properly spent.

Hon Mr Cooke: In one line the member says "a buck a day"; then it's a buck a month and a buck a year. I think what he should do is take a look at the various --

Mr Stockwell: Come on, come on.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, it would be appreciated if you would come to order so that you can hear a response to the question which you asked.

Hon Mr Cooke: The Johnston report made it very clear and outlined the income levels of the people who live on the island. I think it's very unfair and inaccurate, but typical, of the member to misuse and not adequately reflect the facts. People on the island are not earning six figures, so don't use that kind of garbage here in the Legislature.

The Speaker: New question? I'm sorry -- the Minister for Culture and Communications with the response to a question asked earlier.

TVONTARIO EMPLOYEE

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): A couple of days ago in this House the member for Mississauga South reported a number of allegations over the misuse of taxpayers' money at TVOntario involving an employee and her bid for re-election within the NABET union. The member also issued a news release containing numerous inaccuracies.

However, I have looked thoroughly into this matter, and the member is wrong. The member claims that the NABET candidate used TVO stationery and envelopes paid for by the taxpayers for her union campaign activities. This is wrong. The fact is that envelopes were purchased from Grand and Toy, with the receipt available for proof of purchase.

The member said that it's even possible that TVO paid for postage. This is wrong. The fact is, the cost of the mailing was cross-charged to NABET in accordance with the TVO cross-charging policy, and the account has been paid in full.

The member also indicated that this was the second incident of this kind involving this employee. The member implied that on the previous incident, the employee arranged to have her election material contained within TVO paycheques. Wrong again. The fact is that the election material was not enclosed with any employees' paycheques. It was offered to NABET members for pickup at the time their cheques were distributed. There were separate envelopes, and employees could either accept it or reject it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary, the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would never have thought that I would hear in this House a cabinet minister stand and defend union activities, but that's what we're dealing with. I would like anyone in this House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Marland: I would like anyone in this House to look at this envelope. I simply say in response to the minister that I will use the words that are used by this person, this candidate by the name of -- let me just get her name correct -- Margarette Kaszecki-Pyron. In her letter, she states, and states very clearly -- I quote from her letter, and I think this is very significant -- "Before I made any attempt to distribute my campaign literature, I sought and received permission to do so from the director of human resources of TVOntario."

I also would like to suggest, in fairness, that the fact is that this person has, I suppose to use a colloquialism, been caught with her hand in the cookie jar twice.

The Speaker: Will the member place a supplementary, please.

Mrs Marland: Is it not so that TVOntario had to write a letter of apology to the Ontario Labour Relations Board? The fact that Mr Droz had to write --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member please quickly place a supplementary.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I'm happy to place a supplementary. The envelope in question, Madam Minister, has on it "TVOntario," mailing address, "Box 300, Station G, Toronto, Ontario, Canada," and the postal code. I ask you, Madam Minister, do you feel it is appropriate for a candidate for an office in a union to receive permission from a human resources director of TVOntario to use the postage meter, whether or not she pays for it, that comes with the TVOntario logo? Also, I ask you, Madam Minister, if you condone that kind of use of equipment belonging to the taxpayers and paid for by the taxpayers of this province, not the postage amount but the fact that it --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat. A number of questions have been posed. Does the minister wish to respond?

Hon Mrs Haslam: The member is wrong again. She asked me to investigate this, which I did thoroughly. I made phone calls and my staff made phone calls. Clearly, the member for Mississauga South has not done her homework. She should do her homework before she raises those types of allegations in the House. She asked about taxpayers' money and I investigated those concerns.

The policy in place with TVO is there to cross-charge for not only the use of the meter but for the staff time. This is a policy within TVO that is there. I have tried to address the concerns of the member.

In addition, I feel very upset that the member's bad judgement has shone unnecessarily negative light on TVO. It's unfair and misguided. TVO is a unique and an interesting cultural entity within here. To raise those allegations within this House I think was not appropriate. I have answered her questions --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): This afternoon in this House I'm going to raise a very serious and very important issue that dramatically affects the life of an individual in this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom is your question directed?

Mr McClelland: I will place the question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, you will be aware of the situation with Ben Berendsen's farm, a dairy farmer who lives near Palmerston, Ontario.

You will know that many years ago the Ministry of Transportation buried a considerable amount of asphalt on his property. You'll also know that the well water is seriously contaminated on his property and that water is being used for his cattle and for his family and is ending up, obviously, in dairy products that are subsequently distributed around the province.

Minister, since 1990 your ministry, together with the Ministry of the Environment, has been supplying alternate-source water to Mr Berendsen for his use and the use of his dairy farm production. Tomorrow you're going to cut off that water supply. Why are you doing it, Minister?

1540

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'm not sure that I'm the appropriate person to be answering this question, but I certainly will make an attempt. The member raises a question regarding the supplying of water to a farmer who I believe lives in Wellington county, if I'm not mistaken. A number of months ago a problem surfaced. The Ministry of the Environment was involved in testing water on the farm. The ministry was unable to find anything in the water which would suggest that there was a problem attributed to a former dump, we believe, of asphalt, on the property, but to give the farmer the benefit of the doubt, the Ministry of the Environment was contributing water for a period of time.

Subsequent to that, we became involved, the Ministry of Agriculture, and shared the cost of supplying that water, pending tests on the water. We have been working with the member for Wellington, Mr Arnott, on this matter. We've been working with Mr Berendsen trying to do the best we can to provide water until such time as we could have accurate proof.

There were some tests done and officials examined the results of those tests and determined that there was no clear proof there was anything in the water that could be attributed to anything the government had done in the past.

Mr McClelland: Minister, I say to you, with the greatest respect, the question has been put to you because the letter to Mr Berendsen is on your letterhead. You state in this letter that you relied on information provided to you by the Ministry of the Environment and review of the technical data available.

Let me tell you, sir, you've either been bamboozled or you haven't done your homework and you've been negligent, I say to you with respect, in light of that. The laboratory that provided the information -- I have a copy of the report here and it says as follows, very plainly, without any equivocation, "Dioxins are 100 times the level permitted, according to the minister's guidelines," the Minister of the Environment's guidelines -- 100 times, and you're telling me there's nothing wrong with the water.

Get a grip on reality and understand the dilemma this man is in. PCBs in his well water are 20 times, 20-fold, the factor allowed by the Ministry of the Environment's guidelines. It's a serious, serious health problem. You have not looked at the data. It is from an eminent, well-respected laboratory your ministries have used in the past that has an international reputation.

Will you agree to continue to supply water for Mr Berendsen, get hold of this matter, do the homework properly? Don't be bamboozled by the information you obviously haven't reviewed --

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

Mr McClelland: Do it professionally, Minister. There are very, very serious consequences if you cut off that water tomorrow. Please agree to extend until you review the report supplied by the laboratory.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I don't know that it's appropriate to stand up in the House and talk about standards and mention PCBs and dioxins and not talk about which standards he's talking about, whether they're Ontario, Canadian or US standards. There's some uncertainty about which guidelines are being referred to in the report.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The well's poisoned.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I just wanted everyone to be aware that there's more to this story than what the member was suggesting. When officials looked at the results of the tests, both when the water was first turned on and once the water had run for a period of time, it's my understanding, not being a technical person, that once you ran the water for a period of time, the results were within limits. It was on that basis that officials had decided that there was no cause attributable to the province of Ontario.

Having said that, I want the member to know that I spoke yesterday with the member across the way from that county who represents Mr Berendsen. He brought some information to my attention personally, as did the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and asked me to personally have a look at it. I had agreed that I would take a look at the material that was brought to my attention yesterday. I will do that. I will speak with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, because I recognize the concern of Mr Berendsen and his family. I am willing to do that, but I don't appreciate having numbers and chemicals thrown around in this House when we don't know what regulations we're using and whether you're talking about all the tests or one test.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. On November 2, you announced nearly $687,000 to be spent as part of the wife assault prevention campaign. That money was to be spent on brochures, ads and posters.

Now, as a result of this increased public awareness, more women than ever are trying to access the community services only to find that the shelter services are inaccessible as they are already operating above capacity. There is simply no room for the women involved in violent situations at home and they cannot find room at the shelters. In fact, your own Helpline is referring women to these shelters that are full.

Why are you spending so much money on advertising and not providing the appropriate resources to the individuals who are desperate and coming forward for help at the shelters?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): The member is quite right. She will recall that in my statement in the House, as well as in my statement to the press, we acknowledged, as did the previous government, which was in the same situation, that although we cannot provide residential services for all women who might seek them under the impetus of this kind of campaign, the campaign itself builds an awareness within the community which offers other safeguards to women, which offers to women the knowledge they need to look for other opportunities to have support.

Many women do not determine that the only avenue of support is through shelters. There are many other community supports that we're developing and they can only develop as a result of an improved community awareness.

I should tell the member that I also feel, having worked in a similar situation where November is always a month when those of us who worked in the field felt the added pressure of those who suddenly wanted information, that there is a sense often that it may not be worthwhile, when we're under that kind of pressure during that month. But I can assure the member that in the long run the kind of momentum and impetus that is built through a concerted program like this is exactly what makes taxpayers prepared to continue to contribute to improve services that help the awareness within this House for support of increased services. That, in and of itself, makes it worthwhile for us to continue.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In accordance with the House rules and regulations, yesterday I raised a question in the House with the Minister of Correctional Services, who indicated he would undertake to investigate the case of four 15-year-old girls who have been taken from child detention and put in adult detention.

The minister undertook to get back with a response. Both ministers are in the House and I would have thought that with the importance of this matter, we would have heard something from the ministers. I ask them if they can report to the House in accordance with their undertaking yesterday. This is serious matter.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I understand the member's interest. It is not a point of order. Any undertaking a minister has indicated is something the minister then would have the opportunity to follow through on at some point, but there is nothing to compel the minister to provide a response in the House.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, I have no wish to be argumentative. My point is a point of order. Is it my right as an MPP to advocate on behalf of my constituents and the several other constituents who are represented in this chamber? If I cannot get a response from this government while the House is sitting, I will not get a response this weekend --

The Speaker: Not a point of order; no. Would the member take his seat, please. Would the member take his seat.

1550

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, Pursuant to standing order 34(a), I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Culture and Communications to my question today.

The Speaker: The member will file the necessary document with the table.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier in this session the House approved a motion that would place consideration of Bill 74 and its three companion pieces of legislation under time allocation in committee of the whole.

Further amendments that will be proposed to those bills, which I understand will include several score from the government and perhaps an equal number from the opposition parties, will be included when the committee moves to committee of the whole, which will be, I'm advised, next week. The time allocation would mean that committee of the whole would only have perhaps five hours to deal with those substantial amendments.

Further to that, the order of the House would require that the amendments that are put will not be read into the order paper but would simply be deemed to be moved.

I'm asking for unanimous consent of the House to place a motion which would read, "I move that the House reconsider its motion of May 28, 1992, and extend time for committee of the whole House consideration of Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110 to ensure that all amendments to be put to those bills shall be read and not simply deemed moved, so that legislators and the public will be advised of what is included in government and opposition amendments to those bills."

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No.

MOTIONS

REFERRAL OF BILL PR45

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 86(a), the referral of Bill Pr45, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund Foundation, to the commissioners of estates bills be discharged and the bill stand referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

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

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario to "reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I've affixed my signature. It bears the signatures of several residents of Middlesex county.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Another 5,000 petitions from people in York region to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 19 proposed sites in the region of York as possible candidates for landfill, two of which are located in the riding of Markham;

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my name to this, one of the last sets of petitions that we've given before the short list comes out.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm glad to rise in the House again and continue with these thousands of people who have signed about the lamentable introduction of casino gambling in the province of Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am proud to affix my name with these hundreds and hundreds of citizens of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from the parishioners of St Columba Anglican Church in St Catharines. It reads as follows:

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

This is signed by several of the parishioners from St Columba Anglican Church. I've affixed my signature in agreement with the sentiments expressed in this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The second to last petition to be tabled by me before the short list comes out: 700 names, people signing this from Markham, Stouffville, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Kingston and other places.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to uphold legislation to protect environmentally sensitive areas from landfill sites; and

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

"We, the undersigned, protest and petition the NDP government and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to protect environmentally sensitive areas and look at all viable options for waste disposal. Markham residents protest the location of a landfill site on the M6, Rouge Valley system and M3, the Unionville site."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I'm presenting petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 160 constituents in my riding including members of St Bartholomew's Church in Sarnia. Their petition reads as follows:

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

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

I'm presenting the petition.

1600

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I've received a petition that has the expression of support from several thousand Ontario people. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I have affixed my signature to this petition because I believe that its contents are correct and I am in full agreement with it.

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario that has been signed by more than 2,000 people in the province.

"Whereas the proposed NDP use-of-force legislation requiring police officers to write a report whenever they should unholster their pistols in anticipation of a situation of danger poses a potentially serious threat to their safety and security;

"Whereas this proposed legislation also poses a grave threat to the safety and security of citizens and the communities the police officers are sworn to serve and protect;

"Whereas the police officers themselves are not being consulted in a meaningful way by the Rae administration concerning this proposed legislation that so seriously affects their safety on the front line of service to the public; and

"Whereas we, in union with the spouses of Ontario police officers, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province,

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

"That Premier Bob Rae undertake to invite immediately representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns without setting any preconditions for such a meeting, and

"That this NDP administration, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, determine to exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I have also affixed my own signature to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I have a petition here from the riding of the Honourable Mr Mackenzie.

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

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

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

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

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

I hereto affix my name.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is addressed to members of the provincial Parliament:

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

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

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

"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 operations in Ontario open,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to return immediately from his trip to Asia and to remain in North America to present 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'm affixing my signature to this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 21 proposed sites in the region of Peel as possible candidates for landfill, 15 of which are located in the town of Caledon; and

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 32 residents of the county of Middlesex. They petition the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the Brant report, the arbitrator's report for the greater London area, because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority in Middlesex, it awards too extensive an annexation to the city of London and it will jeopardize agricultural land, the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates reports the following resolutions:

"Resolved that supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the following ministries and offices be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993:

"The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the ministry administration program, operating $24,660,600" --

Interjection: Dispense.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Dispense.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO ISLANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA ZONE RÉSIDENTIELLE DES ÎLES DE TORONTO

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands / Loi concernant les îles Algonquin et Ward's et concernant l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): This is a deferred vote from yesterday. There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1611 to 1616.

The Acting Speaker: We are now dealing with a deferred vote from yesterday. It has been moved by Mr Cooke for second reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands. All those in favour of Mr Cooke's motion will please rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Klopp, Kormos;

Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wessenger, White, Wildman, Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Cooke's motion will please rise one at a time to be identified by the clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, Miclash, Morin, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 58; the nays are 32.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 58; the nays are 32. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs, Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): No, referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: So referred, the standing committee on general government.

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT, 1992

Mrs Sullivan moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is the motion carried? Carried.

The bill was also given third reading.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1992

Mrs Sullivan, on behalf of Mr Chiarelli, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Shall the motion carry? Carried.

The bill was also given third reading.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Only because I'm having some difficulty hearing the table when these are read off, I wonder if we might have some silence so we don't miss something on the way through here, please.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, I think the member brings a good point. There is a lot of private conversation going on in the chamber. I would ask, please respect those people who are attempting to do legislative business.

PINECREST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ACT, 1992

Mr Miclash moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr44, An Act to revive Pinecrest Community Association.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The bill was also given third reading.

EILPRO HOLDINGS INC. ACT, 1992

Mr Mammoliti moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr49, An Act to revive Eilpro Holdings Inc.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The bill was also given third reading.

GRAND RIVER HOME IMPROVEMENTS BUILDING PRODUCTS, SUPPLIES AND SERVICES LTD. ACT, 1992

Mr Fletcher, on behalf of Mr Farnan, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr52, An Act to revive Grand River Home Improvements Building Products, Supplies and Services Ltd.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Will the member give us a short indication of what the bill is about?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is acting in the absence of Mr Farnan.

Shall the motion for second reading carry? Carried.

The bill was also given third reading.

PETERBOROUGH SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL ACT, 1992

Ms Carter moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr59, An Act to revive Peterborough Social Planning Council.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The bill was also given third reading.

FEFFERLAW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED ACT, 1992

Mr Elston, on behalf of Mr Sorbara, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr62, An Act to revive Fefferlaw Developments Limited.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The bill was also given third reading.

1630

LAMBDA CHI ALPHA ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO (INCORPORATED) ACT, 1992

Mr Harris, on behalf of Mr Murdoch, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr67, An Act to revive Lambda Chi Alpha Alumni Association of Toronto (Incorporated).

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The bill was also given third reading.

NIPISSING UNIVERSITY ACT, 1992

Ms Murdock moved second reading of Bill Pr70, An Act respecting Nipissing University.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The bill was also given third reading.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I do wish to say a few words on what is a very historic step forward for northern education, a very big day for Nipissing University, for North Bay and region.

The passage of legislation today giving degree-granting powers to North Bay's Nipissing University is truly a decision for which many have fought long and hard for a number of years. This is the first new university to be established in Ontario in some 20 years, so it's an event that happens only once every two decades. I hope members will consider it appropriate that I do say a few words.

I can tell you that the president, the faculty, the students, the board and many residents of North Bay are watching, in fact, in the auditorium at Nipissing University today as this event takes place.

It really is a fitting tribute to the many years of work and effort on behalf of the succession of boards, of faculty, of the entire community, particularly the city residents and, in fact, the councils and residents of communities up and down the Highway 11 corridor to the north of us and to the south of us.

I pay special tribute to them today, to the faculty and the students, and it really truly does recognize 25 years of outstanding higher education, fiscal management particularly, and academic excellence. So the Nipissing University Act, 1992, or Pr70, gives the new Nipissing University the power to confer its own degrees, after 25 years of affiliation with Laurentian University in Sudbury.

I want, as well, to thank the Parry Sound MPP, Ernie Eves, for his active support of our efforts over a number of years. I want to note perhaps the only two events in the whole development of this that came right at the very end, because it was the last 10 years that led to this. I want to thank the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the current minister of the NDP government, and the councils of the various universities who gave their approval, who facilitated this, who made this happen. And I thank the NDP members for their support today.

I do have, I suppose, one regret that you would expect, colleagues. This university is in my riding and I regret that both I and Mr Eves, who is second closest to this riding -- if having the leader of the opposition party sponsor this bill bothered the NDP; that was refused by the government. I've never heard of that before, when the institution or the bill deals with an institution in one's own riding. I thought it was a little petty and I'm disappointed in that, but I don't want that to cloud what is a very, very happy day and the support of the New Democratic Party -- I want to say that -- for this bill in having it come forward.

Finally, the second aspect that I think should be noted and on the record, and I'm sure the member for Sudbury would agree with me, I know the minister would and I know that the president of the delegation from the university that was at the committee would: While we're all delighted by the outcome, we were most distressed and disappointed by the very vitriolic and strong opposition from the Liberal Colleges and Universities critic, Hans Daigeler, in committee. But the bill has received the enthusiastic support of the New Democratic Party members and the Conservative Party members, and for that I'm very thankful, I know Nipissing is thankful and all those who've been involved are thankful.

I give you this assurance on behalf of them all: that you will be proud. You'll be proud of the academic achievements and you'll be proud of the fiscal management of Nipissing University, as we have been for the past 25 years, and I know for the next 25 or 50 years as well.

ONTARIO ROAD SAFETY CORPORATION ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Pouliot moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 39, An Act to establish the Ontario Road Safety Corporation and to amend certain Acts administered by the Minister of Transportation / Loi créant la Société de la sécurité routière de l'Ontario et modifiant certaines lois dont le ministre des Transports assure l'application.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the minister has some opening remarks?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You will recall that on June 3, 1992, this government introduced Bill 39 for first reading in this House. The passage of Bill 39 establishes the Ontario Road Safety Corporation Act, which in turn provides the legislative means to create the Ontario Road Safety Corp, which is a new Ontario crown corporation that will be of substantial benefit to the people in Ontario. We need this Ontario Road Safety Corp. The time indeed has come to make our roads safer for every motorist in the province of Ontario.

The corporation will actively seek to establish coalitions and partnerships with the private sector, other governments, health organizations, safety, research and community interests, the police and all those who are committed to reducing collisions and improving road safety for the people in Ontario. Through new safety education and driver improvement programs, the corporation plans to reduce Ontario's traffic fatalities and injuries.

The corporation will also coordinate both government and private sector road safety and research programs across the province to improve the awareness of safety objectives and delivery of safety programs, and will position itself to meet growing consumer demand for more flexible and cost-effective service delivery.

Through partnerships with safety groups, industry, researchers and community groups, the corporation will be able to develop new initiatives as well as enhance and implement initiatives currently under way, initiatives aimed at increasing safety on Ontario's roadways and improving customer service.

1640

These kinds of results are sorely needed. Every single year in our province, more than 1,200 people are killed on our roads. Another 120,000 people, the equivalent of the population of Kingston, are injured. On average, someone is killed somewhere on our provincial roads every seven hours. Every four and a half minutes, only slightly less time or approximately the same time that I will be speaking here today, someone is injured, often seriously, on Ontario roads.

Every year, more than $4 billion is spent in this province on health care costs, property damage and lost income as a result of traffic collisions.

Ce quatre milliards de dollars, ce n'est que le montant qui peut être calculé. Mais, comment peut-on calculer, en dollars et en cents, les coûts personnels : les crises familiales, les peines et les douleurs qui persistent, les blessures douloureuses et souvent permanentes, entraînant des handicaps à vie et les revenus perdus à tout jamais ? C'est de nier ces dollars qu'on ne revoit ou qu'on ne verra plus jamais. Il n'y a aucune façon de calculer ce genre de traumatisme collectif, puisque toute la société en écope, tout le monde en souffre. Nous en voyons les preuves, fort malheureusement, tous les jours dans notre province.

Well, the situation is obviously critical, and our government is committed to doing something about this situation. We need to rectify the situation. It is time to act, and the Ontario Road Safety Corp will be a highly effective way of getting that long-awaited action started. We're not suggesting for a moment that the corporation be a panacea. It complements a number of initiatives this government is considering, but again, there are simply no overnight or magic solutions that will totally eliminate the current dilemma, the situation that is obvious on our roads. Most unfortunately, collisions are likely to continue to happen, but I see the road safety organization as a positive step, an effective way of attacking the problem.

Ours is not a record of excellence, but it has been a record of constant improvement, and the establishment of this corporation will give us the tools to enhance the situation even more.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the role that the corporation will play in support of this government's auto insurance reform package. I wish to repeat: The corporation will play a role in this government's auto insurance package. A lot of talk and studies went into this. It will marry well with the legislation that will be introduced by my colleague Brian Charlton.

This will be a catalyst in restoring a balance. Yes, protection, under the auspices of my colleague, will remain the order of the day, and this will enable some people to have a few more dollars in their pocket, for it will involve motorists -- the client group -- and the insurance company. Our government recognizes the need for partnership.

It will have a positive effect on the overall cost of auto insurance in the province of Ontario.

In addition, to improve coordination and cooperation, we intend to work together so that we can reduce instances of uninsured drivers on our roads. It's not only a right, it's also a privilege to have access to the roads of Ontario. But there is an obligation for all concerned that we are responsible for and to the collective, for those around us. It will allow us to focus, through the corporation, to meet that obligation.

On ne le répétera jamais assez : la sécurité, c'est l'affaire de tous, c'est notre affaire. Cette phrase a beau être un cliché pour certains, mais elle s'applique très bien au contexte de la société routière. Personne ne devrait se soustraire à la conduite sécuritaire, qui doit devenir une préoccupation fondamentale pour tous les citoyens, et toutes les citoyennes aussi, bien sûr, de notre province.

By creating this corporation we will not see miracles, but we will see steady progress towards the day when safer drivers predominate. We will see changing attitudes towards safety which will in many cases be reflected in the behaviour of those who use our roads and highways: motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Seeing none, further debate?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I listened as attentively as I could to remarks that the minister's ministry prepared for him to read into the record today on this corporation. I have a number of things on matters of principle that I want to bring to his attention as we begin the debate, but I think perhaps it might be worth the while of this Legislature to review a little bit of the history of why we are debating a bill that creates yet another bureaucratic structure, in which yet more civil servants will be hired to undertake activity that is in the main and for the most part already going on in Ontario.

I think the minister alluded to the fact that this bill has its real origins in the presentation of the NDP government's auto insurance policy, presented to this Parliament, my goodness, almost a year ago now. I think December 1991 was when the NDP brought forward its insurance policy. That in itself was quite an event because it was one of those occasions when the government made a huge reversal of public policy compared to what the New Democratic Party campaigned on when it sought the support of the people of Ontario over two years ago in the election campaign of the summer of 1990.

I recall as clearly as if it were yesterday that the New Democratic Party, under the dynamic leadership of Bob Rae and Peter Kormos, promised the province that if it were elected, it would bring in a system of public automobile insurance -- driver-owned automobile insurance, as they called it. That was a firm promise. That has been something that the socialist party in Ontario had been committed to by way of party resolution for years and years and years -- 20 years, I think, if I recall correctly my discussion about it with the Treasurer -- a campaign commitment and a political commitment of some 20 years going back to the days when Dave Barrett, then the Premier of British Columbia, brought in public automobile insurance in British Columbia.

This was the centrepiece of the campaign, "If elected, we will deal conclusively with the question of automobile insurance and we will bring in public automobile insurance." Of course, they abandoned that as they abandoned so much of the fiction that characterized what they told the people during that election campaign. Nevertheless, they decided they wanted to do something with automobile insurance.

The interesting aspect of the bill we have before us today is that the government, having decided to do something with automobile insurance, needed some collateral initiatives, needed a few other sideshows in order to deflect all the public attention from what it was doing on automobile insurance. I know about this because our government as well, during our term of office -- in fact in 1989 -- brought forward an insurance bill, and we too decided that in order to expand the initiative somewhat, we would bring forward some safety initiatives.

It's not very easy for the minister to give the accolades to this bill that it deserves because if he were frank and if he were truly honest, he would admit that this is just a little bit of a sideshow and a little bit of a diversion that accompanied an auto insurance bill that frankly has not really been very well received in the province of Ontario.

1650

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Transportation on a point of order?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes. With respect, I don't wish to interrupt, but the member is an agent provocateur of the worst or the highest order. You know, he imputes motives --

The Acting Speaker: No. I'm sorry, it's not a point of order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: My integrity and my honesty were questioned directly by the member and I resent it, very much so, Mr Speaker, and ask you, with respect, for a ruling.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I heard nothing unparliamentary; it's not a point of order. You will have the opportunity in two minutes' questions and comments to question the honourable member on whatever statements he makes. However, he does have the floor. We must respect that. The member for York Centre, please.

Mr Sorbara: Apropos of the minister's comments, I'm reminded that yesterday, when I was putting some remarks to the Parliament on the question of the giveaway to the Toronto Island residents, as soon as I started to make the points, the opposition started to get up on these rather fallacious, rather inappropriate points of order. I simply beg the minister's indulgence. I propose to speak for about 25 minutes on this matter and then the floor will be his to put whatever questions or comments he chooses.

Let's get back to why this bill was brought forward. The Minister of Financial Institutions decides that they're going to go forward with their new, revised insurance plan. So they want something else as well, some sideshow, some other diversionary activity, and they say, "Look, we can say that things are going to get better in Ontario if we say we are going to concentrate, as no other government has, on safety." So someone says: "Well, what shall we do? How shall we create a kind of a product? How can we emphasize this new commitment to safety?"

I have no idea who it was, but some official or other probably suggested in the middle of a meeting with the minister, "Why don't we create a corporation, an agency, some vehicle, to house our new initiatives in safety," and I imagine the minister's eyes lit up: "I could have yet another crown corporation, a new agency," the minister would say, "and I could give speeches all over Ontario, about this new, great" -- what is it called? -- "Ontario Road Safety Corp. I could give speeches about that all around the province, and when they criticize us on our auto insurance policy, I could say: 'Yes, but that's not the only thing we're doing. We're creating an Ontario Road Safety Corp.'"

Let me just, by the by, tell the minister what bad shape his own ministry is in. He's got a bill on the order paper. Already he's prepared some amendments, and as a courtesy, an appropriate courtesy, he's sending out the amendments to the critics, in the case of the Progressive Conservative Party David Turnbull, the member for York Mills, and in the case of our own party me, the member for York Centre.

So, surprise, I get a letter on my desk signed by the legislative assistant to the Minister of Transportation, on stationery from the Minister of Transportation, and the letter I received is addressed to Mr David Turnbull, York Mills etc. Right under that -- remember, a letter addressed to David Turnbull -- the salutation is, "Dear Mr Sorbara." Frankly, if they can't even send the mail out to the right people, I question their ability to operate an Ontario Road Safety Corp.

But let's look at what this road safety corporation is actually going to do. It's going to take over a number of activities even the minister himself admits are already going on in Ontario. We're already very active in his ministry in all the initiatives that now come under the umbrella of this new corporation, save and except that the minister is now going to have the opportunity to appoint a president of the corporation, who will probably make in the neighbourhood of $120,000, and several members of the board of this corporation, all of whom will get the opportunity to get a per diem of I think the figure is now about $225,000 for this type of crown agency every time they attend a meeting.

I'm not sure how that adds to safety in the province, but I want to tell my friend the minister one thing. I think it's clear from all of the authorities that there are three crucial things that go towards ensuring and enhancing safety on the roads of this province and every other jurisdiction in the world like it. The first is driver training. The second is the vehicle itself and how safe it is and the third --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems a shame that this government pays so little attention to its own legislation that it's not prepared to provide a quorum in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check if we do have a quorum please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is present. Could the honourable member for York Centre continue, please.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You can't even count to 20, let alone beyond that.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview isn't in his seat and he knows that interjections are out of order.

Mr Sorbara: Perhaps the member for Downsview will at some point stop shouting across the floor.

Mr Perruzza: Why do you allow that kind of disruption when he knows that a quorum is present?

The Acting Speaker: Order. Any member at any time can ask if a quorum is present. The honourable member for York Mills asked and was told a quorum was present. We resume the debate.

Mr Sorbara: As I was saying before the member for York Mills called for the quorum, there are three elements that really go into an honest evaluation of the safety of the roads in a province like Ontario. The first is driver training, and the minister's done nothing about that since he came to office, nor does his bill and his corporation do anything about that.

The second is the quality, the safety and the roadworthiness of vehicles. The minister has not done that and proposes to do nothing about that in his bill.

The third is the safety of the road network itself. There the minister has proved to be a very unproductive minister. If the Minister of Transportation really wanted to do something about safety on Ontario roads and highways, then he would have made strong arguments to his cabinet colleagues and to the Treasurer in particular to do something about the ever-shrinking capital budget for the construction of highways in Ontario.

The minister is the first in a long history of ministers to have his capital budget cut and cut and cut. Indeed, in the two years that he has held the office, the budget for capital construction on our highways has gone down by a full $100 million. We have told him and the government time and time again that one of the ways to get the province out of this terrible, gripping recession is to put workers, and in particular to put construction workers, back to work and to deal with the crumbling infrastructure of this province.

I myself have pleaded with the minister to get on with the construction of Highway 407 through the greater Toronto area. There is virtually nothing going on on that highway. Every single major road in the Metropolitan Toronto area and the GTA is clogged. My God, you cannot go but five miles an hour on Highway 401 because Highway 407 isn't built. I don't think he has let two contracts for furthering the construction of Highway 407 since he took responsibility for his portfolio.

That lack of construction, the congestion on our roads and the bad condition of our roads is something that the Minister of Transportation must take personal responsibility for. He makes a heart-rending statement about the impact of injury, the crippling injuries that sometimes happen on our highways. Yet he does nothing to further expand his capital budget so we can get on with building the roads we need right across the province.

When I think of it, the member sitting beside him, the member for Sudbury East, campaigned throughout northern Ontario on a promise, a political commitment, an election commitment, to build a four-lane highway between Toronto and Sudbury, the four-laning of Highway 69. It's something they said over and over again. Has one contract, I ask the minister, been let to create a four-lane highway between here and Sudbury? Absolutely nothing has been done. The minister's capital budget has been cut and cut and cut.

1700

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): You don't know what you are talking about, Greg, because you are never here.

Mr Sorbara: Well, we hear grumblings from the Minister of Northern Development. Appropriately, we hear nothing else from her except some whining.

So I say to my friend the Minister of Transportation --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Stop calling me your friend.

Mr Sorbara: -- that if he really wanted to get on with highway safety, he would realize that the real issue in highway safety is the deterioration of our roads. But there's another aspect of this bill of particular interest to a constituency of people who are also being very poorly served by the Minister of Transportation.

He says he doesn't want me to call him his friend. I will not say then "my friend the Minister of Transportation."

It used to be in Ontario that when a person was ready to take his or her road test, he could go to an office of the Ministry of Transportation and make an appointment to be tested by a Ministry of Transportation examiner and expect to get an opportunity to take that test within a week, 10 days, two weeks or, at the most, three weeks. In an effort to save the Treasurer a little bit of money, the Minister of Transportation has allowed that budget to be slashed and cut. The reality in the province right now is that a driver who wants to get his or her licence will wait, in some cases, up to eight months and, on average, three or four months in order to get an opportunity to be examined.

The minister laughs that off. He pays no attention to it. The matter has been raised in the House on a number of occasions and the minister himself admits that the situation is deplorable. Yet what is he bringing forward to us for our consideration today? A bill that creates another corporation to serve as an umbrella to do all the things he's already doing in his ministry and, I tell him, not doing very well.

Imagine it, to wait four months to get an opportunity to take the test. For most kids, I'll tell the minister, this means the difference between passing and failing the test, because what happens is, our kids take a course like the Young Drivers of Canada course and they pay a big buck to take that course. Then they go to apply for their test and they find, unfortunately, that they're not going to be able to take the test for four, five or six months. They get very little opportunity to drive between the time they finish their course and they take their test, and they fail their test. Then they're in a situation of having to buy another driver training course and wait yet another six months. This situation is deplorable and the minister's done nothing about it. He brings us a bill creating a corporation.

There's another group of people affected by this little initiative by the minister: all those people out there in the private sector who run offices to license motor vehicles and do the transfer of the licensing of motor vehicles for the driving public of Ontario. This little project does something in this regard that is beyond what is currently being carried on by the minister and the ministry. It transfers all responsibility for those licensing offices to this new corporation. In fact, it's a public takeover. It's an expropriation of these offices. These offices now can count the days before the minister and his new safety corporation take over those offices.

Now again, if the minister were a brutally honest man, he would tell the people in Ontario what he really plans to do as far as vehicle licensing is concerned. But since the minister won't do it, I'm going to take the opportunity to make the announcement myself, because actually what the minister plans to do is a pretty interesting initiative. The minister, in the next few months, will announce a pilot project pursuant to creating a whole series of automated teller machines in which the driving public will be able to renew their licences or acquire a new licence through the system that we commonly know as automated teller machines -- banking machines.

Mr Pouliot: It's called the modern age.

Mr Sorbara: Well, the minister says it's called the modern age, and it sounds like a pretty interesting experiment.

I simply wonder out loud why the minister doesn't stand when he introduces this bill and say what he is really going to do. He's going to eliminate over the course of time those motor vehicle licensing offices and replace them with new technology where the driving public is going to be able to insert a card, perhaps the driving licence -- I don't have all the details on the system -- in a machine and key in a personal information number and have a licence renewed or pay a fine or do a whole series of things.

I invite the minister to stand up at any time during this debate and deny that this pilot project is about to be launched some time over the course of the next three or four months in Ontario. If that's what you're going to do, why don't you tell us about it, instead of all the drivel you give us saying, "Through this corporation, we are going to be enhancing safety and undertaking research of the kind never before undertaken in Ontario"? Most of the things this corporation is going to do are already being undertaken.

The real news, the great new information is that the minister is going to be replacing motor vehicle licensing offices first with a pilot project and then, if successful, with a whole series of automated teller machines, which are going to serve perhaps in a better way, I tell the minister. I don't want to be the judge of it till I see the operation of the project, these automated teller machines that are going to replace the licensing offices that most of us know and have used to renew our licences on an annual basis and our driving licences on a three-year basis.

Just apropos renewing our licences on a three-year basis, the other information the minister should have been announcing today is that the government, in an effort to recover more cash immediately, is going to move from a three-year licence to a five-year licence. That's what's going to happen. We're going to hear the announcement about that in the next little while.

It's going to mean that the driving public pays a bigger sum up front. You pay for five years instead of three years. I expect the cost is going to go up as well, and that's going to be part of the strategy that the Treasurer is going to use to deal with his deficit problems this year. It really doesn't get you much more money, but we're going to have our drivers' licences for five years now instead of three.

That's real, hard information. That's the kind of thing the minister should have stood up and said when he introduced this wonderful new corporation to enhance safety in the province of Ontario.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Why don't they just charge them for life and get it over with?

Mr Sorbara: My friend from Etobicoke West says, "Why don't they just charge for life and get it over with?" It may well be that the budgetary problems of the Treasurer are so difficult they may even consider that.

But for the time being I announce, on behalf of the Minister of Transportation, that soon Ontario drivers will be renewing their licences for a period of five years rather than three years, at a significantly enhanced price, certainly at least two fifths more, because we'll be paying for five years of our driving privilege rather than three.

1710

But other than those initiatives, there's nothing really to say about this bill, other than, why in the world would the Minister of Transportation go through all of the hoopla and all of the expense and all of the time and all of the machinations to create a corporation and put under it the very things that are already going on? I think it's regrettable that the minister has allowed himself to be sold this bill of goods.

He's not doing anything that he couldn't do immediately, right now, at this very moment, under the structures that he already has. He can create the automated teller machines without this corporation. He can give us five-year drivers' licences without this corporation, but there are a couple of things that he should be doing that he's not doing and, again, he doesn't need the corporation to do it.

First of all, you should be solving the problem of a six-month wait in order to take your driving test. That's urgent, I tell my friend Gilles Pouliot. That is very important. It's important to your children, it's important to my children and it's particularly important to those people who need to get a driving licence in order to get a job, and that's something that he's not doing.

Second, he needs desperately to get some money to get on with road reconstruction and new road construction. That is the single most important thing that he could be doing in order to enhance safety on our roads. I tell you, the number of accidents that happen in this province, and in particular in the greater Toronto area, are caused primarily by congestion, by overloading of our highways, by drivers driving too fast because of the frustration of being caught in traffic for hour after hour. It doesn't matter whether you're on the Don Valley Parkway, on the Queen Elizabeth Way or on Highway 401; those systems are not working now.

The minister could be a hero in Ontario. The minister could be a true hero if he would simply some time, over the course of the next couple of months, the next couple of weeks, stand in his place and say that he has secured a billion-dollar commitment to put construction workers back to work and build the highway facilities and the rapid transit facilities that are so desperately needed.

If the minister would do that, we over on this side would say to him: We applaud you and we will help you get those projects in place as soon as possible. We will move heaven and earth so that those projects can move forward.

Right now, in my own riding, there are thousands and thousands of construction workers waiting for one word from the Minister of Transportation that he is going to start spending again in Ontario and building the roads that we need. Until the minister does that, I simply want to tell him, in conclusion, that he cannot satisfy the people of Ontario and certainly he cannot fulfil his responsibilities as a minister by giving us a new crown corporation, a new board of directors, a new president, and giving it the sweet title of the Ontario Road Safety Corp. It does nothing. It doesn't add one iota of effect. It doesn't stop one accident. It doesn't enhance one piece of roadway. It does nothing other than give the minister an opportunity to put something on his CV as he looks for new work after the next election.

In view of the fact that there is all-party agreement to adjourn this debate at 15 minutes after 5 so that we can expeditiously deal with the bill to prohibit the purchase of lottery tickets by minors in the province of Ontario, a bill presented in this House by my good friend the member for Mississauga West, in response to a terrible little crisis created by this government, I would now move that we adjourn this debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Sorbara moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Orders of the day?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I'd like unanimous consent to do the 90th order.

The Deputy Speaker: Unanimous consent? Agreed.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES LOTERIES DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Mahoney moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 92, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société des loteries de l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Mahoney has moved second reading of Bill 92. Mr Mahoney, you have --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd just like to make a couple of brief opening remarks, and there has been agreement to have about 15 minutes for each caucus to address this bill and the concerns that have generated the bill to be presented to this House. So I will just make some opening remarks and then pass it on and, I believe, have the pleasure of wrapping up the debate.

I'm told by people in this place that this is a very historic situation. The Clerk has done some research that shows me that in the 200 years of this place operating --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Oh, God.

Mr Mahoney: -- there have been -- Mr Sorbara, I know you can't stand this because you didn't think of it, so just have a nice day.

There have been 14 private bills that have been passed in this House, and so as a result of that -- I guess I didn't really understand the significance of it, and I appreciate the cooperation from all sides.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): The NDP are very cooperative.

Mr Mahoney: I'll try to be nice if you do.

The importance of this bill, and I don't even see it as a partisan issue at all; in fact, I said the other day in the House that it really is my belief that there could be 129 other names on this piece of legislation, because I would be quite shocked to find that any member of the Legislature would not support it. I think that, having talked to many of them, they do. So I don't see it as a partisan issue; rather an issue that we're all concerned about, that I in fairness think and hope happened inadvertently.

The fact was that the lottery corporation came out with a bill allowing sporting betting to take place in any of their operations where a terminal existed, and then recognizing that while there was a policy to prohibit the sale to people under the age of 18, there was no law, and the policy had never been enforced in the province of Ontario. So I think there was a lot of surprise that occurred as a result of it.

I asked the staff who draft the bills to do really yeoman service in preparing this bill in a morning and to keep it simple, and I'd just like to read into the record what the bill says. The first is that it's An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act as follows:

"8.1(1) No person authorized to sell lottery tickets, and no person acting on such person's behalf, shall sell a lottery ticket to a person under 18 years of age."

"(2) The corporation" -- that is, the Ontario Lottery Corp -- "shall revoke the authorization in the event of a contravention of subsection (1)."

This is not an attempt to place any added burden on the retail sector, but rather to say to the retail sector that we don't want our young people gambling on professional sports, and if the retail sector decides to violate that they run the risk of losing their very lucrative licence to sell lottery tickets to people over the age of 18.

With those brief remarks and introduction of the bill --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Ontario should thank Steve Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you, Mr Bradley.

I'm going to take my seat and invite other members in this place to share comments on this. Frankly, it's my hope and my understanding that we'll be doing second reading of this bill today, followed by a request to do unanimous consent to do third reading, and that early next week the Lieutenant Governor will come in this place to give royal assent.

I'm just delighted that the House leader of the government and the House leader of the Conservative Party along with my House leader have come to this agreement, because I think it's a critical issue of real importance -- not a political issue, but an issue of social value that for once we all together as elected representatives can show the people of this province that we've actually found something we can all agree on and work together on. So I look forward to finishing and wrapping up at the conclusion of this debate today.

1720

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party --

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Hold on for a minute. I don't believe the announcement was made that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Mississauga South has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Culture and Communications concerning TVOntario. This matter will be debated tonight at 6 o'clock.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES LOTERIES DE L'ONTARIO

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I forgot to ask for unanimous consent that we were going to divide the time till 6 at 15 minutes for each party.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to speak this afternoon on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and as critic for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, and to speak on behalf of the people of Wellington, who I'm so privileged to represent, to Bill Pr92, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, a private member's bill which has been presented to this House by Mr Mahoney, the member for Mississauga West.

The bill amends the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act by prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets to minors. The contravention of the bill would result in the revocation of the authorization to sell lottery tickets. A simple bill but a very important bill, presented by the member for Mississauga West, who in his own unique way has promoted this bill for a number of weeks with the government, and the government has finally, after quite a number of weeks, seen the wisdom of it and has given its consideration to proceed with this bill, hopefully passing third reading today.

Our caucus supports this bill very, very strongly. We've supported this concept in principle for years. Last June, I guess, in a question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I asked the government about the whole issue of children's access to gambling opportunities, because I was very concerned about a Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, through the Ontario Lottery Corp pilot project, which set up coin-operated ticket vending machines in the communities of Windsor, Sarnia, Chatham and London. It's my understanding that those machines are still in place as a pilot project and today children continue to have the opportunity, if they wish, to buy lottery tickets with coins.

This pilot project appears to be totally inconsistent with the government's support of this bill and I'd like to use a brief part of my time this afternoon to call upon the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to instruct the Ontario Lottery Corp, upon passage of this bill, to immediately cancel the pilot project and announce to this House that he will not proceed in any way with these coin-operated ticket vending machines because these coin-operated ticket vending machines mean that children have absolutely no restriction on lottery tickets of all sorts. I put him on notice on that particular issue.

This Sport Select lottery, Pro Line, which is promoted here by Mr Don Cherry, is clearly geared towards children, as has been stated in this House, and I hope that the lottery corporation, on the instructions of the minister, re-evaluates this entire concept and this entire program.

Last Tuesday, I had a question to the acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation and I asked him why he was dragging his feet on this issue and did he support the concept of children gambling, and he came back with a rather negative answer, but I'm pleased that he has in fact responded to the concerns that have been expressed to the government.

I want to conclude, I suppose, by congratulating the member for Mississauga West. As he said, there aren't many private members' bills that are passed by the government. I would think private members' bills passed by opposition members over the past 200 years would be very, very few indeed, and this is quite a coup. I would conclude with that, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'll be very brief. I want to congratulate the member for putting forward his legislation and for pursuing it in such an aggressive way as he has over the last few weeks.

Mr Bradley: And he's been so complimentary of you lately.

Hon Mr Cooke: Yes? When?

Since the minister is unable to be here, I just want to get a couple of things on the record. Number one, what this bill does is make it very clear that not only will it be the policy of the Ontario Lottery Corp, but it will be the law of the province that no one under the age of 18 will be able to purchase lottery tickets. I'm informed by the Ontario Lottery Corp that this has been the policy of the corporation for quite some time.

I certainly agree with the member that it's one thing to enforce a policy. Of course, in this respect, we're relying on corner stores and outlets from one end of the province to the other that want to follow policy but on occasion may not, and obviously haven't. It's much easier for them to say, "Not only is it the policy of the government, the policy of the Ontario Lottery Corp, but it's the law of the province of Ontario that we cannot sell lottery tickets to young people under the age of 18."

I think this is appropriate. I think it's a good step.

I want to comment as well not only on this piece of legislation, which will not only get second reading this afternoon but will get third reading, but we hope to arrange for this and other pieces of legislation to get royal assent next week.

I think the process here is something we should attempt to do on a more regular basis. There are ideas that come from opposition parties that are worthy of consideration. I think if we do this more often, then you will see private members' bills not just used for political purposes but also because they might actually become law.

In this respect, I can tell members of the Legislature that we are looking at other private members' bills that have been dealt with in private members' hour. We hope by next week we will have an opportunity to report to the opposition parties which additional private members' bills will be passed into law before the end of this session. In fact, it's my expectation that we will pass more private members' legislation in this fall sitting of the Legislature than has been passed in the entire history of the Ontario Legislature. I think that's an important step.

I think we need to look further at some additional items. I think we should look at changes to the rules that set up a private members' bills committee. Instead of going to a standing committee where private members' bills can be bumped when government legislation or other items come into a committee, if a committee is set up strictly to deal with private members' bills, I think this would give that legislation a different status and it would be dealt with in a more serious way.

I'm pleased to be speaking on behalf of the government to indicate our support. Again, no matter how difficult this is, I congratulate the member for this initiative.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Bradley: Thank you for this opportunity to speak and to congratulate the member for Mississauga West on the initiative he has taken. This is an example for members of the Legislature and perhaps for the people of this province to see how one individual member can discover that a problem exists. Some of us have seen the problem as well, but he decided he would take it upon himself to raise the issue in the Legislative Assembly and do so in a persistent method.

I've watched him over the past several days as he has asked the questions of various ministers, the government House leader, the acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The manner in which he has handled this has been exemplary. I think we can describe him as a bulldog in dealing with this issue, because he feels it's extremely important to young people in this province and to the parents of young people in this province.

We're at a very difficult time in our economy at the present time and I believe we have to carefully spend the dollars we happen to have in this province. For this reason, I think when a member discovers, as the member for Mississauga West has, that there is a genuine problem and he's prepared to pursue it, it is fitting that the end is the bill being introduced by the member, the government House leader and the leader of the Conservative Party agreeing that the bill shall be processed, and a relatively brief debate this afternoon, because there is a consensus.

There is no question the bill is needed. To watch young people at pinball parlours is annoying enough, but to watch them engaging in this kind of betting, which can be quite expensive for them, is discouraging, using their lunch money, as the member has mentioned, or other money they might have, to gamble it away, to squander it away on such a game.

1730

The member has used an experience of his own family, where he has discussed this with his own children and with others who are friends of his children. To determine the exact extent of the problem, he's come up with a very straightforward solution, and I think it speaks well of the Legislative Assembly as a whole this afternoon that we are debating this briefly, agreeing to it.

Certainly, I would be happy to pay tribute to my colleague the Liberal member for Mississauga West, Steve Mahoney, on this initiative, which he has carried not only in this House but through various news programs across the province where he has clearly articulated the case in favour of this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I would also like to compliment the member for Mississauga Centre --

Mr Mahoney: West.

Mr Stockwell: -- and say to him that he has done a superb job in bringing this forward. The member for Mississauga Centre has proven that any member can work diligently with all parties and get unanimous consent to bring an issue like this to bear. He has also proven that we in opposition can sometimes make a difference.

I would like to move on and just make a couple of quick points. I agree with the member for Mississauga West when he suggests that anyone could have sponsored this motion, because no one believes in gambling by children, whether it's their lunch money or their stolen money or whatever it may be. I mean, obviously it's not something that I think we should be participating in.

But I do want to talk about the game itself. It gives me an opportunity to just make a few points that I'd like to get forward on this issue. I think on this lottery, this sports lottery, it's really a public fleecing in a lot of respects. It's put together by the government, and I'd like the tourism minister to look into it, because it really bugs me that the odds are so short on this betting, that the return is so small for the amount of money that you have to put up.

Nowhere could you go, including the racetrack or Las Vegas or Atlantic City or, in the future, Windsor, and get these kinds of lousy odds for this kind of money you're putting forward. Really what it comes down to is, you know, it's really a process to gamble by, but the odds that the government is giving are not what would be considered reasonable odds.

Disproportionately they're gaining more revenue and the real chance of the game is, in my opinion, ruined because the odds that they're giving are so short, so narrow, and the government is going to win disproportionately more often than a place like Las Vegas or Atlantic City or the racetrack.

That bothers me to some degree, because if you're going to go into these games of chance or betting, I think you should go into them with the same rules and requirements that other gambling areas go into them with. The way they've gone into this particular concept has, in my opinion, shortchanged the people in the province of Ontario, because they're asking them to gamble on sporting events, they're giving them an access to gamble, but they're not giving them a fair return on that gambling. They're not giving them fair odds, and the returns are going to be very negligible compared to a standard bet that you place at the racetrack or elsewhere.

I just want to go on the record that if you're going to get into gambling like this, like you have, you should have the same requirements that you put upon other gambling operations. I use for example the racetrack and so on. I want to get that on the record because it just frustrates me that government now says, "You can get into the gambling game and we'll operate it," and you've got better luck going to a bookie or a racetrack than you have at picking this process that is government sanctioned.

It really is hilarious that the government-sanctioned betting has shorter odds than a bookie or the racetrack. That to me is not reasonable, because people are going to bet when the government is running it, thinking that it's the fairest, most equitable treatment they're going to get and it's exactly the opposite.

The worst bet you can make is this bet. The least chance of winning is this bet and the return on winning, the shortest return, is this bet. That kind of infuriates me. There is money to be made at this, and I think what they're doing is they're just making a heck of a lot more money by not allowing what I would consider is a reasonable wage to be made.

I would also like to say that the member for Mississauga Centre has done an exceptionally good job, and I wish him all the best in putting forward his new spin on this as it's done. He can take a lot of bows for the work he's done. Yeoman service, Mr Member.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I beg the indulgence of the House again. I have a severe cold so my voice is a bit on the low side. I shall endeavour to respond, however, as I might, to this Bill 92.

I think I should begin by applauding the efforts of the honourable member for Mississauga West for his tenacity in putting forth what I consider to be a very important principle, and that is the principle that we in this House need to be caring and concerned about the future of our young people.

In fact it should be to us almost a commandment that for the future generations we must care and give due consideration to the issues that are going to impact their lives and provide the framework for their future. I believe that in Bill 92 what we have is an earnest effort on the part of the member for Mississauga West to ensure that we give young people a good start in life.

Where do I begin? As I look over the issue of gambling in the province of Ontario, I can look back perhaps a decade when I began my work with low-income and poor people across the province of Ontario. I remember the debates even then, as we looked at the Ontario Lottery Corp and how the lottery corporation was suggesting that we should implement newer and bigger lotteries and invite people to give more and more money into the public coffers.

In those days I was on public record and said very clearly that such a move in such a direction was deleterious to the future of this province, that we could not continue to allow people to invest in the lottery corporation and thereby basically lose their money when so many people were finding hardship and difficulties in that recession in the early 1980s.

Unfortunately, those words that I spoke in those days on the public record were not taken into consideration by those in power then, and we have perpetuated that policy in a sense. We have said that the lottery corporation must continue to do the kind of work that it's doing.

I have to say I have great qualms and difficulties with that, not the least of which, as you know, I have indicated my lack of support for the issue of casino gambling in the province. But more to the point in terms of Bill 92, at least we are saying with Bill 92 that there is some sense in which we cannot have young people forfeiting their money and their earnings or the money and the earnings of their families in this particular regard. We cannot allow our children to become dependent on a habit which has been proven to be addictive to many people in society.

By allowing this private member's bill to be put forward by the honourable member for Mississauga West, and by having the support, as we do, from all sides of the House to this intent, I believe that we are making a statement which is fundamental and important about our attitude towards gambling.

I think it is far from being a definitive statement. I think it is necessary for us to go even further. To wit, I would lead us to some consideration of other jurisdictions. For instance, I would bring to mind and to the mind of this body today in this Legislature the fact that there are other experiences we can draw upon, the experience, for instance, of families in New Brunswick, where video terminals are now available in corner bars and corner stores, and we are finding people of every age engaging in gambling activity. I myself have had the opportunity to speak with families who have lost all their savings through these local gambling outlets.

1740

There is abundant evidence now, many different reports that have been done in the United States that have proven that video terminal gambling is probably the most addictive of all gambling. So it is that I am very concerned that, yes, this is a major step forward. But it is not enough. We must ensure that we do not allow for video terminals and other kinds of machines to be used by the Ontario Lottery Corp in corner stores or corner bars or restaurants. To that end, we need to have some support by the minister when she is responding to the House on this and many issues surrounding the gambling area.

I want to talk for a moment, if I might, about quality of life. It is my very firm and fundamental belief that we, as legislators, are here primarily not only to ensure order and good government in this province but to ensure quality of life for the people of Ontario, and that of course means many things and many activities and many involvements. Surely when we think of quality of life, we think of those activities that people give themselves to within our society which will, by their very nature, build up that society and build up that individual character and that individual human being.

Gambling is something which is antithetical to this fundamental understanding, for in gambling one is involved in primarily a compulsion of greed. One wants to receive something for nothing. One wants to further one's opportunities in the hope of gaining far more than he or she puts in, and so it is fundamentally wrong. If it is fundamentally wrong for an 18-year-old to gamble, I would even contend that it is wrong for us as a Legislature to even promote gambling. Therefore, I would say that we need to take a stronger hand in this and we need to begin to limit very strictly the activities of gambling that have been allowed in our society.

So it is that I speak to the fundamentals of society: how our society operates, what activities are good activities that will build up society and build up individuals within that society. I want to say that it is absolutely paramount for us in this Legislature to take significant issue with all the activities that surround gaming and gambling.

I am reminded of a family that I spoke to about two months ago, or perhaps a month and a half ago. They had lost all their money because of gambling and they were at the point where they were going to have to sell their home, which was the last thing they could claim was their own. In doing this last act, in selling their home, there was a sense of having lost a dream for that family and having lost the ability to be able to make sure that the members of the family were cared for. There was a sense of desolation, a sense of unreality for them, and a sense that somehow they had been betrayed. Yes, they had betrayed themselves in their actions in gambling, but somehow they had gotten involved in something that they did not know was going to be detrimental to their health: their spiritual, their emotional, their psychological health.

When I see examples like that, it reminds me of the sacred cause that we have as legislators to care very particularly, in minute particularities, about the lives of the people of this province and how they live their lives and what people give their lives to. Surely we can give an example to people by limiting involvement in gambling by making sure that whatever opportunities are to be allowed within our society, they are allowed within a framework which will not be destructive to that overall society and the individual members within that society.

I want to commend again, if I might, the member for Mississauga West for his tenacity and his foresight in bringing forth this bill. I want to commend those members of the House, and they are many throughout this House, who support this bill and want to see this bill put through with expedition.

Lastly, I want to say to the honourable House leader of the government, my thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate and to put forth my views on this most lamentable practice, which in my view needs to be restricted and needs to put into some very strong regulations.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It is a pleasure today to rise and speak in support of my colleague the member for Mississauga West and his Bill 92, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, which reads as follows:

"The bill amends the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act by prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets to minors. A contravention of the bill would result in the revocation of the authorization to sell lottery tickets."

I'm sure Mr Mahoney is very appreciative of the fact that we're all standing here applauding his initiative in bringing forward this private member's bill and in particular, I think, the fact that there has existed for a long time now, I guess about 17 years since the original lottery corporation act was passed in this province, this very serious loophole.

For all of the seven years that Mr Mahoney and I were on Mississauga city council together, we shared a number of initiatives where we supported each other in trying to make changes and where we were successful, I believe, in making improvements for those constituents we represent in the city of Mississauga. In this case, I believe the member for Mississauga West has shown initiative that we hope will protect minors across this province. We recognize that in supporting the bill, like any bill, it's only going to be as effective as the enforcement of the content of the bill, and where we're looking at the sale of lottery tickets, we're looking at thousands of outlets across this province and we are going to be dependent on the responsibility and the judgement of the people who operate those lottery ticket outlets today.

We know that in spite of legislation prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors, it still happens. We know it happens in a number of ways, sometimes directly to those minors, sometimes by the minors giving their money to someone of a legal age to go and procure alcoholic beverages for them.

I'm sure those eventualities will not ever be resolved by a piece of legislation passed by this House. We will still have minors investing, unfortunately, their money from whatever source they're able to obtain it in the purchase of lottery tickets in different forms by having their older and eligible friends and relatives purchase those tickets for them.

But having said that, at least when we know of those violations and those infractions, which in the long run really do a great deal of damage to our young people, at least when those occasions occur, with this legislation now there will be a remedy. I almost wish the remedy was more severe than the revocation of the authorization to sell lottery tickets.

1750

I don't know from any personal information that I have just how lucrative the sale of lottery tickets is for an individual vendor. Personally, I feel that the contravention of this bill should also have with it a further punitive measure such as a substantial fine.

I realize with the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors, the loss of their licence means the loss of their business totally in an establishment that sells alcoholic beverages, and that would mean their business gone completely.

With these vendors of lottery tickets of course it's a small portion of their overall business, whether it's a variety store or some other type of retail outlet. For a lot of people, it is not their only business, so the revocation of their licence to sell, while it may be some impediment to them, I think it would be great if the government saw fit, through regulation, to add to the licence revocation a substantial punitive measure such as a sizeable fine that would add to the deterrent quality and direction of this bill.

Finally, in closing, I would simply say again to the member for Mississauga West that I commend him for his initiative and his forthright direction. When he found there was a problem that existed -- one which none of the other 129 members in this House knew about, and consequently I think he is to be commended -- once he knew about the problem, he did something about it.

It's very interesting. I have not received any calls from parents or individuals complaining about the sale of lottery tickets to minors, and I think it's very important that all of us share the responsibility of acting when something is wrong and we act to correct it. That is simply what the member for Mississauga West has done, and I agree with the direction of his private member's Bill 92 wholeheartedly and congratulate him for that.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? If not, would you wish to wrap up the debate?

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you to all my colleagues for their support and their kind remarks.

I must tell you that something doesn't always just happen alone. There were a number of people with whom I talked about the issue before actually asking that the bill be drafted, and I want to give credit to my colleague the member for Mississauga North, Steven Offer, who was the first one to suggest, when he saw the issue and the question that I asked, that it could perhaps be a good private member's bill.

I appreciate that. It just shows the kind of teamwork that we have in the Liberal caucus, the fact that we work together to try to resolve these problems, and I also want to say that it shows the kind of teamwork that we have in the Legislature, the fact that there is this agreement.

There is someone else I want to pay a tribute to, someone who's gone through a very rough time in the past week or 10 days. I'm not afraid to say that the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation was in support of this bill, and indeed came to my office to tell me that he was supportive of the bill and that he would do what he could to help out, so I appreciate that.

Even though there was some reluctance, I think it's a natural thing perhaps for a government -- and I don't mean this in a partisan way -- to be defensive when faced with an issue. There's a standard reaction that you say, "Yeah, well, maybe this should happen or that should happen or maybe the age should be lower," or whatever. I think that's probably a natural thing just because of the nature of the combativeness that takes place in this House and in this partisan business that we engage in.

But the bottom line of all of this when you cut through it all, and I think the reason that there is unanimous agreement to deal with this in this way, is the fact that this particular lottery is more than just a lottery. This is a lottery that, in my view -- and, I say in fairness, in an inadvertent way -- has been designed to attract young people. I heard a psychologist on a radio show who said it was specifically targeted to young males between the ages of 14 and 18 who, you can see when you think about that, may be the ones who are most interested in the sporting activities of football and hockey.

I say, in fairness, it may have been inadvertent, but it uses terms like "Now you rookies will show the rookies how to get started," and it really focuses on the sports heroes our young people are so interested in today. I think it's more than just a lottery, but you can't single out a lottery. Therefore, the bill really has to encompass all lotteries.

I say to the young people, some of whom may think it is unfair that we're prohibiting them from doing this, just to think about this -- to think about the use of their money and what it might lead to. As the member for Etobicoke West pointed out, this is not even a good bet for an adult, frankly, when you look at the odds and all that kind of thing, and it's just a waste of money.

I'm delighted that we have seen our way clear in six sessional days, which I think might be a record. Really the credit for that does not belong to me. It belongs to the fact that it's such a serious issue. The media have treated it seriously. The government has treated it seriously, albeit with some objections, but it has treated it seriously. Opposition members on both sides here in the Conservative and Liberal parties have rallied around the issue because it is the kids we're concerned about. That's the important thing.

We can't have our young people spending their lunch money on gambling. It's totally unreasonable to turn our corner stores into bookie joints. It's unnecessary, even though it, along with other lotteries, will generate hundreds of millions of dollars for good things in the community. I recognize that and, frankly, if that money is used for those kinds of things, for charitable operations, for sport, for culture -- I think it's accepted in the province that's a good way of raising those kinds of dollars -- there have to be some rules. There have to be some lines that we're not prepared to cross as a society.

There are some people who would say we should do away with the lottery concept altogether. I understand that but I think as long as it's done in a good-natured way -- I can remember the Premier making statements when he was in opposition that lotteries are a tax on the poor. I don't think that philosophy has particularly changed for many people today. As long as we put in place some rules, some regulations and some common sense, and as long as we say to our kids: "Look, there is no free lunch. There is no fast back. The way you get ahead in this world is through hard work" --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: As my colleague the member for Brampton South says, there is lunch and we want you to spend your money on lunch and not waste it on gambling in the corner store.

Thank you to all members of the House for supporting this bill. I really appreciate the positive attitude of everyone involved.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Mahoney has moved second reading of Bill 92, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Mahoney: I'd like to move unanimous consent for third reading of Bill 92.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

The bill was also given third reading.

1800

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I'd like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, November 23, we will debate an opposition motion standing in the name of Mr Harris.

On Tuesday, November 24, we will consider a motion to extend the hours of meeting of the last eight sessional days commencing Monday, November 30. Following that, we will continue with second reading of the Ontario Road Safety Corporation Act, Bill 39. Following the vote on road safety, we will begin second reading of Bill 94, to empower Metro Toronto to enact its assessment plan.

On Wednesday, November 25, we will continue with debate on second reading of Bill 94, followed by second reading of Bill 31, the income tax amendment act.

On the morning of November 26, during private members' business, we will consider ballot item 33 standing in the name of Mr Villeneuve, and ballot item 34 standing in the name of Mr Mammoliti.

In the afternoon of November 26, we will give committee of the whole consideration to four bills comprising the advocacy package, Bill 74, Bill 108, Bill 109 and Bill 110.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 34, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Mississauga South has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Culture and Communications concerning TVOntario.

The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

TVONTARIO EMPLOYEE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I was dissatisfied with the answer given to me by the minister earlier today on the matter of whether an employee of TVOntario may use her postage meter for her union election campaign purposes.

Madam Minister, you can say whatever you like and you will, obviously; you have the last word today. But the people of Ontario will have the last word in the next election. We do not believe, in our PC caucus, that employees of a government agency should be able to campaign for union executive jobs by using the stamp meter which clearly indicates the sender, in this case TVOntario, with a return address to TVOntario. The stamp meter on this envelope reads as follows:

"TVOntario"; mailing address, "Box 300, Station G, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4T 2T1." That is on this envelope that was mailed to employees of TVOntario.

We feel that employees have no right to use the equipment of a publicly owned corporation to further their own union executive campaigns. The postage meter simply prints the stamp on the envelope and also the logo and mailing address of TVOntario. Does it say "TVO" on the envelope? Yes, it does. Does it give the TVOntario address? Yes, it does.

Do you think it is appropriate for a candidate for election to office in a union to receive permission from the director of human resources of TVOntario to distribute union campaign literature and use the TVO stamp meter? Why does TVO permit this use of its equipment? The rental of the postage meter is paid for by the taxpayers. Why couldn't this candidate use her own postage stamps? Where is her address, her return address, on this envelope?

The question was raised by me on behalf of a union member who is a member of NABET Local 700, which has received between 20 and 30 complaints from its members. I'm speaking on behalf of the union members.

In 1990, there was a public apology by TVOntario and a letter sent to the Ontario Labour Relations Board by TVO, agreeing to the terms of the admission of error in a situation involving this same employee. A local of this same union filed the original complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board; a local of a union filed the complaint. The minister stated on the public record today that the 1990 union campaign literature was not in envelopes with the paycheques, but I have received calls stating the contrary. Who do we believe?

Certainly, TVO's own apology admits to the error in allowing campaign literature to be distributed with paycheques to certain employees. I read, for your benefit, TVO's letter, Madam Minister:

"TVOntario admits that some election material was distributed on behalf of Margarette Kaszecki-Pyron along with the paycheques of some members of NABET Local 700 during the week of November 5, 1990. TVOntario further admits that while unintentional, it was an unwarranted intrusion into the administration of the trade union to have permitted that material to be distributed with some employees' paycheques."

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of TVOntario. Further, TVOntario says it "sincerely regret having involved itself in the internal affairs of NABET Local 700 and acknowledges that it erred in allowing the material to be distributed." End of quote from a letter signed by Mr Steven Droz of TVOntario, a letter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Finally, I want to say in closing that I think it is quite interesting that TVOntario acknowledged its error in 1990, while you seem to think you should stand in this House and defend this lack of judgement in this latest incident. Just imagine the situation if in the next provincial election you mailed your campaign literature in an envelope bearing the Legislative Assembly postmark, including the return address and provincial crest of your office at Queen's Park.

Even if you paid the postage yourself, the appearance would be that the taxpayers of Ontario had paid. This is a direct parallel. It's the implication of what has been done, and the perception, what it seems, to the recipient of that envelope with TVOntario's logo on it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Your time has expired.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): The member for Mississauga South is wasting taxpayers' money by making the House sit past its normal time in response to an issue on which she has clearly failed to do her homework.

The member is wrong regarding the use of a TVO envelope to contain union election campaign material. The envelope, a proof which the member was brandishing in the House earlier today and now, in actuality is an envelope with a TVO postage meter stamp, and that postage has been paid for by the union, not the taxpayers. The stamp itself includes the TVO logo and address. The cost of the mailing was cross-charged to NABET in accordance with TVO's cross-charging policy, and the account has been paid in full.

This is an incident which has proven that the member has failed on this issue to be a responsible critic of this portfolio, because all she has presented today are inaccuracies, untruths and innuendoes. In her attempt to embarrass this government, she has only embarrassed herself and her party. Any statement that the member makes on the employee she has mentioned is predicated on the assumption that the employee has done something wrong. That is not the case here, as I have explained. I am shocked that the member would stoop to impugn a person's reputation in a matter that could have been clarified.

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I take objection to the unparliamentary language of the minister, who suggested that I had used untruths. I ask you to review that as being unparliamentary language and ask the minister to withdraw it.

Hon Mrs Haslam: Mr Speaker, she is wrong.

The Deputy Speaker: Just a withdrawal. It costs nothing.

Hon Mrs Haslam: In the interest of parliamentary words, I will withdraw the word "untruth" when she is wrong. That is not the case here, as I have explained. She's predicated her attack on the employee on the assumption that the employee has done something wrong, and that is not the case.

I am shocked that the member would stoop to impugn a person's reputation in a matter that could have been clarified with one simple phone call. It is regrettable that the member would not use her not-inconsiderable investigative skills and undoubted eloquence to support TVO, which is in the midst of its campaign membership drive.

Instead of offering her support to TVO -- and by the way, I did not see her there last night when I was at TVO's MPPs night -- she instead decides to call into question the management practices of this fine institution. How many memberships has she cost TVO through this underhanded behaviour?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you finished? Would you like to continue? No?

It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, November 23, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1810.