Hansard Transcript 1993-Jul-08 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Bill 58, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act and the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative et la Loi sur les allocations de retraite des députés à l'Assemblée législative.

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

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Over the last few years, constituents in my riding of Windsor-Walkerville have suffered tremendously from the impact of the recession. Plants have closed and the plants that remain open have reduced their workforces. Jobs have left the city as a result of federal economic policies like free trade, and those jobs are not returning. Private sector workers who still remain working have seen little or no wage increase over the past few years, and now public sector workers are facing the reality that government revenues that pay their wages have decreased for three years in a row.

Social Contract Act provisions, I know, are tough to take, but I believe people don't mind sharing the pain to maintain important public services like education and health care. But they want to know that the pain is being shared fairly by everyone, and they're not shy about letting their elected representatives know when they see things that they perceive to be unfair.

One of the things I've been hearing from my constituents lately is that they feel the MPPs' pension plan is unfair and needs to be reformed. They're not alone in expressing this opinion. The 1992 report of the Commission on Election Finances suggests as follows: "We feel that members should have the same entitlement for amounts paid into their pension plan as those in the public and private sectors. However, we do feel that the criteria for eligibility with respect to members' pensions should be reviewed."

Premier Bob Rae has agreed that MPPs' pension plans should be reviewed as well. I respect the judgement of the Premier, and on this issue I can only say that I think he's right on.

Mike Harris as well expressed his support when on May 3 during question period he referred to the announcement of the Premier of the province of Alberta that he was going to be doing away with MPPs' pension plans and suggested to Premier Rae, "We should do away with any portion of our pension that is not fully funded."

Now, I know that there is a wide range of public opinion with respect to what compensation MPPs should be entitled to, from those who don't think that we should be paid at all to those who think we should be paid fairly in order to attract qualified candidates as representatives, but I think most people agree that we should be fairly compensated for a job that is difficult, time-consuming, challenging and oftentimes thankless. But when it comes to other benefits, like pensions, I think people get upset when they see something that is completely out of whack with what they see in the public and private sectors.

This bill would bring the MPP pension plan more in line with what's available in the public and private sectors, would help eliminate the unfunded liability and would also save taxpayers' money. Currently, a member who retires after at least five years of service is entitled to a lifetime pension. If the member's age and years of service on retirement add up to 55, then the pension is 5% of the member's pay for each year of service, up to a maximum of 75% of that pay. Periodically, adjustments in pension payments have been made to reflect increases in the cost of living, by the Board of Internal Economy.

People may not be so upset if they felt that the plan was self-sustaining and that any improvements in benefits were fully funded, as they are in almost every other plan. But they're not, and they haven't been for a long, long time. Even as far back as 1976, the actuarial report respecting pensions reported that allowances paid under the plan to cover increases in the cost of living, and these are benefits that are external to the plan and as a result are paid from the consolidated revenue fund, amounted to about $68,000. In 1987, that amount had increased to $887,000, and by last year had reached $1.35 million. I think the trend is pretty clear, and that is that Ontario residents are paying an every-increasing amount towards the maintenance of the MPP pension plan.

If one agrees that the plan should be self-funding, then one of the places to look for that funding should be within the plan itself: surpluses. In fact, the plan did have a surplus, if you take out the cost-of-living adjustments, in 1991 of about $669,000, but by 1992 that surplus had dwindled by half and has probably disappeared by now.

I think this is one of those issues where the public is way ahead of the politicians, and although pension reform may not have been one of the deciding issues in the recent Alberta election, I think it would be foolish for us to ignore the results of that election. I don't want to see what happened in Alberta happen here. I don't want to see a wholesale devaluation of the work we do as MPPs, and I don't want to see a case where only the rich and those who may have other full-time employment are able to become politicians. So I think we need to seriously consider reforming the members' pension plan, and this bill proposes three changes.

First, the bill proposes to eliminate severance pay for members who resign voluntarily between elections, unless that resignation is for serious medical reasons. I think most voters find it incomprehensible that a member can resign midterm, leave them without representation for up to six months, start working at another well-paid job and also collect severance pay. Canadian workers have seen recent Tory amendments to the unemployment insurance plan deny them compensation if they quit without good reason. They must find this completely unfair.

In recent months, I've heard plenty about this issue as a result of the resignation of the member for Essex South, who quit to begin working for an amusement park located in the Detroit River. Although his employment was not interrupted one day, he was entitled to collect severance pay in an amount of over $40,000. There is no such golden parachute for members of the general public.

Voters are similarly upset when members resign to take on other employment with a government agency, board or commission, receive severance pay, begin collecting their pension and also begin collecting a government salary at the same time, something referred to as double-dipping.

The second part of this bill suspends payment of pensions to members who continue their employment by virtue of a government appointment. There should be no reward for MPPs who quit voluntarily to move on to other jobs. If that job happens to be a government appointment, then retired MPPs should not be collecting a government pension and a government salary at the same time.

1010

Finally, the bill amends the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act so that members who retire will not be able to begin collecting their pensions until they reach the age of 55 or their age plus years of service equals 70, whichever comes first. If a member dies before then and leaves a surviving spouse, then the spouse wouldn't be entitled to collect a pension until the member, had he or she lived, would have reached the age of 55. However, if such a member leaves a surviving child or children but no spouse, the child or children would still be entitled to an immediate survivor benefit.

The rules with respect to qualifying for a pension and the level of benefits available would remain unchanged.

I know that given more time, there could have been further refinements made to this bill, but I think that it is important to begin the path of reform now and introduce it now instead of some time in the fall session.

I have to admit that when I began dealing with this issue, it became much more complicated than I had anticipated and there may be some unusual circumstances that I failed to pick up, and I'm interested in hearing suggestions about those.

I would also have liked to have had an opportunity to do an actuarial analysis of what impact these suggestions may have on the plan. I know there are other areas that need to be dealt with: the issue of people who are now collecting pension benefits, grandparenting provisions, and also the issue of fairness of the entitlement of surviving spouses in the event that they may have young children.

I want to acknowledge the previous work of the member Al McLean, who had introduced a bill prohibiting double-dipping on three occasions but never had an opportunity to debate it. I also want to acknowledge the work Peter Kormos did, who, unbeknownst to myself, introduced a bill that had some similar provisions in it to mine. I know that was helpful to legislative counsel, and I want to thank them as well, John Hill and Krystal Nikolich, who were able to accomplish a great deal in a short time.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I welcome the opportunity that the presentation of this bill provides to be able to address what is certainly a timely issue, timely in the sense that it is a matter of very genuine public concern and one which the members of this House should in fact be addressing.

I speak today not so much in support of the specifics of the particular bill which has been put forward, but indeed in support of the intent to review and to make changes to the MPPs' current pension plan. It's very clear, as I believe all members of this assembly have heard, that there are issues in the current pension plan which are of concern and which must be addressed.

There is a concern that MPPs become eligible for their pension after serving for five years, which in some cases, as we are all well aware, may be less than serving two full terms. That is a concern that must be addressed.

There is a concern that MPPs can draw their pensions immediately on retirement if their combined years of age and service equal 55. Again, clearly, this is very different from other pension plans and this is a concern which has to be addressed in any proposals for change that are made and subsequently passed by this assembly.

We recognize as well that there is a very real concern that individuals can be eligible both to draw their pension and to receive remuneration for other public service at the same time. We recognize that this is a very difficult issue to resolve, as some past attempts to deal with what has been called double-dipping have proven. But needless to say, it is also a very real concern and it's a concern which needs to be addressed.

We in our caucus understand these concerns and we believe that there must be changes to the present plan. We are ready to cooperate to put changes in place.

Having said that, let me also say that I am a little bit surprised at this specific bill coming forward at this time for two reasons. One is because, as I think members of the assembly are aware, there is already a bill relating to MPPs' pensions which has been put forward by one of the colleagues of the member putting forward the bill today, so we have a bill presented by the member for Windsor-Walkerville and a bill that has been presented by the member for Welland-Thorold. I might have thought that two members of the same caucus would have been able to get together and present bills which were at least not contradictory in scope. It makes me wonder how serious the effort is to look at the very real concerns in MPPs' pension plans and to bring forward some joint recommendations for changes to those plans.

The second reason I'm surprised to see a bill being brought forward by a member of the NDP caucus today is that when this issue was raised just a short time ago, there was an agreement that was reached, at the initiative of the Premier, and it was agreed to by myself and by the leader of the third party, that indeed there would be a cooperative joint all-party effort made to review MPPs' pension plans, and that the review that would be carried out by an all-party committee would be informed by an independent actuarial review which the Premier undertook to implement and to complete, and that this review would assess the cost of the pension plan, levels of contributions and, as I understand it, would do an assessment of MPPs' pension plans in relation to other pension plans.

I believe it's very important that this review take place and, again, that there be an all-party, cooperative effort made to deal with what are real concerns so there can be a joint agreement on what changes need to be made and that those changes can be passed.

It doesn't seem to me that it does real justice to the issue that this should be coming forward in what seems to be a series of private member bills presented by members of the NDP caucus. Quite frankly, I would have thought that the Premier's own caucus members would have joined with my caucus in welcoming the independent assessment that the Premier himself has undertaken to put in place, and would have wanted to participate in that kind of joint effort to bring in changes to the current plan.

Nevertheless, we in our caucus are firmly in support of the intent to change the current plan. We will support this bill and we will in fact support the bill to be presented by the member for Welland-Thorold on the same issue, as we will support a bill which will stand in the name of one of our own caucus members, the member for Halton Centre.

Our goal is to see that all of these proposals come before the joint committee, which we trust will still be established, and that the work of that committee will still be informed by the independent review which is to be carried out, so that together we can address the very real concerns that exist so we can propose and recommend to this House, jointly, changes that should be made and that indeed those changes will be passed by this assembly.

I believe the goal of all of us here should be and is to ensure that those who are elected to serve in public office are neither financially advantaged nor seriously disadvantaged by their willingness to serve.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to comment briefly on this bill this morning brought forward by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, Bill 58, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act and the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

I'm rather hesitant to comment extensively on this bill because I just received a copy this morning and I haven't had a chance to review it; however, I do want to say that when the member introduced his bill on July 5, I thought it was very appropriate.

He indicated at that time that the bill would eliminate severance allowances for members who resign unless there are serious medical reasons.

It would provide that members would not be entitled to be paid their pensions until they reach the age of 55 or the day on which their age and years of service total 70, whichever comes first.

It also provides that if a member dies before reaching the age of 55 or becoming eligible under the 70 rule and leaves a surviving spouse, the spouse would not be entitled to be paid the retirement allowance until the day on which member would have reached the age of 55 had he or she lived, but if the member has left a surviving child or children but no spouse, the children would still be entitled to an immediate survivor benefit.

It also suspends pensions while a person is receiving compensation for acting as a member or officer of any government agency, commission, board, committee, office or organization to do with government.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and support this bill in principle because it attempts to do something that I tried to do myself when I introduced private member's Bill 73, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, and Bill 74, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act. That was in May 1987.

My bills would have eliminated retirement allowances for persons entitled to them if that person is employed and/or receiving other compensation from the public service or other government agencies.

I wanted to end the practice, commonly known as double-dipping, whereby people who receive retirement pensions from the government are also being paid as a member of another government agency, commission, committee or board.

One of my bills dealt with elected officials while the other focused on civil servants. What about the civil servants who are getting the golden handshake, retiring early, wanting back in with the connections they have in the public service, getting contract positions?

1020

I believe it is morally wrong for people retiring on generous pensions to use the inside track to appointments. I also believe there are plenty of capable people in Ontario with little or no pension who could qualify for these appointments. While I support Bill 58 in principle, I would appreciate having the opportunity and the time to study this legislation, find out what loopholes there are in it, if any. I would hope that this bill reflects the ideals I tried to promote with my private member's bill back in the late 1980s, and a return to fiscal responsibility and personal integrity in the ranks of elected officials and the senior civil service.

I believed then, and I still believe now, that it is fiscally and morally irresponsible to make an appointment to a government agency, commission, board or committee, office or organization, without open competition and while government pensions are still being received.

The independent committee that has been recommended to be set up: I don't believe the election commission should be making recommendations; I believe it should be an independent committee set up by the Premier to look into the whole aspect of pensions. I also believe, as I've said on many occasions, no elected member should receive a pension until they're 55. I believe that is the appropriate, proper time that would be allowable. There's no way that somebody 41 or 45, with a lot of years of service, should be able to draw a pension and go and get another job in government. It just morally to me is not right.

What this bill is trying to do is to correct that situation. I would have hoped that the member and the member for Welland-Thorold could have got together and brought in one bill that we all could support to try and fulfil the commitments he's recommending here, although I like the proposals that this member is making better than the one from Welland-Thorold, because I believe the 55 age factor is the appropriate one.

That's why a lot of people get upset with politicians, when you read in the papers some of the other generous pensions in Canada that have been put in place. This here has been fair to the extent that you had to have the number of years of service and your age to match 55. I think that has been fair to the extent it has been because there's not been a lot of people, but if any are getting it and getting another job, that's not appropriate or right. So I will agree with this 55; I think it's proper. I would like to see that nobody can get that until they are 55.

The independent committee should make those recommendations and they should make them very strongly and change the whole process of pensions in Canada and Ontario, because I believe strongly that Bill 58, while, as I said, I haven't had an opportunity to go through the whole bill, is a step in the right direction. It's a step I would like to see and it's a step I think the people of this province want to see, because with what's gone on in Ottawa with the senators and with regard to the legislatures in other provinces, people are fed up.

Look, it's only right. Pensions were made for when you retire and had no other income. That is not what it has become. I want you to look at the senior civil servants who are retiring with large pensions. What are they doing? Are they getting back into the civil service and getting jobs, when other people could get them? I hope you will address this in your bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for South Hastings.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Thank you, Mr Speaker; Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. I rise today in support of Bill 58, the Legislative Assembly Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993, that was presented today for second reading in the House by the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

I want to go back to 1987, because it was then that I first ventured down the political trail and vied for a position here in the Legislative Assembly. At that time, all my opponents were asked by a scrutinizing public if they thought the pension plan was too generous. Indeed, questions were even asked of them about whether they thought MPPs were paid too much. In 1990, I very seriously considered -- not too prudently, I might add -- that maybe I'd make a public statement and suggest that I not accept a pension if I were to be successful the second time around. This was in 1990, before I even knew I would be successful the first time. Let me just say that I didn't, and I want to say I'm glad I didn't, because the optics and the public perception about the job and the role of the members is somewhat different from what the real job and role the member plays here is.

Before I became a member, I thought maybe members made too much money, maybe their benefits were too good and maybe they shouldn't have pensions. Now that I am an elected representative, I know, through the course of a day's work, how much work a member does, and now that I've had a chance to walk a mile in the shoes of a member, I have a different opinion. My opinion is somewhat different from what it was as one who was vying for the position and had never had first-hand experience.

Now that I've been here, I think that indeed people who have spent a considerable amount of time here deserve some sort of pension. There's no doubt in my mind. I also think there's not a lot of job security in this job. In fact, every five years or so, we go to the polls and our constituents determine whether they think we should have a longer life in this job or a shorter one. Because we have no job security, because we have no unemployment insurance -- we don't pay into the unemployment insurance plan -- I think there needs to be some compensation for members, who have given as much as they have for the time they've been here. Of course, the compensation will vary based on the amount of time one has been here. A member who hasn't reached that level of five years, of course, is not eligible for any pension. And the notion that if someone should resign their seat, they not get severance pay, I think is very admirable, and I think it's the sort of thing we would all support.

The public today is very, very sceptical about governments and politicians, and maybe rightly so, because as we look at the history of politicians -- not to pick on any particular party or any particular member who may have retired -- and look at what they get paid in the pensions they may be receiving now or what they can expect to be paid in the future, it does not sit well with the public generally.

I even thought that maybe in 1995 I might say, "Hey, I'm not going to take a pension." I don't know if there would be an advantage from my constituents in terms of whether I would be re-elected or not if I were to stand up and publicly say, "I'm not going to take a pension, because I don't think that's something that I, after just five, six or seven years, deserve." But I want to say that for those members who have been here for a number of years, I think a pension is something they deserve.

The big question that is raised is the double-dipping factor. It's been mentioned by everyone who has spoken previously. I think it isn't good, and the public doesn't think it's good; in fact, from time to time we see in the media that the public is outraged by the fact that members who have received very generous pensions have an opportunity to sit on boards and commissions and other appointments from the government and indeed, in some instances, double their salary. During these very difficult times of restraint, when the government of Ontario is asking all people to make contributions to help reduce the deficit, this is a time when we can see Bill 58 as something that is very advantageous.

I want to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville for introducing this bill. I support it and I hope all the other members of this Legislature do, because I think it's not only what the members in this Legislature want, it's what the people of Ontario want as well.

1030

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I rise to support Bill 58 because I think the time has come for honourable members on all sides in this Parliament and in the Canadian Parliament to address two of the most irksome aspects of parliamentary perks, and those are certain aspects of the pension plans here in this Legislature and elsewhere in Canada, and certainly in the national Parliament, and the question of double-dipping.

I have over the course of 18 years in this Legislature addressed this issue both publicly and privately on my own behalf on a number of occasions. I have through most of those years not received very much support. In fact I bear a few lacerations from members, most of the lacerations coming from my friends in the New Democratic Party. So I cannot tell you how pleased I am to have honourable members in the New Democratic Party advancing bills as we have today in the name of the member for Windsor-Walkerville or in the name of the member for Welland-Thorold.

Let me say as well that I understand, perhaps as well as anyone in this place, the uncertainty, the difficulty, the unpredictability of political life. I grew up in a very political family. My grandfather served here for 16 years back in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. A cousin-in-law of mine, Mr Yakabuski, served here for 24 years. It's interesting when I think of the Renfrew county experience -- and I think this has to be said -- my two predecessors, Mr Yakabuski in south Renfrew and Mr Hamilton in north Renfrew, served, in the case of Mr Yakabuski, 24 years. He died the day he retired and received no benefit from his very generous pension entitlement. Mr Hamilton served here from 1958 to 1975, 17 years. He died six months after he retired. There are two examples of members who together served for over 40 years and who personally drew almost nothing of their pension entitlement.

I look at my county and I think of the late Joe Greene, who served with distinction in the Parliament of Canada, and Mr James Maloney, who served here with distinction. They died in office. When I look at the Renfrew county experience, most of the politicians I grew up with died in office or died very shortly thereafter. For them, the pension entitlement was a matter of a widow's benefit.

The average length of stay in the Parliament of Canada is now something in the neighbourhood of five to seven years. The average length of stay in this Parliament is now below five years. So the average member of the Ontario Legislature today will not even participate in this plan.

I was saying to my friend the member for Halton Centre, Mrs Sullivan, that we have had three successive electoral decapitations: 1985, 1987 and 1990. The greatest electoral change and decapitation in the 20th century in Ontario will occur in the spring of 1995. There will be a massive change and turnover in this place in two years' time. I say to my friends, if ever there was a time to change the plan, it is now.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition who said a few moments ago on behalf of her Liberal colleague that there must be a new plan for a new Parliament. That is the 36th Parliament, which will presumably be elected some time in the spring of 1995. That new plan must deal with, I believe, those elements of the current arrangement that, as the member from Walkerville has pointed out, are unacceptable to the Ontario electorate and, I believe, to the Canadian electorate in this day and age.

The first of these problems is the problem of relatively young people like the honourable member now standing from north Renfrew; like the former Minister of Health, Mr Timbrell, from Don Mills;, like my former colleague Mr Mancini; like Stephen Henry Lewis, who left here in 1978 at the age of 40 as a very young man with a very comfortable pension benefit. People talk about Mancini; I guess I would say, "Go and interview Stephen Lewis and ask him what it's been like for the last 15 years drawing a Mancini-like pension, or ask Timbrell." We've all got those kinds of examples of young people; I might add, relatively few examples.

We must address the fact that the people of north Renfrew or elsewhere in Ontario or in Canada cannot understand and should not accept the notion that, for whatever internal and private reason, certain young people after 10 or 15 years, at age 40, walk out of the Parliament of Ontario, the Parliament of Canada, the Parliament of Alberta, and have a pension payable at that age of 40, or 38 or 42, immediately and for life and indexed. That is the single, biggest irritation and wrong in the current arrangement that must be addressed.

I say to my friends on all sides, because, yes, the Liberals have Mancini, the Tories have Timbrell, the New Democrats have Stephen Lewis and Richard Johnston and Michael Breaugh, who's drawing a pension of $35,000 provincially, I think it is. He's up in Ottawa at age 40, and he's a wonderful fellow and I like Mike and he's a very good member of the Canadian Parliament. That's not the issue.

The issue is that my pension entitlement apparently -- if I quit today and walked out of this place, I am entitled immediately to a pension benefit of $54,000 annually. Let me say that there isn't a person I represent in the county of Renfrew who thinks that's fair and just. And you know what? They're right. If I quit tomorrow, I would feel honour-bound to tell the Speaker of this assembly to defer that benefit until I was at least age 55, because I couldn't go home. I could not go home and face my parents or my neighbours or my electors who are good, hardworking people and who are not unreasonable, who understand the vicissitudes of politics and public life, because they remember Mr Yakabuski and Mr Hamilton and Mr Maloney and Mr Greene. They knew that none of those people made any money in the business of politics; in fact I could argue that Paul Yakabuski, who was married to my cousin, lost a fortune by being in politics, that he would have been a much richer man had he stayed in Barry's Bay and run the family business.

But I say again that there are two problems that must be dealt with, and the Conway problem, the Mancini problem, the Stephen Lewis problem, the Dennis Timbrell problem, which is young people who've been here for 10 or 15 years and who are, at age 40, able to walk out with an immediate entitlement is just indefensible and unacceptable. I say, as all honourable members besieged now with a scepticism and a cynicism about our honourable profession, let us together fix that problem.

The second issue that has to be dealt with, it seems to me, is the problem of double-dipping, and it is more complicated than we might imagine. Again, I think there is a way we can do it, and that is that honourable people who have a pension entitlement -- and, again, if you put the 55 rule in, you deal with the problem to a very substantial extent. I don't mean to be partisan, but two people I know and like and respect -- I can add a third one, my friend Bob Nixon. I was not happy when Nixon went to London and took his pension and took whatever salary attaches to the agent generalship in London. He has resigned that position essentially because the position has, on his recommendation, been terminated.

But, you know, we have Ian Deans and Elie Martel. Ian Deans was a very fine and outstanding member of this Legislature. He was a member of the Legislature for the New Democratic Party from 1967 till his retirement in 1979. He was a very able, effective House leader. He then became the MP for Hamilton-Wentworth and the federal NDP House leader. He now apparently claims a provincial pension, a federal parliamentary pension, and he draws a salary of something like $140,000 on top of those two pension entitlements as chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

My friend Elie Martel, who worked long and hard as an outstanding member of this Legislature, is today, I'm sure, drawing a teacher's pension, a parliamentary pension from this place in the neighbourhood of $33,000 or $34,000, and he's drawing something in the neighbourhood of $95,000 as an able member of the Environmental Assessment Board. That is wrong.

I'm not saying it's wrong that Mr Martel should serve on the Environmental Assessment Board or that Mr Deans should not serve as chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, but who among us can go out and say that one should have those three entitlements all coming from the public purse at this time?

This is a tough life, it is an uncertain life, and it is an honourable profession, but we have a couple of problems in this area of parliamentary perks. Let us together fix the problem.

1040

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): It's with some trepidation that I speak on this because of the penchant of the media to turn the issue into the ridiculous examples that have been used in the past. Fine examples were recognized by the member for Renfrew North just in his examples.

I think that the member brings forward a bill, which he's entitled to in private members' hour. I think that the member of the opposition, the member of the Liberal Party, was concerned to some degree with the motives behind bringing forward this bill in that we are entering into a by-election in the very near future in Essex South, which includes Mr Mancini, who has retired with a very generous pension.

Whenever we talk in this place about pensions, we don't expect to get any kind of crocodile tears from the public, because the public at this time are looking upon our profession with a great deal of scepticism, and therefore it's difficult to talk about this and come to a reasonable and rational conclusion with regard to what a member is entitled to or not entitled to.

I think that the member for Walkerville has brought forward in Bill 58 some reasonable suggestions in dealing with some of the problems which Mr Conway has identified. Mr Conway identified, number one, the problem of very young members, and I think that this bill does in some ways deal with that.

I would like to add to his list of problems that we have to deal with a third one, and that is: I think people out there have the impression that the normal MPP is getting paid $60,000 in annual salary, or approximately that amount; I think it's $44,000 plus $15,000 of tax-free allowance.

One of the problems we have in dealing with pensions is that, because we separate those two amounts into two pots, pensions are based on the lower amount of $44,000, or approximately that amount of money. Therefore, when we talk in terms of percentages and we talk in terms of entitlement, we're talking about a figure which is not realistic, and therefore it is difficult for the public to conceptualize around that.

Now, the other problem that we have had, and was exhibited by Mr Mancini, is that our pension has been based on the best three years of our parliamentary career. Mr Mancini was fortunate enough to be a full member of cabinet very near the end of his political career. Therefore, Mr Mancini's pension was based not on $44,000, but on $44,000 plus $33,000, which he was paid as a cabinet minister.

I don't think that is what our pensions should be based upon. I think they should be based perhaps upon the average salary that we have received over a longer period of time. Maybe that's a solution, or maybe the cabinet minister's salary should be not included in the pension entitlement. Now, when I say that, I say that in a way that would affect my own, because my best three years are still the years from 1982-85, when I was a cabinet minister in Mr Davis's government. Therefore, I probably, under the present rules, will never get to the point where I will ever improve those unless I stay after the next election and become the next Treasurer of the province of Ontario.

But notwithstanding that --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): A little presumptuous, are we? Don's the finance critic. He'll be upset about that.

Mr Sterling: I think one of the problems that Mr Lessard and anyone dealing with this particular problem has is that until we get our remuneration that we are receiving into the proper form -- and that is that we should all be paid $70,000 a year total and pay taxes on it like everybody else in Ontario does on the total amount of $70,000. That's about what it works out to when you work out $44,000 plus $14,000 in tax-free allowance. The end would be $70,000.

It's too bad we didn't do that during the latter part of the 1980s when there wasn't a recession, because it's hard for the people to understand when you jump a salary from a total package of $58,000 or $60,000 to $70,000. It's difficult, and the people would say, "Well, they're taking a $10,000 increase." There would be a great hue and cry, and the media would perhaps not be as careful as they might be in reporting why it went from $60,000 to $70,000, but I believe that it would be a more honest way of paying members of this Legislature.

That's what should be the determination of the amount of pension. The pension should be based on that amount, and anything more that you got, as a parliamentary assistant or a committee chairman or a cabinet minister, I don't believe should be added to your pension.

One of the things the public perhaps doesn't understand is that if we take a member like Floyd Laughren, who is the dean of the House at this point in time, who has spent 22 years in this place -- he's 58 years of age, I believe, at this time. He came to the Legislature perhaps in his prime earning years. If Floyd Laughren had not been a member of cabinet, his pension after leaving this place -- he ran in the last election perhaps not on the expectation of being in the cabinet; I'm sure it wasn't on the expectation of being in the cabinet -- if Floyd Laughren would have retired at the end of this term, after 25 years of service in here, Floyd Laughren would have been entitled to a pension of about $32,000 or $33,000 a year.

I don't think that's adequate for the amount of work, the skill that Floyd Laughren has and the effort he has put into his job when we compare it to other public servants in this province. Now it is difficult for a person who is not getting any pension to understand me saying that $32,000 or $33,000 wouldn't be adequate for Floyd Laughren, who had served here for 25 years, but when I look at teachers' pensions and other public servants, they would far exceed what Mr Laughren would have received under the scenario that I paint.

There are some problems with the severance provisions of the bill. They would encourage people to hang on, to be MPPs even though they weren't doing the job. They would retain their seats until another election was called, notwithstanding they weren't doing their job.

We would have to go through these details, and I'm sure, deal with some of them, but otherwise we are supporting this bill.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm privileged to rise and join in the debate on Bill 58, introduced by my friend and colleague from Windsor-Walkerville.

Some members of my caucus said to me, "You know, you're the last one who should be getting up here this morning to speak about this," but nevertheless the pensions that I am in receipt of were all earned honestly and sometimes for the good of this country, and I must say that none of them were received early. It's put me in the position, with the clawback from income tax, to rather make me almost a volunteer here, so I can speak with some objectivity, free of bias.

I know that once we get into a recession, as we are in now, the first recipients of the public's outrage are members of Parliament and members of the provincial government. I find that a little bit sad in some respects, because like many of my colleagues here, when I came to Queen's Park for the first time, I had that perception that MPPs were down here living the good life and what a swell time it was. I quickly came to realize that it's not the swell life that the public perceives.

I'd like to mention two members here, the member for Kenora and the member for Rainy River. I think it's quite significant that both of those gentlemen are single, and I just think of the tremendous effort it must be for those two people to represent their riding, one almost close to Winnipeg and the other one almost a world away from here. I think when you recognize that commitment, when you realize what that does to people here, I have some difficulty in criticizing members' pay, pensions and whatever.

1050

Nevertheless, there is a public perception that we have to address that the pensions are not right, and I agree they're not right. The pensions that I received were at the normal age of 55 and later at 60 and just recently at 65, and I think people can live with that and accept that, but the public's perception -- obtaining a pension in the early 40s is unacceptable.

I would like to see some sort of process whereby when he left, a member would get a certain amount of money but the main thrust of the pension will kick in at 55, like very similarly it does in the military now. You leave the military at 50, but you get a small pension and then at 60 the pension kicks in with the indexing, which it did in my case, and I couldn't live without another job between 50 and 60. Likewise, I think that we have to respect members who retire early. They are entitled to something for their effort, because it's very difficult for members, unless you have a high profile, to get alternative employment when you leave here.

I think that in 1995, when there's another election called and perhaps some of our members will not be successful, they're going to face an awfully difficult time in finding employment, because the perception of employers, I think, is that, "We really don't want MPPs on staff." I think you have to think about that, and you have to think about that in regard to severance pay, in that it bridges the gap when you will be on your own and trying to just pay the bills. I don't agree with the severance pay being cut, but perhaps, who knows, when people resign, we are not privy to all the personal reasons behind that, and arbitrarily to say that you don't get any severance pay to me is a bit draconian.

I do have great difficulty with MPPs who leave here and go on to the House of Commons and become members there, but I believe that this difficulty is not necessarily their own, because I've spoken to Ross Stevenson, who is the federal member for Durham and I believe was the Minister of Agriculture, albeit for a very brief time, for the Conservative government. He made many attempts to try to transfer his pension from here to there because he didn't want to draw it, but apparently you can be in Ottawa and you can bring that pension to here, so when we lambaste people like Mike Breaugh for going from here to there, I believe for sure that he would much rather transfer that pension, which brings me to a point that I made when I came here.

I had that meeting where they sort out all your coverage and everything, and I said, "I'm in receipt of a pension from the public service, and I would much rather not take that and somehow have that incorporated in here so that when I leave here I would get a pension." They said, "No way, you can't do that." So here I was trying to get rid of a pension and I couldn't get rid of it. I think that before we lay considerable blame on members from here drawing another pension, we should think that they probably tried or would have loved to have transferred that.

In so far as getting positions outside when you leave here and enjoying your pension, I think that's wrong. I don't think that one should leave here with a pension and get another job as an appointee to a public service for even more money. I think that's repugnant and I hope that's changed.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for this brief time to address this issue.

Mr Sutherland: I'm pleased to speak to the member for Windsor-Walkerville's bill. I think in principle it's a very good bill in terms of talking about the type of changes that need to be done.

Dealing with, obviously, our own salaries and compensation is a tricky issue, and as I think the member for Carleton said, part of the problem is it's very hard for the public to understand what the total compensation package is for members of Parliament, and we do need to deal with that issue.

Let me just say, though, that it is certainly nowhere in the range that appeared in a response in the Windsor Star a little while ago, a phone-in response, where someone said that before they cut anything else they should cut the some $200,000 a year that MPPs make through all their perks. We know it's nowhere near that.

I want to state for the record that it's my opinion that 95% of all MPPs and elected officials are very hardworking, dedicated people who are doing the best job they feel they can do in terms of representing their constituents. That goes for all sides of the House, and I think that's important. I may disagree with their politics, but they are very hardworking, dedicated people, despite what is sometimes portrayed out there.

I think in terms of how we deal with this pension issue, when the House was elected, I was the youngest member. I hope to sit here for many years, as some of the other members have been fortunate enough to do.

I guess the background is that the pension plan was developed because of the lack of job security. Also, traditionally, this place has attracted professional people, and when you compare the salaries of MPPs to what most of the professionals make, we make far less than that. It was thought that the pension plan should be developed to help compensate for that loss of income that many of those professionals would be suffering, because you wanted to attract the so-called best and brightest, not to make them independently wealthy, but should they have to suffer a strong financial penalty? Also, because of the insecurity of this place, as the member for Renfrew talked about.

It is a professional job. It doesn't have the traditional professional qualifications. You don't get recognized by an association; you get recognized by the people. I think we are compensated adequately. I don't think we're as overpaid as many people think we are.

The pension plan is a very irksome issue to many of the public and we do need to look at changing it. I think the recommendations put forward in the bill by the member for Windsor-Walkerville are a very good start. Saying that people would have to wait until at least age 55 or a combination equalling a 70 factor is far more reasonable and I think more consistent with what is out there.

Let me say that when we talk about this pension issue, again, I don't think it's an opportunity for an open field day on elected officials, because as I say, in my short experience here and dealing with many federal members as well, I believe most elected officials are very dedicated, hardworking people who are doing the best job possible to represent their constituents. We sometimes say some silly things that get reported and picked up, but with the number of hours and the type of events and things they do for the community, people should be proud of their elected officials overall.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Lessard: I want to thank all the members who participated in this debate and expressed their support with the provisions of Bill 58. They participated in a very spirited debate in a very non-partisan manner. I think everyone appreciates that when it happens here from time to time.

I especially want to thank the member for Renfrew North for his remarks that were made in that spirit of non-partisanship. I think he is right, that things have changed in this place over the years and that the time has come to bring about some changes in some of the benefits that we receive as a result of our employment here as well.

I realize that there has been an independent committee that's been agreed to, to review the matter of MPPs' pensions, and the suggestions that have been put forward in the bill that I've introduced shouldn't be considered to derogate or take away from the efforts that are going to be conducted by that independent committee. I think it could be considered as a bit of a nudge to get work started on this review and also offer some suggestions that can be considered by the committee in doing its work. Also, I think it's important that we discuss these issues in a public forum rather than in closed meetings.

I want to thank all the members who offered suggestions as well for other things that could be considered, either as amendments to this bill or in the overall review of pensions, and other issues perhaps dealing with civil servants who retire and receive other work or MPPs who retire and receive other contract jobs, and also to address the total compensation package and how we use that to determine members' pensions.

Mr McLean: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: In my remarks, I talked about an independent committee looking at the aspects of this. What I wanted to say was an independent consulting firm, other than members of this Legislature. I want to make it abundantly clear that the tax-free allowance should be done away with and that there should be one salary, and that should be the basis of how members are paid.

The Deputy Speaker: It's not quite a question of privilege, but I think it's a correction of the statement. We accept it.

1100

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

Mr Sorbara moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Legislative Assembly Act / Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

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

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): This is the first opportunity in eight years that I've had to present a matter, to actually have a matter debated and discussed, in private member's hour.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): No, that's not possible.

Mr Sorbara: Yes, I say to my friend from Renfrew North, it is possible; it's true.

I did a little bit of thinking of what I might want to bring forward for consideration by my colleagues in this Legislature. The bill that is before you is, I think, an important piece of reform. Although it doesn't change entirely our political system, it does present for members' consideration a reform to our parliamentary process that I think is important and timely and ought to be adopted by the members. This bill simply changes the way in which we fix the time for a by-election when a seat has been declared vacant either by the resignation of a member of this House or by the death of a member who is sitting in this chamber.

Why is it that we should be reforming this process? The answer to that is quite simple. For 126 years in Ontario, the procedure we have used is that the calling of a by-election has been at the will and the whim of the Premier of the day. The Premier is constrained somewhat by a statute which says that the by-election must be called some time over the course of six months, but often the date for that by-election is fixed for a period which is well beyond that six-month period.

The net effect of that system is that the people of the riding that is no longer represented in this Parliament have to live without a representative, and frankly without a constituency office as well, sometimes for as long as 8 or 9 or 10 months and sometimes, when the process is really abused, as much as a year.

I just think it's time to end all of that. I think it's time to appreciate that in a parliamentary democracy such as ours, the right of representation, the right to be represented in the Parliament, is just about as fundamental and seminal as any of the rights that collectively make up our democratic system.

What this bill does is to take the power out of the hands of the Premier and place that power really back in the hands of the Legislature, but even to be more accurate, in the hands of the people of the riding where the by-election is to be held.

The bill is simple and straightforward. It says that when a seat becomes vacant, either by resignation or by death, the by-election shall be held on the Thursday after the 70th day after the effective date of the vacancy. Why 70 days? In a sense, it's kind of arbitrary. I chose 70 days simply because in Ontario, a writ period, that is, the period of an election, is generally 37 days. So within that 70-day period, at the tail-end of it, there will be a 37-day writ period. That's the election period. That's the period when the three or four or five candidates are out campaigning to try to win the by-election. The balance of that time, the period of 33 days before the writ is issued, I think that month is time enough for each party to be able to identify candidates and have nominated candidates.

My desire was to make that period as short as possible to ensure that as quickly as possible there is a new member of Parliament for the riding where the vacancy has occurred, so I'm suggesting 70 days. But I should tell my friends that if this bill passes this private members' hour and goes to a committee, I would be open and I think the government would be open and opposition parties would be open to consider whether it should be 75 or 80. The precise number is not of any particular importance. But the notion and the principle and the thrust of this bill are to ensure that as quickly as possible a by-election is called and a new member is elected to represent that riding.

It's not as if this is a rare occurrence. Indeed, there are a number of members sitting in this Parliament now who first came to sit in this Parliament as a result of a by-election. Indeed, some very eminent members of this Parliament, now retired, or defeated, in some cases -- I think of Bob Nixon, who was one of the greatest parliamentarians who ever sat in this place. He came to sit here as the result of a by-election on the passage of his father. But my friend the member for St George-St David and my friend the member for Brant-Haldimand as well, in our own party, sit here in this House as a result of a by-election. Unfortunately, in each of those cases, they had to wait a very long time to find out when the by-election would be called, as did the other candidates, and then of course go through the process of a by-election.

There are no losers in this, except perhaps the Premier of the day, whoever that is, who loses the power to make a politically strategic decision in calling a by-election. Political parties don't really lose, and there are winners. The winners are the people in the riding where the by-election is to be held, because as quickly as possible they have an opportunity to ensure that they're represented in this Parliament and to do so in an expeditious manner.

The question the government is going to have to ask when it considers whether or not it's going to support this bill is, does it want to take that power away from the Premier and substitute it with the statutory provision to allow an expeditious by-election? For my friends opposite on the government side who are thinking, "Maybe we ought not to deny our Premier or any future Premier the right to do that," might I just say to them that it's not such a big loss.

I think, for example, of the premiership of René Lévesque from 1976 to I think it was 1985, when he was defeated by the Liberals under Robert Bourassa. I think during the course of his tenure as the Premier of Quebec, there were some 15 or 16 by-elections. The Parti québécois and René Lévesque didn't win one of them, yet they were able to secure the support of the voters to be re-elected I think twice before defeat in 1985. So the loss of this power by the Premier is not such a great loss, but the gains in parliamentary reform I think are of some significance.

I remember during the course of the Liberal leadership campaign that each of the six of us who were candidates in that campaign talked a great deal about reforming the democratic process and reforming the parliamentary system. I, for one, am very much in favour of a bill that will completely change the electoral system so that the divine right of premiers to call general elections when they think it most expedient be taken away, and that that be replaced by a statutory provision requiring elections to be held on a date certain, at a fixed time. A fixed electoral system is something whose time I think has come in Ontario. But that reform is I think for a longer debate and something that I would hope either this government or some future government will bring to the Parliament so we can clean up that process once and for all.

1110

When the historians look back at this period and, I confess, look back at the election that David Peterson called early in 1990, I think that is evidence enough that these decisions ought not to be left to the determination of one cabinet or one Premier. I think a good place to start in this reform is to start by changing the way in which we determine when a by-election shall happen.

I am sitting right now in the seat of the former member for Essex South. Remo Mancini represented that riding for almost 15 years. He retired two or three months ago and the people of Essex South are now without representation. They do not know when a by-election will be called. Those people who are considering being candidates, whether NDP or Liberal or Tory or independent, don't know when the election is to be called. There is no representation there. I just think we ought to eliminate that abuse and get these by-elections on as quickly as possible.

The other element of this bill that I'll just touch on for my final 30 seconds is that during that 70-day period this bill provides that the constituency office be maintained. I also think that's something that all members should support, because it serves the people of the riding and it allows individuals who need to get in touch with their government through the office of an MPP to do so and to do so without disruption notwithstanding that the seat has become vacant.

I am pleading with my friends on all sides of the House to support this bill and ensure that it gets passage and moves through the committee process.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on private member's Bill 57, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Legislative Assembly Act, which was introduced by Mr Sorbara, the member for York Centre, and received first reading on June 29.

This legislation would fix a day for the holding of by-elections to fill vacancies in this Legislature to take place on the first Thursday 70 days after the date on which the vacancy occurred, a commonsense approach. As well, the Speaker would take the appropriate steps to permit the constituency office of the member whose seat has become vacant to remain open and serve the public until the vacancy has been filled.

While I support Bill 57 in principle, I do have questions about whether or not the people of Ontario would be expected to foot the bill for a costly by-election if the vacancy occurred shortly before a government's mandate was due to expire and it was going to go to the polls anyway.

I refer to the matter of unnecessary and expensive elections, because you may no doubt recall that in April 1991 I introduced a private member's bill aimed precisely at preventing unnecessary and expensive elections. The purpose of that bill was to establish the timing for general elections so that they could occur four or five years apart, or sooner than that only if the government had been defeated in the assembly. As well, my bill would have established a maximum 60-day period between the date of the writs of election and election day.

I introduced those bills more than two years ago, because I wanted to see the prevention of unnecessary and expensive elections in Ontario if there is no logical or moral reason for one being called. School boards and municipalities have set dates, so why shouldn't we?

I find it somewhat ironic that the member for York Centre has brought this bill before us for consideration, because it was the actions of the former government and its former Premier that prompted me to introduce my private member's bill in 1991. Of course, I'm referring to the September 6, 1990, provincial election called by the then Premier, David Peterson, only three years into a Liberal five-year mandate with some 92 members in the government. There was no logical or moral reason for that election. It was a waste of taxpayers' money.

That election cost millions of dollars and was called only because David Peterson hoped it was an opportune time for what he thought would be another victory at the polls. We all know that David Peterson was wrong and we know that his mistake led to another mistake, and that was the election of the first socialist government in Ontario. That was the biggest mistake.

An editorial titled "Another Good One From Our Mr 'Bill"' was published in the April 13, 1991, edition of the Orillia Packet and Times. At that time they said:

"Excuse us, Mr McLean, but this kind of clear, commonsense thinking simply has no room in politics. Imagine making an elected government fulfil its mandate by governing for a full term. How novel.

"At Queen's Park this week...MPP Al McLean, the king of the private member's bill, came up with another good one: 'I want to see the prevention of unnecessary and expensive elections in Ontario if there is no logical or moral reason for one being called.'

"McLean came up with the idea after last year's disastrous decision by former Premier David Peterson to call an election three years into his majority government's five-year mandate. Of course, McLean hasn't lost any sleep over Peterson's stunning departure, but he is justifiably concerned that the entire exercise was a colossal waste of taxpayer money."

That is the opinion of the people and that is the opinion of the editor and publisher of the Orillia Packet and Times. It says:

"This kind of thinking from McLean is a true indication that his concerns are with the people and not the party line. If our MPP had his way, he would be stuck on the PC side of the Legislature, out of power for a full five-year period with no chance of a quick victory based on some Premier's selfish motives for a stronger mandate....We can only hope that some day McLean gets a chance, as a veteran member of the governing party, to see some of his people-first bills through" the Legislature.

I noted earlier in my remarks that I support Bill 57 in principle, but the member is back now and I would like some of the matters clarified relating to the timing and expense of a by-election if it was called close to the end of a government's mandate. As well, I would like to know what safeguards would be in place to ensure that the operation of a constituency office would remain non-partisan in the riding where the vacancy occurred.

I agree with this member's bill. We have a lot of bills in here on Thursday mornings, plain, commonsense bills. This is the type of bill that should have three readings within hours to become law, and in effect the by-election in Essex South would be called. It's not the people here who are being hurt; it's the people in that riding who are not being represented.

We have had other bills. Plain common sense would tell you what should happen. This is one of those bills that the member for York Centre has brought in. I can't help but support it totally and would hope that the government members would see that this bill is passed as soon as possible.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am very pleased to rise this morning to speak in support of Bill 57, introduced by my friend and colleague the member for York Centre.

I'm particularly interested in section 4 of the bill, 27.1, where it says:

"When an election is to be held to fill a vacancy that has occurred in the membership of the assembly, the Speaker may take steps as are appropriate to permit the constituency office of the member whose seat has become vacant to remain open to serve the public until the seat has been filled."

I see this as the crux of your bill. It's to serve the public.

I have a uniqueness that I'd like to add to this debate, as far as my own experience in the 1990 election. As you know, Mr Speaker, or perhaps you don't, on October -- I forget the date; it's a long time ago -- anyway, on the night of the election, I was the winner by eight votes. Obviously such a slim margin as that --

Mr Sorbara: Those eight voters subsequently committed suicide.

Mr Mills: I'm trying to be friendly and support your bill.

We were sort of technically the winners, you see, but we weren't the winners, because there was a recount and then there was another recount, and all the time in between, as you know, Mr Speaker, there were no funds available and technically I wasn't the member.

But you could not tell that to the people of Durham East. I can remember that the very next morning, the phone rang off the hook. "You're our member and we want you to do so-and-so and so-and-so." I tried to explain to them that I wasn't the member, and they said, "Wasn't there an election yesterday?" and it went on and on and on.

1120

What I had to do was to install another telephone in my house -- two telephones. I had to get answering machines in there and my wife, who is very unpolitical, was absolutely run ragged when I wasn't there to try and answer the phones and the questions.

So I can speak with a great deal of feeling about how people feel when they're not represented, because, although I was technically, in their eyes, the person who had been elected, I wasn't elected, but they thought I was. So I really think that this part of Bill 57 is a very great move. I only thought afterwards that if the constituency office had been available from the previous member, Mr Cureatz, how much easier my life would have been and how much better I would have been able to serve the people from Durham East.

It wasn't until November -- I looked at the picture of when I was sworn in down here. I was the last one to be sworn in and I was wearing a poppy so it must have been in November some time -- and here we had all that time that we tried to handle the constituents of Durham East under very, very difficult conditions.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Gord, that poppy was for "Lest we forget."

Mr Mills: Lest we forget. Anyway, I'd just like to add my comments in support of that bill. I think the uppermost thought in my mind is that people must have representation. They must have that representation as soon as possible, and this bill goes a long way to achieving that. With that reasoning, I will support it.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise with pleasure to speak to this bill. This is one shot fired for restructuring this place and actually making it democratic and making it operate for the people as opposed to the members of this House.

We have little enough power as backbenchers, as members of the opposition, to affect anything in this place. As I've said on many occasions, it's all done by the Premier of the day, of whatever party, about four cabinet ministers and about six unelected spin doctors down on the second floor. The only thing that doesn't change is they don't move from the second floor as elections take place, but every party has done this.

I applaud my colleague for bringing this in and let me say why, and I have to say it very quickly, which for me is very difficult, as you know, Mr Speaker. I have at least three of my colleagues who wish to have a snippet of time to speak to this bill.

I suggest to you that this bill -- I would join with the member for Simcoe East -- should be given three readings today because it's a very important bill.

Mr Poirier: Bang, bang, bang.

Mr Callahan: Bang, bang, bang, yes, my colleague says. In fact what we're dealing with here almost follows on the footsteps of what the government says it has to do in terms of cost-saving. If you think about it, and the public should know this, every constituency office lease has a clause in it that requires us to pay three months of rent when it's unoccupied. That, to me, is total nonsense.

In the meantime, the constituents, who are the people who are to be served by us, not we being served by them, have no place to call. I don't know about your people, but my office has got reams of paper, reams of requests, and the people who work with me in my offices are excellent people. They really look after the needs of Brampton South, and I'm sure that's the same of every member here.

Why should we waste the money? Why should we leave those offices empty? It doesn't make any sense at all. It may have been just a political decision that was made in the past by former governments that they didn't want to have anybody around, a semblance of that Liberal or that New Democrat or that Conservative, because they might infect the minds of those people in the interim. So what?

I, for one, find the basic value is to serve those people during that hiatus. I think my friend's thought about bringing in the by-election within a certain period of time is excellent. You don't leave it to the whim of the Premier to decide what date is going to be politically attractive to him at the expense of those people who we're supposed to be representing and we're paid handsomely for it. Why should it be in the Premier's aegis to do that?

He should be required by statute to call it. Everybody knows when it's going to be called. You can also have enumeration. In fact, I'd like to see this go further. No longer should we have enumeration and waste money on sending people around to collect names. There should be a permanent voters' list. You should be required by law to update it, just like your driver's licence.

There are many more things that can take place, but in my view, this is one blow struck for the people, as opposed to the politicians, and in fact it will provide them with that essential item that all of us are supposed to provide for them, which is service.

I'm going to support this wholeheartedly and I applaud my colleague from York Centre for having brought this forward. I hope that there will be more bills. We should have an omnibus bill before this Legislature. We should have all sorts of things. Even Queen's Park offices should remain open. Why should people be denied access to Queen's Park? For some of them, for some people, where their ridings are way off in northern Ontario, or people who want to get in touch directly with a minister or whatever through their member, they should have access through those people.

In addition and finally in closing, I would say, in the interests of saving money and making certain that the money that we do spend is spent well to represent the people of our various ridings, our staff as well -- I don't know whether you know this or not, but our staff are given a certain amount of severance pay as well. It may be three months or I guess it depends on the length of time they've served.

So what in fact you're doing is, you say to them, "Well, goodbye, the office is closed tomorrow," because the member has died or resigned. They had nothing to do with it; it wasn't their fault. It wasn't the people being represented; it wasn't their fault either. You say goodbye to them, you hand them a cheque and they go off and look for another job.

In the meantime, what you could do is to keep them on -- and this doesn't say it in the bill for Queen's Park staff -- but you keep them on and they continue to serve. If the next member who's elected decides that he wants to keep those people on -- and I would say that I think anybody coming into my office at Queen's Park, or at my constituency office, would probably take on my staff, even if the election happened to go to the New Democratic Party or the Conservatives got the bid, because they're excellent people, and if we're all honest with one another, our staff really serve the public very well. Having said that, I'm going to support this bill wholeheartedly.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm going to only use a few minutes of my eight and a quarter minutes left after the member for Simcoe East, the king of the private members' bills, because there are three other Liberals who want to speak on this who have been involved in provincial by-elections and I'd like to give them the opportunity to say a few remarks here. So if you would note any time that I have left and give it to the Liberal Party.

I'm in support of this kind of a bill in private members' hour. I think it's the right kind of matter for us to be determining. It's fairly simple, it's straightforward and it's not ripping apart the fabric of Ontario or dealing with a major policy decision in Ontario. I congratulate the member for York Centre in bringing forward something which I believe is the proper subject for discussion here.

I say that in deference to the member for St George-St David, who brought forward a private member's bill which I thought was quite improper to bring forward in this Legislature because it had far-reaching ramifications, dealt with a lot of financial matters in this province, had financial ramifications, and there wasn't an opportunity for many members to debate that in this Legislature. It was a very, very important subject for members to get on the record.

However, I think that we can deal with this bill in this amount of time today. I'd only say one or two remarks. I'd be interested in hearing the proposer of the bill indicate under whose direction the constituency office staff would march. I think it's important for us to have at least in the debate an indication or some kind of direction, if in fact it's to be the Speaker, then it would be the Speaker who would direct the constituency officer whom they would ask questions to. You know yourself, Mr Speaker, that on a daily basis we get questions from our constituency staff as to how to handle problems etc and there has to be some kind of direction going to that constituency staff from someone.

I could say a lot about terms etc. I would have preferred in the bill -- and I would prefer the member to put it in committee of the whole House so there could be a little bit of debate and perhaps some movement for amendment -- some flexibility in the actual date, not a great deal of flexibility, but something like a two-week or a three-week span as to when that particular Thursday fell, particularly in the death of a member when it can't be determined actually what that Thursday is surrounding. Is it surrounding a holiday weekend? Is it surrounding kids going back to school or whatever? I like a little bit of flexibility, and I trust whoever is Premier of the day to exercise a flexibility of one or two weeks on each side of those 70 days to the best interests of the voters of Ontario, regardless of which party the Premier at that time represents.

1130

The only other thing, and I think the member for Simcoe East made a good point, is that perhaps there should be a different rule in the fourth and the fifth year of the mandate of a government and that there should be maybe more discretion given to the Premier of the day to postpone an election, or maybe it should be lengthened from 70 days to 140 days in the fourth and the fifth year of the mandate of the government.

It's a thought that I just throw out for consideration by other members of the Legislature, but I'm willing, basically, to live with the hard and fast rules that the member has put forward. I think that perhaps it could be improved on slightly, but I think we could do that in committee of the whole House. I don't believe any bill should have first, second and third reading on the same day. I believe there should be a pacing of the legislation. I believe the pacing of this legislation is that it should take place in about a week's time.

I'll give up the rest of my time to the Liberal caucus, about three and a half minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sterling has indicated that he wishes to give the remaining time, I believe three minutes, 44 seconds, to the official opposition. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I want to commend the member for York Centre for having brought forward this bill, because I think many of us in this House are aware that there are far-reaching discussions on parliamentary reform going on in this place, members bringing forward ideas on what they would like to see happen. Definitely within some of the committees these ideas are beginning to be debated and so this is timely on his part to bring this forward for this type of discussion.

The bill has a lot to recommend it. As various members have already spoken and the fact that they will be voting in favour, I will indicate my own support at this time for this bill, because when we look at a bill like this we try to determine what the pros and cons are, not only for ourselves but for the public at large. For the most part, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this bill. There's a lot for and really very little against.

I did, however, want to raise some personal points of what I would have liked to see addressed by this bill. I had spoken to the member earlier, so he does realize that there are some issues around electoral reform that I would have liked to see take place, but in this particular bill they are not, and I understand his reasons why they are not in place at this time.

I think first and foremost, one for me is the issue of enumeration. I ran in 1987 as a candidate, and obviously in 1990, and in both those elections what I found to be major problems and hurdles that were very difficult to overcome were the many hundreds of people who in fact were left off the voters' lists. We are talking of blocks and blocks of people who for whatever reason had not been enumerated, and we did not find out about this in a quick enough fashion during that particular campaign to be able to get those people to go down and get themselves on to the voters' lists.

I know there have been some changes made in how we do enumeration in the province of Ontario, and while that has addressed some of those concerns, it's still not the best job it could be. This is really not the place today to bring forward all of those ideas that I think each and every one of us has about correcting some of the problems of running any election, be it a by-election or provincial or federal election. It really behooves us to address that issue at some point, because I think denying people the right to vote through not being on the voters' list is a major flaw.

There is another point I would like to raise. I am not a northern member but we have many northern members in our caucus and I know the member for York Centre has some northern members as well. I think really that he should have a discussion with his colleagues as to how citizens, constituents for the member for Kenora, get to the poll in the wintertime. This is a major concern. In some instances, maybe it's easier to get around than in the summer. Knowing the kind of land masses people have to deal with, trying to get through a bog is easier to do in the winter as opposed to in the summer. But still, the whole transportation issue and allowing people to get to the poll, and again the enumeration issue under those circumstances, are ones that really have to be addressed. We can't forget that climate and geography do play a role in how elections are run, giving people the opportunity to exercise their democratic right.

Also, I wanted to raise the point that I have some friends who live in the United States and we obviously talk about how elections are run. They're usually thoroughly amazed that we manage to conduct an election campaign in 37 or 57 days, depending on the jurisdiction. They spend a year having their presidential elections, and for the House of Representatives and the Senate as well there is a fair amount of time and, shall we say, a lot of money.

When we're really talking about getting prepared for an election campaign and the whole issue around election finances and really trying to keep elections available to people like me, someone who is a library worker who doesn't have a lot of money available personally, or a lot of my constituents don't and a lot of my supporters are not in a position of putting a lot of extra money into a lengthy campaign, when you have a set election date, you tend to have a lot of financial pressure being put on particular candidates in trying to get out there.

I think that's something we have to have a discussion about. It's not a simple discussion, because I know it sort of deals with not only the democratic right -- we've seen the discussion happen federally, and I'm not sure that seeing huge amounts of money having to come into play is the way I would like to see elections run, be they by-elections or federal or provincial elections.

I have really exhausted my time. I know there is another member who would like to say a bit more on this issue, but I do also want to thank the member for Carleton for his comment about the constituency offices, because not all members have constituency offices, which does raise the point of how citizens within that riding might in fact be able to contact the Speaker, or who would be giving direction and who would be doing that constituency advocacy work? That is another issue I think we have to discuss.

In essence, I am supporting the member for York Centre and his bill and thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'm very pleased to rise in support of the bill introduced by the member for York Centre. I think this is a bill and a principle that is far beyond its time. I was elected in a by-election in the riding of St George-St David on April 1 after a seven-month period in which the riding went unrepresented. There was no one in that riding providing the services of an MPP and the services of an office of an MPP to the people of St George-St David.

Frankly, I fault the Premier for that delay and I think some limitation on the discretion, of the kind proposed by the member for York Centre, is entirely appropriate because, in truth, that kind of delay in the period of time in which a riding is unrepresented hurts the people who need the help of an MPP the most. It's the people who need access to the kind of assistance an MPP can give on a daily basis about how to access government departments relating to welfare and to Ontario Housing and to all those issues where people may not have other avenues, may not know other ways in which to proceed with what is viewed as a vast bureaucracy of government that weighs down in very many ways on the lives of people.

In some cases, obviously, individuals may have other access points, could know how to access the system through other people, but it's the people who don't have that access who are hurt the most by a long delay before a by-election is called.

1140

I think the initiative in this bill is entirely appropriate and it's high time that it happened, and I congratulate the member for York Centre for bringing it forward. I think we can have some debates around the particulars of flexibility and timing where it's the death of a member or a certain season. Those are details that we can debate later. I think the principle is a highly appropriate one and I think it fits in the context of parliamentary reform that, for example, the member for Etobicoke- Humber in our caucus has been talking about for a while. These are the kinds of issues we need to talk about and address.

I think the member for St Catharines-Brock also raised an important point related to enumeration. Having representation and the right to vote on that representation are fundamental, it seems to me, to the rights citizens have in this province, and the enumeration question is an important one.

I had looked, in my private life, at the possibility of bringing a charter challenge to the quality of enumeration. For example, in the by-election, an entire building in my riding was missed on the enumeration. We had to enumerate it the night before the election and provide special enumeration.

This is not the way to make sure people have the right to vote. It strikes me that there may be a denial of the charter guarantee of a right to vote through that kind of thing, and I think that's another issue we have to look at. I think there are many reforms to the system. This is a good and quality starting point, because in the seven-month period of time that the riding of St George-St David was unrepresented, I knocked on thousands of doors and people were saying: "What can you do to help us? Who's there? Where can we go?"

The Premier's failure to call the by-election, I think, was reprehensible in the eyes of the very people we need to help the most in the system, and I'm very pleased to be able to rise in support of the bill put forward by the member for York Centre.

M. Poirier: Je regarde dans l'Assemblée présentement, et nous sommes au moins trois députés qui avons été élus lors d'une élection partielle dans le passé. Je pense que les députés, surtout ceux qui ont été élus dans des élections partielles, sont très bien placés pour apprécier l'importance, le bon sens et la logique du projet de loi tel que proposé par mon collègue de York-Centre.

Je me rappelle, lorsque j'ai été élu dans la partielle de décembre 1984, la circonscription de Prescott et Russell à ce moment-là avait été sans député pour plus de six mois. Pour une circonscription comme la mienne et comme celle de mon collègue de Brant, qui sont des circonscriptions rurales, il y a beaucoup de gens qui, dans le secteur rural, n'ont pas accès aux services comme dans une région urbaine.

On sait très bien, et mon collègue vient justement de le dire, que même dans une région urbaine, il y a des gens qui ont des besoins urgents qui n'ont peut-être pas les ressources pour pouvoir identifier les organismes, les différents services qui pourraient leur venir en aide.

Lorsque mon collègue prédécesseur s'est lancé sur la scène fédérale, lorsque je suis arrivé en poste, il n'y avait aucun bureau, aucun dossier, aucun personnel ou quoi que ce soit. Lors d'une élection partielle, bien sûr, l'Assemblée législative n'a pas les moyens de mettre en marche tous les services de formation des nouveaux députés comme c'est le cas dans une élection générale. C'est injuste pour les commettants parce que même lorsqu'il y a un député en place, les travailleurs du député dans les bureaux de circonscription et à Queen's Park n'ont pas le droit, et ni le député, de faire de la partisannerie.

Donc, si c'est le cas lorsque le député est en poste, c'est sûrement, évidemment, le même cas qui se produit lorsqu'il n'y a pas de député, lorsqu'il y a une vacance. On sait très bien que le personnel ne fait pas de partisannerie dans les bureaux de députés. Les besoins continuent d'exister, et au moment où on se parle, jamais il n'y a eu tant de besoins, de demandes d'aide dans les bureaux de députés. Il est inconcevable d'attendre une éternité avant qu'une prochaine élection ait lieu. Il est inconcevable de fermer les bureaux de députés lorsqu'il y a tant de besoins que la population de l'Ontario a besoin de faire combler. Il est inconcevable de ne pas offrir des services.

Le prochain député qui arrive en poste, je peux vous assurer que cette personne-là, peu importe son affiliation -- le nouveau député ou la nouvelle députée est très heureux ou heureuse d'hériter du personnel, des dossiers, d'équipement de bureau, d'expertise et des dossiers des besoins qui ont été comblés sans arrêt depuis le départ de l'ancien député.

C'est un excellent projet de loi. Je félicite mon collègue de York-Centre et j'espère que mes collègues des deux autres partis vont également appuyer ce projet de loi qui est d'une logique et d'un besoin exemplaires.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for York Centre for presenting this bill. I did have it on my list, but according to the luck of the draw on private members' bills, it may be the end of the term before I have the opportunity.

It is very important, and I'm both disappointed and astounded that we stand here today debating a bill that will take a responsibility away from the Premier of the province of Ontario. Why are we taking it away? We are taking it away simply because he has not been fulfilling his responsibility. I find that very difficult to deal with.

I am amazed. It is the simplest responsibility the Premier has, because when there is a vacancy, he only needs to make a memo of a date on which to announce a by-election. He won't do that. He didn't do that: In the case of the riding of Brant-Haldimand, it was without an elected representative for seven months. It's the people who suffer.

I don't know whether the Premier thought it was an advantage to wait. He must have. But I'll tell you what happened: The member from an adjoining riding, the riding of Brantford, who happened to be an NDP member, offered to look after the people. That's convenient for a few people around Brantford, but not for the north and not for the south of my riding.

What happened? That was fine, except that many people do not want to deal with an NDP member. In fact, there are people who will not vote NDP. So what happened? That executive assistant had been the NDP candidate in the previous election and he became the NDP candidate in the by-election. Some people say that's not fair. Some people say he had a great advantage over a farm boy from a gravel road in a rural township, inexperienced in running large campaigns, which I was. That is what it was: It was stacked. The people said it to me. It was not proper.

We had two constituency offices, one in the lower end to serve the south and one in the north to serve the northern people. What could they do? Perhaps the member for Oxford helped out and had some of the people go over there, but the staff was dispersed, the offices were leased to other people, and there it was: a backlog of problems and concerns that the people could not have resolved, that took over a year to resolve.

Of course, I'm slow, I realize I'm very slow and somewhat backward, but it was over a year before that backlog was cleared up. That's what they do to the constituents of Brant-Haldimand. That's what you did. You might have won the seat if you hadn't been so ignorant on the matter. I think it's a disgrace.

Therefore, I stand before you calmly pleading for support for this bill, because it is an excellent bill. The matter needs to be cleared up. We talk about adverse weather. Well, in by-elections it's normal, I believe, for the government member to be defeated. That's a given, so there shouldn't be the big concern. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen, let's face it. But I find that if people want to vote -- and they do -- they will vote, they will get there to vote.

I would like to again thank the member for bringing this forward. We've done a check on all the by-elections that have been held recently and seen the various periods, but I again stress the fact that the constituents of Brant-Haldimand -- and I would point out that we have lots of provincial ridings adjoining mine. There are nine, and they are all held by the NDP, so I suppose there would be lots of help there; nine ridings adjoining mine. But unfortunately, mine is an island held by another party, and I really feel very strongly that the Premier could have -- is it because the Premier is too busy to see that democracy lives in Brant-Haldimand? I can't think of any other reason. It's most unfortunate.

1150

When the Honourable Bob Nixon was appointed by the Premier -- and it was a government appointment; it was an appointment by the Premier, so he well knew there was going to be a vacancy -- wouldn't it have been the courteous, the gentlemanly thing and the proper thing to do at that time to say, "Therefore, with this appointment, there's a vacancy in the riding of Brant-Haldimand; an election day will be on a specified date"?

The vacancy occurred in Brant-Haldimand July 31, 1991. A member was elected -- it happened to be me this time -- on March 5, 1992. If we had used the formula in the bill presented today by the member for York Centre, the vacancy would have been filled on October 14.

The reason given by the Premier was, at one point in time, "We don't want it to interfere with the municipal elections." The municipalities are required to follow rules on vacancies by this assembly. We have the rules in place, but we don't have it for ourselves. As a result, it didn't happen. It should have happened, could have happened under these rules if the Premier had any care or concern about it -- although he did have some concern, because he went to the town of Dunnville during the by-election and made two promises, neither of which has been kept, and they haven't heard or seen him since. The promises were made, saying, "In spite of who is elected as member, we will do this and this."

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Say it isn't so.

Mr Eddy: Yes, and it's most unfortunate. Anyway, I just very calmly appeal to the members to support this bill, and I'm pleased that so many who spoke this morning -- all who spoke, I believe -- have spoken in favour of the bill submitted by the member for York Centre, giving specific timetables for the holding of by-elections to fill vacancies in ridings for this House. I appreciate the concern.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's indeed a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. I wanted to say right off the bat that I support the principles and the concept of Bill 57, and I think the member has done well in bringing this issue forward.

However, I'm going to try to refrain from the kind of partisanship that the previous speaker alluded to, because what happens more often than not --

Mr Eddy: Partisanship? You had the partisanship.

Mr Perruzza: He has a particular axe to grind, and I understand that. Some people come into this place with chips on their shoulder, and I understand that too. They have every right to bring in those chips and they have every right to bring in those axes to grind. I don't prescribe to them. I don't support that kind of thing, but I'll respect people's right to be able to bring that kind of thing into this place.

To simply point the finger and say that the Premier of the day, the Premier who's here today, is the one who's somehow got this privilege and this power is absolutely a sham, because you well know Peterson had that privilege and that prerogative before him, and Davis had that privilege and that prerogative before this Premier, and Robarts before that, and Frost before that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, you have the floor.

Mr Perruzza: But I agree with the principle and the concept that says that no one individual in this place should be above Parliament. I believe that Parliament is supreme. This chair doesn't belong to Anthony Perruzza. This chair belongs to the people of Downsview, to the electoral district of Downsview, as every other seat, as every other desk in this place belongs to a district and the people around the province.

Those people in those districts have the right to representation, have the right to a voice, have the right to a vote. They may elect someone and then find that the particular individual doesn't reflect their point of view, and they have the right at the next opportunity, at the next election, to fire that person and to elect someone new. They have all of those rights, and that is essentially the kind of right that we need to fight for, that we need to try to preserve

That's not to say that the traditional right of the Premier or the head of the executive council in this place, whether in a majority Parliament or in a minority Parliament, doesn't today have the right to exercise flexibility in determining when a by-election is going to be called. I'm not going to lay blame, and I'm not going to point a finger at any one individual for using political tactics to call a by-election and win a seat or have a good showing or any of those things. Quite frankly, while I believe the current Premier has done it, I also believe that other premiers before this Premier have done it as well. However, it's time that we look at this practice, that we look at downsizing the authority of any one leader of any executive council and give it back to the people of each and every constituency.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Centre, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Sorbara: Even if this bill doesn't become law, and I think it will be, it certainly has given rise to a great debate. I appreciated the comments of my friends from Downsview, from Brant-Haldimand, from Prescott and Russell and others. It has given rise to a good debate, and I just want to take these two minutes to answer some of the questions that arose.

First of all, to my friend from Simcoe East, who questioned two things: Firstly, I would say that where a vacancy occurs in the last year of the life of a Parliament, the law already stipulates that a by-election need not be held, and my bill doesn't change that.

Secondly, as to the non-partisanship of the constituency office when the seat becomes vacant, that's a very good point. I think the thrust of this bill is to immediately place the constituency office in the hands of the Speaker and to ensure that there is no hint of partisanship in the operation of that constituency office during that period.

My friend from Carleton suggested a degree of flexibility, and I think he's right about that. If the bill were amended in committee to provide for a two- or three-week window, taking into consideration that the bill as presently formulated might fall very close to a day like Christmas or Easter or Labour Day, I think that is appropriate as well. But if that amendment is adopted, I would place the ability to identify the specific day not in the hands of the Premier but in the hands of the Speaker as well and let him or her identify that date.

Finally, I should tell my friends that if this bill passes second reading here, I'm going to be asking that the bill go to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and that the refinements can take place during committee debate and that it be expeditiously considered there and given third reading and become law in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 19, standing in the name of Mr Lessard. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Lessard has moved second reading of Bill 58, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act and the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

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

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 20, standing in the name of Mr Sorbara.

If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Sorbara has moved second reading of Bill 57, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Legislative Assembly Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, might I seek the consent of the House to have the bill referred to the Legislative Assembly committee?

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

A majority of the House being in agreement with the request of Mr Sorbara, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wonder if we could have unanimous consent of the House to have the previous bill referred to the same committee?

The Deputy Speaker: No, that can't be done.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1202.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARABRAM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I hold in my hand not an airline ticket, but a trip to 20 places around the world without leaving the good city of Brampton. I invite all of you and all the people viewing to, of course, attend Carabram. It starts tomorrow and will continue right over the weekend, and it looks like we're going to have excellent weather once again.

I also want to thank the some 2,500 to 3,000 volunteers in the city who commit themselves every year not just to participating in Carabram, but starting about a week after that, to planning for next year's Carabram. On behalf of the province of Ontario and all the members of the Legislature, I'm sure we want to congratulate them.

I'd also like to thank the corporate sponsors who are good enough to provide funding. This operates in the black; in fact, hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's one thing that doesn't cost the government anything.

I submit to the province that it's a great way of getting to know one another, to understand one another's ways, our differences, our likes, to savour the sights, sounds and tastes of 20 different countries without ever leaving Brampton.

I suggest to you that it's probably one of the greatest multicultural events in this province, in this country, and it's a way of doing it in a friendly, neighbourhood way without having to spend taxpayers' dollars for it. In fact, Carabram itself provides buses free of charge to take you from pavilion to pavilion, and that's paid out of the moneys that it makes. The moneys that are left over are distributed among the various groups that participate and they can use those to further their own multicultural heritage.

I invite all of you out to have a happy Carabram.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the Legislature today to remind the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that as a member of cabinet, she is accountable to the people of Ontario.

I could talk about casinos, but instead I will concentrate on the $50 corporation filing fee. On September 7 of last year, I asked the minister during question period if it was the NDP government's intention to make the corporation filing fee an annual tax on incorporated and non-profit businesses. The minister didn't answer my question but instead rambled on about other matters.When the Treasurer announced his budget in May, it was no surprise that in fact this filing fee had become an annual tax on corporations.

This is another tax on small businesses and non-profit corporations in Ontario by the NDP government. This is another example of how the NDP does not understand that small business can lead Ontario in job creation and out of this recession, if only given the opportunity to do so. This $50 fee is one more nail in the coffin for small businesses and non-profit corporations in Ontario.

The minister has not been forthright with the people of Ontario in her answers to questions brought forward by myself or the member for Parry Sound regarding casinos.

Question period is a democratic forum in which the concerns of the people of Ontario are heard and the opposition parties can hold the governing party accountable for its actions. The sooner the minister realizes this and actually starts answering questions brought forward by the members of the opposition, the sooner Ontarians will have faith that democracy is still alive and well in Ontario.

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR GOOD CITIZENSHIP

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I bring to the attention of this Legislature today an event which took place last week here at Queen's Park. Twelve outstanding individuals were honoured for the dedication and kindness which they give to their fellow Ontarians, people who give of their time willingly and freely in the quest of creating a better atmosphere in the communities in which they reside.

The Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship is awarded to those who show selfless dedication and concern for the wellbeing of men and women: the sick, the elderly or the disabled.

One of the those recipients was Dr Gordon Jasey of Windsor. Dr Jasey is a physician by profession, but clearly able to devote his time to patients, family and of course his community. Dr Jasey is founder of the Windsor Islamic Association and has worked tirelessly to make Ontarians of Islamic faith feel at home culturally and spiritually. He has worked with the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County and has been actively involved in the city's race and ethnocultural relations committee.

Last week, I had the pleasure to meet Dr Jasey and his family as they accompanied him here to Toronto to receive this award before the Lieutenant Governor and also the Premier of the province.

I'd like to offer my congratulations to all 12 Ontario medal winners, and especially to Dr Gordon Mohammed Jasey of Windsor for many years of love and attention to his Islamic faith. His nominator has put it succinctly, "This award will be a fitting tribute to a man for his long years of selfless and dedicated volunteer service to the wellbeing of his fellow Ontarians."

ALCOHOL ABUSE

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I rise in the House today in order to raise an issue of some consequence in my riding and to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to assist me in dealing with the issue.

People in the riding, including The T.O! Magazine and constituents at my office, have raised a concern about the availability of cooking wine for non-cooking purposes. The wine is cheap at $2.50 a bottle and is quite potent, ranging from 35% to 40% alcohol content, and is available in variety stores. The high salt content makes it exempt from liquor licensing provisions, but while the salt is said to render it undrinkable, it has not stopped many unfortunate people from diluting it, mixing it or in some cases drinking it straight.

The volume of cooking wine sold is quite large, and empty bottles are littering the Cabbagetown neighbourhood in the riding of St George-St David and the back steps of many local businesses. Members of the Old Cabbagetown Business Improvement Area and Cabbagetown residents are concerned about this form of alcohol abuse and the related problems of broken glass and intoxicated individuals on the street, and associated nuisance issues.

I hope the minister realizes this is a concern and will assist the community in addressing it. I recognize that cooking wine when used properly is not a problem, and I understand that it is an important ingredient in the cuisine of many cultures. I hope we can address this in a way that is sensitive to those cultures.

ORILLIA SCOTTISH FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I would like to invite the people of Ontario to attend the 16th annual Orillia Scottish Festival, July 16 and 17 in the Sunshine City.

Approximately 10,000 people are expected to converge on Orillia to attend this year's Scottish festival, which is sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 34, Orillia, to honour Clan Farquharson. The chair of this year's festival is Helen MacDonald, and her committee welcomes you.

The Scottish festival kicks off the night of July 16 with a dance at the Legion. Scottish Highland dancing and the pipe and drum competitions take place at Couchiching beach park Saturday morning and more than 20 pipe bands from across Ontario are expected to march in the parade at noon.

The history of Scotland is long and glorious and dates back to Roman times. The Scottish community has made a number of impressive contributions to the economic, agricultural and cultural wellbeing of the province of Ontario.

You will no doubt recall that on December 19, 1991, this Legislature approved a resolution from my colleague the member for Grey that proclaims the sixth day of April as Tartan Day. The sixth day of April is of historical significance to the Scottish community because it marks the anniversary of the declaration of Scottish independence in 1320.

Celebrate the rich and colourful Scottish heritage by visiting the Sunshine City on July 16 and 17 for the 16th annual Orillia Scottish Festival.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): In the recent weeks, we've heard numerous accounts from the opposition of how the government has caused the high cost of health care through mismanagement. I have a letter here from a constituent that truly shows where the problem lies.

This constituent is 71 years old and is required to take four different prescriptions each month, with 30 pills in each prescription. Two months ago, the drugstore started giving the man eight bottles of pills with 15 in each, with the name of his doctor on four and his doctor's fill-in on the other four. The province is being charged for eight prescriptions instead of the four.

The constituent found a number of his friends were having the same experience. He said, "I believe the drugstore in question is just picking here and there on different people where they can, so OHIP cannot detect such crooked misgivings."

Is this the fault of the government's mismanagement or corporate greed? There are those who will see the system destroyed in the name of profit. Is it any wonder that this government is in support of the action taken by the Honourable Ruth Grier to control the system?

1340

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to take a few moments this afternoon to address the Minister of Health, who is not here yet but I am sure she will be later this afternoon.

Members, I think on all sides, are increasingly concerned that as we approach midsummer, we do not yet have from the Minister of Health and the Rae government the particular cuts that they plan in the area of health policy. We all know that the government is in the course of redesigning the drug benefit program. We know, because some months ago the Treasurer told us that fully $195 million would be stripped out of the drug benefit program this year.

I say to the minister, who has now joined us, that she surely owes it to the people of Ontario, to pharmacists and to others to at the earliest time put the specifics of her plan before the province. She is congenitally unable to mouth the words "user fees," but it is absolutely obvious that user fees are going to be introduced in a substantial and a significant way. It is time, I say to the Minister of Health, to put the policies in more particular terms before the Legislature and before the province.

Similarly, Bill 50 contemplates dramatic changes to the way in which we organize medical manpower. The small hospitals that I represent are increasingly frustrated and angry because they do not yet know how they are going to specifically have to deal with the government program. Minister, I say to you in all candour, we need to know more specifically what your plans are.

MEMBER FOR ORIOLE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today in praise of the member for Oriole; yes, that's right, the member for Oriole. It kind of slips off the tongue, doesn't it?

As you know, the member for Oriole has of late been especially supportive of my caucus and party, and today I'd like to return the compliment. In specifics, I wish to congratulate the member for Oriole for her introduction of Bill 71 which, as everybody knows, would repeal the commercial concentration tax introduced by her own party. This is a good start.

However, while the member for Oriole is on a roll, so to say, I would encourage her to table even more bills to get rid of even more Liberal tax grabs. Would the member for Oriole care today to introduce a bill to roll back the provincial sales tax to 7%, where it was before the Liberal Party got its greedy little mitts on it? How about a bill to knock the gasoline tax back to where it was before the Liberals jacked it up?

Might I suggest she also get rid of the Liberal Party's payroll tax or the Liberals' land transfer tax increases or the countless fee increases the Liberal Party pretends to be so upset about these days, or any one of the other 33 new taxes and whopping tax increases the member for Oriole and her party dumped on Ontarians during their five miserable years at the till.

Let me say very directly that I and my caucus colleagues in the Ontario PC Party will support any bill presented by the member for Oriole or any member of her caucus that rolls back any of the Liberal's punitive tax increases.

BLOOD DISORDERS

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): The most common genetic conditions worldwide are blood disorders known as hemoglobinopathies. Sickle cell disease and thalassemia cause lifelong disabilities in those who are affected.

As our population changes, the number of people carrying the genes is increasing. About 10% of Afro-Caribbeans are estimated to be sickle carriers. The majority are heterozygote and have absolutely no clinical problems, but a child who inherits the gene from both parents faces recurrent crises and complications.

Fortunately, there is much that can be done to help sickle disease through counselling, education and advocacy. There's considerable clinical experience being developed, and I would like to mention the work of Dr Nancy Olivieri at the Hospital for Sick Children on a drug called butyrate, which may be a real advance in treatment.

I'd particularly like to bring to the attention of the House the work of the Sickle Cell Association of Ontario. Entirely funded through donations and fund-raising events, this organization shows admirably what can be achieved through dedicated self-help. By education and raising awareness, it helps the community and health professionals in dealing with serious problems in this area. It advocates for coordinated approaches to screening and treatment such as are developing in other jurisdictions.

I wanted to take this opportunity to publicly compliment the Sickle Cell Association and its many volunteers on the outstanding job they do, motivated by their wish to relieve avoidable suffering in the community. Their phone number is 789-2855.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'AIDE SOCIALE

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm happy to inform members today of some changes to the social assistance system in the province, and I want, before getting into the statement, to acknowledge the work that's been done on this issue by my predecessor, the Honourable Marion Boyd.

Today I'm announcing that the Ontario government is going to scrap the province's welfare system as we know it. We are going to replace welfare with new programs that help people get training, get education and get back to work.

For the first time since the modern welfare system was created in the 1950s and 1960s, we are going to focus on helping people get back to work.

J'annonce aujourd'hui que le gouvernement de l'Ontario entend abolir le système d'aide sociale que nous connaissons actuellement. Nous allons le remplacer par de nouveaux programmes qui donneront accès à l'éducation, à la formation et au marché du travail.

Pour la première fois depuis la création du système moderne d'aide sociale, c'est-à-dire depuis les années 50 et 60, nous allons nous appliquer à aider les gens à réintégrer le marché du travail.

We are going to continue providing financial support to people in need, but we will do so in a way that takes away the barriers to work that are now in the system. We will provide adequate and reliable support to people who are unable to work.

We are also going to provide parents with the financial support they need to provide for their children's basic needs without having to rely on welfare. Again, we are going to provide these benefits in a way that supports parents in their desire to work.

Our plans are outlined in a public paper that I released today. The public paper is called Turning Point, New Support Programs for People with Low Incomes.

Before I talk about our new programs, I want to say a few things about our current system.

If there's one thing that just about everyone agrees with, it's that Ontario's welfare system isn't working. It isn't helping unemployed people to learn new skills and find jobs. It isn't helping parents to provide for their children's basic needs. By this I mean not only parents who receive social assistance, but also parents who are working full-time at low-wage jobs.

It's a confusing system. It's made up of two tiers: a family benefits allowance system operated by the province and a general welfare allowance system run by the municipalities. Each of these systems has its own legislation, regulations, policies, guidelines, administrations and categories.

It's an expensive system. Over the past few years, the number of people needing welfare has skyrocketed. The recession and free trade have put more people out of work and on to welfare than at any time in our province's history. Today, one in nine Ontarians, more than 1.2 million people, relies on welfare.

Since coming to office in 1990, our government has taken a number of steps to improve the welfare system, including increasing benefits by 13.5% and hiring new staff to prevent fraud and help single parents find and obtain child support. Each of these changes has helped to create a better and more efficient safety net. But they haven't changed one basic reality: The number of people needing social assistance continues to grow.

It's time to do more, therefore, than build a better safety net. It's time to help people make real changes in their lives through training and jobs.

The Ontario government will be creating three new programs that promote independence and provide fair support to people with low incomes. The first of these programs, the Ontario child income program, will provide a monthly cheque to parents with low incomes, including parents who are working full-time, to help them provide for their children's basic needs.

At the moment, the welfare system provides children's benefits. This approach puts a roadblock in the path of parents who want to work. For unemployed parents, taking a job and leaving the welfare system means giving up children's benefits and losing access to other supports such as prescription drugs. It also denies much-needed benefits to parents who work full-time at wages that are so low that they aren't able to provide for their children's basic needs.

The Ontario child income program will take children's benefits out of the welfare system. It will provide a monthly cheque to all low-income families in Ontario, including low-income families with parents working full-time.

The size of the cheque that each family receives will depend on its income as reported in its income tax returns. Families with the lowest incomes will receive the largest benefits. The total benefits that a family is eligible to receive will depend on the number of children in the family.

1350

The Ontario child income program will help parents provide for their children's needs without having to go on welfare. But unemployed adults also have needs, and that brings us to the second program: the Ontario adult benefit.

The Ontario adult benefit will help adults meet their basic needs while making the transition to work. It will also provide long-term income to those who aren't able to work.

The Ontario adult benefit will replace the complicated two-tiered FBA/GWA system with a streamlined, unified system with one set of rules that will be applied in the same way across the province.

Adults will be provided with a single monthly cheque that will take into account the cost of food, clothing, shelter and personal needs. Eligibility for the benefit will be determined by a needs test that measures income and assets.

We will provide a long-term income supplement to Ontario adult benefit recipients who aren't able to work. We will also continue to provide extra financial support to persons with disabilities to cover disability-related expenses.

Providing benefit cheques is one form of support, but most people who are now on social assistance will need a much broader range of supports if they are to return to work.

We believe that most people want to work. But we also realize that it's hard to find work when you have difficulty reading and writing. It's hard to find work when changing technologies and new industries mean that your skills are no longer wanted. Even when your skills are up to date, it's hard to work when you have children but no access to child care, or when you have a disability but no supports to overcome that disability.

That brings us then to the third major new program. The Ontario government will create a new system called Job Link to help Ontario adult benefit recipients prepare for and find work.

Job Link will be available to Ontario adult benefit recipients who are able to work. It will help clients develop a personalized plan that outlines the education, training and other supports they'll need to return to work.

When Job Link is fully developed, it will place participants in over 100,000 places each year in Ontario's high schools, community colleges, training courses and pre-employment programs and connect them to apprenticeship programs and workplaces. Job Link will also provide people with the supports they need to take advantage of such opportunities.

Over the next 18 months, we will be having discussions with groups such as the Council of Consumers, the federal and municipal governments and workers and their representatives. We will also be making decisions on key delivery and design issues.

I've already met with a number of key stakeholders and told them how important their input will be to our decision-making. I've also met with Chief Gordon Peters, the Ontario regional chief, to begin discussions on a parallel process for social assistance reform that respects the inherent right of first nations to self-government.

We intend to introduce the legislation to set up the new programs by late 1993. I expect the Ontario child income program, the Ontario adult benefit and Job Link to be in operation in 1995.

Given that we still have to make decisions on a number of key design and delivery issues, I can't indicate today the exact size of the investment needed to create the new programs. But I want to make it clear that this is not a cost containment exercise. It is indeed an investment in people's skills.

In the short run, we will be investing more money to create the capacity to actively help people to get back to work. That capacity does not exist in the current system. In the long run, the new programs will be less expensive than the old system since they will reduce both the number of people needing help and the level of duplication and waste in the current system.

With this announcement, Ontario has reached a turning point in the way in which it provides support to people with low incomes.

The Ontario child income program, the Ontario adult benefit and Job Link will be part of a government-wide effort to provide greater support to people with low incomes. They will match up with initiatives such as Jobs Ontario Training, new pay equity legislation, employment equity, improvements to the minimum wage, expanded access to child care, reform of the Ontario drug benefits program and increased non-profit housing.

I'm proud to be part of this sweeping change. The welfare system doesn't work. It's time to build an active system that meets the real needs of all Ontarians and to build a better future for our children.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I hope that what the minister has stated today has some foundation. I hope some of it will come true. I hope those people who are going to be affected will truly be consulted, whether they be social assistance recipients or whether they be members of the first nations. I hope you're really going to tackle child poverty, as we know that more than 40% of the social assistance recipients in this province are children. And I hope you will abide by the announcement you made earlier today that you're going to take the market basket approach, which was part of this document, Transitions: the real cost of shelter and food for people.

You say you want further advice, Mr Minister. Look at this book, with over 250 recommendations, most of which have not been enacted, Back on Track, your own document, and you want further advice; Time for Action, which was a cry by people to get things going, and today you are telling people they have to wait two more years, 1995.

I'm sorry, today's announcement fills me with doubts and fears. You described it earlier this morning as government policy. Mr Minister, government policy, I'm afraid, has to have legislation and has to have a financial commitment, and every single figure connected with this whole announcement is fuzzy, if it's there at all. There's no financial commitment, there's no projection, there's no budget.

You say it is not a cost containment exercise. Mr Minister, after the things we've been through in this last week, and in the changes you're going to make to the STEP program on August 1, but two weeks ahead, you are really being contradictory when you talk about no cost containment for those who are on social assistance but much for those who are in the workforce.

To say the least, your figures are fuzzy. To say the least also, your partnerships are weak. You know that this program you've announced today depends on a strong partnership with the federal government to get the data you need for your income support and child support programs. You haven't worked that out.

You have also got to work out much with the municipalities. The municipalities at this moment are hardly speaking to you because of the expenditure control plan and the social contract, and we don't know whether you will do the same thing here as you did with the social contract: impose your will. The disentanglement talks are up in the air.

Everything in this major thrust is filled with fuzziness, with nebulousness. Projections, whether they be budget deficits of this NDP government or whether they be child care projections or whether they be Jobs Ontario placements, never come true. They are promises, not policies. There's no sense of trust built in the communities that you're trying to serve, and your credibility is all over the place.

How are we going to believe that this program is any different? How are the people who are affected going to believe that? You say in one document that it's 18 months of discussion; in another document I got today it's 24 months of discussion. Do you realize how close that is to the end of your mandate? Discussion, discussion, discussion.

You are talking about major changes, and indeed they are. They are in changes of income testing and needs testing, and they're very different than the long-term care testing because you're going to talk about income and assets, and that certainly puts many people in jeopardy who are on social assistance for a short period of time.

Everything about this document, and certainly your press conference proved it, is very difficult to interpret, because you yourself say: "There are no details. We have not got the real data yet. We're going to find that out in the next few months."

So you have made no real commitment to get people back to work, which is the major consideration in this province. You have made no real commitment to more accessible child care. You've made no real commitment to educational settings that have long waiting lists and getting the people that you say Job Link is going to put in those educational systems.

The statement of the minister is a sweeping change and it's built on a foundation of sand, and again he continues to throw up that the real problem in this province, the recession, is based strictly on the free trade agreement or something that happens up in Ottawa, failing always to look in ourselves, within the NDP government, at all of the things that are being done in a monetary way to stop any economic growth or any creation of jobs.

1400

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I guess having been in this House for eight and a half years and listening to the governing members talk about issues around poverty and child poverty, I can't imagine, after waiting all these years, that the best this government can come up with three years into its mandate is what it has referred to as a turning point.

By the minister's own admission at the press conference this morning, this is only a general direction. There's no money being spent here, there are no regulatory changes here, there's no legislation; there isn't even an accurate framework and time frame for consultation.

The fact of the matter is that this government has been aware of dozens of reports. We've had 274 recommendations in the Transitions document that came in in 1988, we had the member for Hamilton West and the then member for Scarborough East lead a whole group, a poverty march, to Queen's Park to deal with the problem of food banks, and the minority government report on all the things that this government was committed to in order to eradicate food banks in Ontario.

The government then, under the then minister, Zanana Akande, brought in another report, Back on Track. This was trumpeted as the socialists were getting back on track to help the poor in this province. Again, a rather large document of consultation. It went nowhere.

Then we get a new minister, Mrs Boyd, from London. In May 1992 she comes out with another big report, full of recommendations, lots of consultation, Time for Action.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Did you read it?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Jackson: People think things are going to be happening real soon.

In fact I want to quote from an article in the Globe and Mail where the then minister, Marion Boyd, said that she was excited about radical changes that were coming to Ontario's welfare system. She said that she was confident about the new way she was going to approach it, of combining the systems, and it would take effect on January 1, 1994, and be handled by the province -- the then minister's own words. That is some precious few months away. Where are we today?

I want to replay for members of this House just exactly what was said by the minister in today's announcement, because we still can't understand why he made the announcement today in the first place. I'll give you a sampling of the press conference.

Question: "How many fewer will be on welfare by 1995?" Answer: "We don't know." Question to the minister: "How long before the province can realize some savings?" Answer: "Perhaps late 1995 or some time into 1996, but this depends on the availability of jobs."

Next question to the minister: "How do you determine who will be able to work?" since they want to divide these people. Answer: "We don't know." "How will you fit this disentanglement with municipalities, which are already in disarray, where some of the costs of delivery are currently borne by the municipalities?" Answer from the minister: "That's a very good question. It becomes more important for us to resolve this issue."

Another question: "How many dollars will be budgeted for this fiscal year?" Answer by the minister to the press gallery: "We don't anticipate any new dollars." Question: "Where will you find new spaces in our colleges and universities, when existing students are already being denied access and turned away at the doors?" Answer from the minister: "This is a challenge. We need to talk to our colleges and we have to consider new expenditures some time in the future."

You were the minister responsible for OTAB for the last two years, you were the minister responsible for colleges and universities, and you now have to go and talk to your former deputy ministers and senior staff about what you're going to be doing for seniors.

There are two important things that are missing from this announcement today.

Mr Perruzza: You don't know who has responsibility for what.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jackson: The first most important principle is the shared responsibility of social assistance recipients and taxpayers, as set out in the Transitions document. No comment from this government about the concept of shared responsibility.

The second was accountability. In a one-hour press conference, not one reference to the issue of accountability, when Ontario's own Provincial Auditor has clearly said that the amount of overpayment and fraud and unnecessary payments in social assistance in this province could be $700 million. This announcement is two years too early, because there's nothing in it.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I have been endeavouring to get information about this announcement the minister made today. We've made several calls to his office to get hold of the statements, to get hold of some documents that would tell us what the government's position was on this. We have not been able to do that. I know the critics of the opposition parties have received information, and that's fair enough, but there are other people in the House.

My thanks to the member of the government who was willing to share this with me.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It appears that the member has had his point of privilege replied to. But I must say to the member that the standing orders are quite clear that when a minister is making a statement material must be provided to the critics of the opposition parties, but beyond that there is no other further obligation. Normally, all members of the assembly will receive the information in due course.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I could just clarify for the member opposite, my understanding was that copies were made available to all members. Indeed, if something has gone wrong in that process, I'll be happy to check into it.

The Speaker: I appreciate the minister's point of order. Indeed, there is always an effort to provide material to all the members. It goes through our system downstairs, and occasionally members do not get the information on time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We'll start over once we have the attention of the House. It is time once again for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services in relation to his announcement today. At a time when his government is cutting funding to education facilities -- colleges, universities, secondary and elementary schools -- to seniors, to day care, right across the board, the minister has made an announcement which, even by his statement, is a program of uncontrolled cost.

I would like the minister to tell us today when the first person will be accepted for this program in Ontario and the series of supports that will be available and how much that first person is going to cost the system as he or she is accepted into this support system.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question. As I've indicated both here in the House and this morning in the statement, the time line for implementation is 1995.

But beyond that I have to say I find the question a bit puzzling, because I think implied, if not explicitly, in the question is a question of additional cost and what that will be, when I believe, if I heard correctly, the critic for the Liberal Party, in dealing with her response to my statement, was in fact being critical of our not moving fast enough to spend these additional dollars to get the system up and running.

We have said very clearly that we believe that in order to make these substantive changes we do need to be prepared to spend some additional dollars. The bulk of those will happen in 1995 when the new system kicks into place. We believe that by doing this we will be able to substantially decrease the number of people over time who have to rely on social assistance. That's where the real savings will come.

1410

Mr Elston: We already know that the access to the Ontario drug benefit plan forms a part of the program that was announced today by the Minister of Community and Social Services. He has told us what we already know, that the Minister of Health is working on the funding of that part of the system. We already know she is chopping some $195 million out of the Ontario drug benefit program. Obviously that is going to form part of the support for your program, Mr Minister of Community and Social Services. We already know that the Minister of Health intends to raise $150 million by way of requiring seniors to pay increased costs in nursing homes and other facilities.

Can the minister confirm to us today that the way this government intends to fund its program is by requiring seniors and others on assistance under the ODB plan to pay the price for their government's new-policy tinkering?

Hon Mr Silipo: I can confirm to the member that is not our intention. I believe that the discussions my colleague the Minister of Health is involved in will bring to the government some useful advice that then the minister will bring forward to cabinet for discussions and decisions on how to change the drug benefit plan.

But I think, as she has stated and certainly as the consultation process states, what we want to do is to broaden the base of eligibility so that people with low incomes, whether they're on social assistance or not, will be able to have access to drug benefits coverage. That is very much part of what we are doing with respect to the child benefit within the social assistance system.

It is not our intent to simply move dollars around. We are talking here about some additional dollars that we need to spend, and we haven't played around with throwing around figures at this point, not because we want to hide anything but simply because we are still working very much at determining those figures, and we don't think that it's appropriate to bandy about figures until we know exactly what we're talking about.

Mr Elston: I understand that the minister is trying to let everybody out in the public audience think that they don't have any idea of the numbers that are involved or anything, but knowing as we do, because we've been involved in government over these many years -- I for over 12 years in opposition, then in government, and now in opposition again -- we know that before a program is brought forward, before there are any approvals for an announcement to be made, there are target numbers. There are gross numbers in terms of what a program is supposed to cost, what it's going to start to cost in the first year, in the second year and up to maturity.

I ask again for the minister to tell us straight up what the numbers are that he and his ministry have generated in terms of cost and when those costs are going to begin to run. I want the minister to tell us today what is the cost of his 24-month consultation going to be to the province of Ontario and how he is funding that.

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me just work back from there. The consultation will take place through a number of meetings that we will arrange from the ministry, in which we will be asking people throughout the province and particularly people who have a particular interest in any of the important areas, including the municipalities, the unions involved and a variety of groups and individuals, and that will happen in a direct fashion. I don't expect that is going to cost great bundles of money, but I'd be quite happy, if the member is interested, in providing those figures as they are determined.

The other thing is that I can say to the member, yes, of course we have an overall sense in a very preliminary way of what the overall reform will cost. I've indicated very clearly that the time line is 1995. This I can say very clearly to the member: Prior to us coming forward with the details of the reform package, we will certainly be indicating in a very public fashion the exact costs of the programs. We are not interested in hiding anything.

What we are doing now is simply setting out the general direction and the policy that the government intends to follow, not another discussion process just in a vacuum. This is a government policy; this is the direction that we are intent on proceeding with.

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

Hon Mr Silipo: We are going to be doing a lot of good work over the next number of months to get at those answers that we need to get, together with the people who will be affected.

Mr Elston: That's outrageous. They needed a good announcement for the day after the social contract being rammed through, and that's what they did.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General. Yesterday the Attorney General, when speaking about the justice system, made the comment that the public doesn't understand the justice system, that in fact a particular case which everybody is interested in these days was being misunderstood by a lot of people in terms of sentence and other things. I would like the Attorney General to tell us today more fully what the public doesn't understand about the justice system and what it is that she thinks she can do to make them understand better.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm glad the member asked the question, because I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the justice system and that in fact governments in the past and our government have not done as much as we could to ensure that there is a general level of education and understanding about how the system functions and what it can be expected to do.

One of the issues that we need to be very clear about is that when there is any case in front of the court, the judge in that case must deal with the facts as they are presented in the court: the case as it is presented, the facts as they are presented, the representations of counsel as they are presented.

The task of a judge is to make a judgement based on what is presented in court. It is important that judges be independent and not be affected by the kind of inflammatory issues that sometimes get raised outside the court, because that is not the purview of the decision-making that a judge makes in the court, and that was the comment that I was making yesterday.

Mr Elston: There are several things that are not quite understood by the public. Is it the minister's feeling that the item commonly called plea bargaining in the court system, in the judicial system, is not well understood, and would you tell us what you are planning to do about the issue of plea bargaining so that the public understands that better?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Again, I am glad that the member asked the question, because there's been an activity going on in the province with wide consultation called the Martin commission, which is looking at ways in which we can make our justice system more streamlined, that we can focus our attention on serious crime, and how we can ensure that interpersonal crime, particularly crimes of violence, gets the kind of attention from our justice system that all of us want it to obtain.

We have received the report and it is being printed as we speak. I expect in the next couple of weeks that in our discussions around the Martin commission findings, we will have an opportunity to discuss the various aspects of plea bargaining as well as issues around screening, disclosure of evidence and other matters that were taken into account by that committee, and that committee had the benefit of advice from the bar, from the bench and from all aspects of the criminal justice system.

Mr Elston: It's interesting that the minister is going to have the people of the province understand plea bargaining a little bit better, because I know, like a lot of the people in the system, that the Attorney General's own department is going around to crown attorneys now telling them not to conduct as many trials in this province.

Will you in fact confirm that your ministry is forcing crown attorneys not to carry on trials and thereby reduce the number of trials that are being held in the various courts around the province, thereby forcing more plea bargaining, more reduced sentences, probably, in the court system, on the crown attorney system? Will you confirm that this in fact is your strategy, to implement your cost savings in this province at the expense of justice?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would tell the member opposite that the last intention we have is to in any way lower the public confidence or the actual provision of justice within the province.

More than 87% of the crimes that are processed through the courts of Ontario are what we would call non-violent crimes, crimes that are not against persons. One of the issues for us is that with each of those cases that comes through the court, whether they are in that category or in the category of young offenders actions or in the category of violent crimes, all of those issues have specific case facts.

The way the court acts now often prevents a real look at how those cases will proceed, and it does not include, in many cases, an assessment of how successful the investigation has been, what needs to be added to it. What we are doing, and it is very much in keeping with what was suggested by Justice Martin and the committee in their initial report last summer, is to look at how we can develop in specific case facts a way of dealing with those issues.

I would say to the member that we have announced diversion projects around things like shoplifting --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- and around other issues. We have been very, very clear that there are many issues that don't need to go through the full court process if we can find ways in which the community interest is being served more appropriately.

1420

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. There's a certain road that's paved with good intentions, and after your announcement today about the restructuring of our social assistance system, we can see that the road to despair still exists for thousands of Ontario residents who are suffering from poverty, over a million who are on social assistance. Their road is being paved with your refusal to deal with this problem, especially in light of the fact that you campaigned extensively on it in the last election.

You have offered little consolation to these groups with your announcement today, especially those who rely on social assistance. You've offered no new hope for taxpayers who fund and support this extensive system. Your so-called initiatives today are still totally undefined. They don't have the practical objectives that have been referred to in other documents, we have no clear implementation guidelines and we're not sure about anything about when this is actually going to take effect.

It was in February of this year, just as he became minister, that the Premier was musing about some of the initiatives undertaken --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- by President Clinton in the United States and the Premier said, "Simply paying people to sit at home is not smart."

My question is simply this: Will you not agree that your document is simply a point of postponement of the real issues of reforming social assistance in this province? Do you agree that the free ride for welfare recipients in this province, as stated by your Premier, should go on for another two years or should action be occurring today?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I have to take exception to that last comment the member made in terms of the "free ride" comment. I believe very sincerely, albeit with the limited experience I have in this portfolio, that the vast majority of people who are on the social assistance system are people who want to work. This reform is aimed at helping them to get back into the workforce. This is not a point of postponement. Far from it. This is a real point of departure for us into some real action.

The member earlier talked about the variety of reports that have been provided to the ministry and to the government in the past, and he's quite right. There has been a lot of good advice that's been provided to us. We have taken a good look at that advice, and as a result of that have come up with this policy of the government.

The policy of the government with respect to the changes to the social assistance system is contained in this document and in the details that will flow from this document, in the legislation that will come before Christmas coming out of this commitment. Therefore, what we are announcing today is a real commitment to action on the part of this government.

Mr Jackson: The reference to the Premier comes from a Toronto Sun article where the Premier clearly stated that radical changes were coming, that they were imminent. Your predecessor said they were pretty imminent. The photo caption says "Bob Rae: A Crackdown." I'm not creating this. This was the language of your own Premier.

My question to you is, if the Premier had this opinion of welfare recipients in this province, why is it then that when you have your announcement today, it won't take effect for two years? Nothing will happen for two years. When asked how much money would be saved, you said you did not know. When asked when accountability measures would be applied, you said, "I don't know."

Minister, Ontario taxpayers want to know the specifics about how, what you're going to perform and change in social assistance in Ontario, when it is going to occur, what kinds of savings they can anticipate and when you'll tackle the real problem of the misallocation and the inappropriate payment and welfare fraud which, according to the Provincial Auditor, represents about 10% of all payments.

Hon Mr Silipo: The member keeps tying the question of misallocation of funds or fraud to the question of, as he perceives it, inaction. Let me be very clear with him. We take the issue of fraud very seriously. We have a number of initiatives that are under way within the system that will help us to get, we believe, at the question of fraud in a more systematic way.

But I believe the member himself would be the first to admit that even if we were able to deal with every instance of fraud in the system, while that would save us some significant dollars, and we are intending to do that, this would not resolve the plight that hundreds of thousands of people on social assistance are in, which is that they don't have the supports they need in terms of education upgrading, of retraining, of being able to meet the needs of the over 500,000 children who are on the social assistance system, to be able to meet those needs outside of the social assistance system.

The directions that are set out in this document are exactly the directions that we believe are necessary in order to accomplish that and in order to be able, over time, to have fewer people on the social assistance rolls, because that's the way in which you save dollars for the taxpayers of this province and that's the way in which you render dignity to individuals who are now on the social assistance system.

I take no defence in terms of having answered questions honestly and straightforwardly in saying that there are things that we haven't yet worked out --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- and that we intend to work out.

Mr Jackson: The problem is that those sentiments are only referred to in question period. They're not contained in this government's announcement. They weren't at any point raised during the one-hour press conference earlier this morning about the substantive overhaul of Ontario's welfare system.

What's important as well is what's not in the minister's announcement. What's not in the announcement is the whole issue of getting people out of the dehumanizing effect of welfare, and there is no practical encouragement for people to participate with shared responsibility. This is a concept that was developed very clearly in the Transitions document, and there's no reference whatsoever in terms of the government's planning.

The other issue is this issue of accountability to taxpayers: again, no mention, in this government's massive overhaul of our welfare system, of accountability. Then the minister says to us that he's honestly answering questions.

Minister, three weeks ago I raised the issue in this House if you would assist us with getting to the bottom of the question of the illegal refugees, approximately 10,000 of them in the city of Toronto, who are on welfare, and you will not assist the federal government in getting to the bottom of this issue.

You said to this House that you would respond to that question, that you took it seriously and that you'd report back to the House. Why is it, then, that something as simple as that you cannot put in this announcement or you cannot respond to in this House? If you're truly serious about accountability, then answer those questions --

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

Mr Jackson: -- because we're dealing with thousands and millions of taxpayer dollars.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think if the member wishes to re-read the statement that I've given here today and this morning, indeed he will see that there are references there, as there are in the paper itself, to the question of accountability.

I can also say to the member with respect to the information that he passed on to me a few weeks ago that this is being looked at and at an appropriate time I'll be happy to respond to the member more specifically on that.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health the serious shortage that exists in northern Ontario concerning orthopaedic surgeons.

North Bay is short three orthopaedic surgeons, and I'm told that during the month of August there will not be any orthopaedic coverage for this entire city. Sudbury is short four orthopaedic surgeons. For 27 days over the next two months there will be no orthopaedic surgeon on call, which means that every third day, Sudbury will not have orthopaedic coverage.

Two months ago, your government spent $110,000 running these newspaper ads which documented the doctor shortage across the province, yet the problem remains. Minister, where do you expect the people of Sudbury and North Bay to go to receive emergency health care when there are no orthopaedic surgeons available to treat them?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I think that's a very troubling question and certainly one that is troubling our ministry and one that has been asked for many years by people in northern Ontario.

Let me say to the member that every effort that we have made, many of which he has criticized and disagreed with, is designed to make sure that we find a lasting solution to this long-standing problem of making sure that all across this province there are the right physicians and the right specialists in the right place so that everyone has access and has equitable access to necessary services.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, this is not an isolated physician resource problem. It's a province-wide shortage of orthopaedic surgeons. Because of your failure to deal with this critical shortage of specialists, the problem has reached a boiling point in northern Ontario.

1430

Recently, a 13-year-old Sudbury boy broke his leg. He was taken to the emergency ward at Sudbury General Hospital only to learn that there were no orthopaedic surgeons on call that day. As a result of the shortage of orthopaedic surgeons, he was then taken by air ambulance to the Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto. The estimated cost of a two-way air ambulance transfer from Sudbury to Toronto is $3,000.

Minister, your health care system is not providing accessible treatment and it's certainly not cost-effective. Given the circumstances I've outlined to you, how can you expect health care professionals to help you reduce costs when it is clear that you are incapable of effectively managing Ontario's health care system?

Hon Mrs Grier: There is some sort of conclusion and logic in there that I think I totally disagree with. Let me say to the member that I think it is extremely unfortunate when somebody needing emergency service cannot find it at the hospital to which they first go. I'm delighted that in the case he mentions, treatment was provided. I regret that it had to be provided in Toronto.

What I said in my first answer was that this has been a long-standing problem. The management of resources and the ability to make sure that we have the right people in the right place at the right time has not been primarily a question of money. There have been incentives, there have been programs to encourage people to go to northern Ontario, and they have not worked. Even in the last three or four months, when there has been so much attention focused on both new graduates needing positions and underserviced areas needing resources, we have had to bring in locums from other jurisdictions because we couldn't get physicians to go to northern Ontario.

There has to be a better way of planning the system. I agree with the member, we haven't found it yet, but I can assure him that the work that is being done in conjunction with the Ontario Medical Association, with the academic health science centres, with the district health councils, is going to provide the basis for a lasting solution to what has been a long-standing problem.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, you talk about this problem being years old. I want to quote from Dr Dhiman from Sudbury, who says, "'If someone is hurt on a particular day that is left empty"' -- he's talking about no orthopaedic surgeon on call -- "'he or she will go to Ottawa, London or Toronto,' he said. 'The situation isn't new to Sudbury, it's two years old."' It kind of corresponds with our Martel affair, wouldn't you say?

Another 13-year-old boy from Sturgeon Falls who broke his arm last week was flown to Ottawa for treatment because there was no orthopaedic surgeon to treat him in North Bay or Sudbury. One Sturgeon Falls doctor said, "I'm concerned our referral area can't even handle a simple problem like that."

In Sudbury, for example, you can expect on average three bone fractures per day. At a round-trip air ambulance cost to Toronto of $3,000, multiplied over 27 days when there won't be any orthopaedic surgeons, the cost to the taxpayers is an additional $243,000 in Sudbury alone. That's a quarter of a million dollars for three broken legs. This is NDP health care management.

Minister, instead of bashing doctors to the detriment of patient needs, will you start working with all health care professionals to ensure that money is saved and that the people of northern Ontario receive the health care they deserve and need?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me make the point to the member again. It is not for lack of money that there are not orthopaedic surgeons in Sudbury. Sudbury has been on the underserviced list for orthopaedic surgeons for far longer than the last two years. They have not been able to attract orthopaedic surgeons to Sudbury for whatever reason. I think it's a very nice place to live. I think it has wonderful facilities. It obviously has a need for orthopaedic surgeons, but we have never in this province had the ability to require orthopaedic surgeons to go to Sudbury, nor, let me say, do I think that might be the appropriate way to get there. We have very much a free market system with respect to specialists.

I hope that by having, for the first time, some plans and some involvement from the district health councils in determining what the needs are and also in working with the academic health scientists to make sure that we train and graduate the specialists that are needed for the 1990s and into the next century, we will come to a situation where this does not become a recurring question and a recurring problem every time there is an unfortunate incident in Sudbury or other parts of northern Ontario.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I do have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, I wanted to address the issue of the interim casino, as you no doubt predicted you may receive a question on that today.

Minister, from the outset, we on this side of the House have said that the casino project has been fraught with mismanagement and uncertainty, lack of proper consultation, and now we find a lack -- and I say this with the greatest respect -- of integrity in terms of the process that you set out at the start.

I asked you a question a few weeks ago and I asked you how you could justify and rationalize the way you were handling, right from the outset, the development of the interim project. You said, "Trust us." Effectively, you said to the people who are out there: "Trust us. We'll handle this appropriately, and even though we changed all the rules for the tendering process, bear with us. We'll come clean on this one this time."

Minister, there's an article in the Globe and Mail today, and you know about it, and I received phone calls on this yesterday. The Minister of Education and Training, the member for Windsor-Riverside, made a decision. He made the decision and effectively dictated to you, the minister supposedly in charge, that it would be at the art gallery.

There are people who have put a lot of money on this, invested in it --

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

Mr McClelland: Minister, I want you to tell the people of Ontario and the people who have invested in this project how they can have any sense of confidence that this process will continue with integrity and without the political interference of the worst and most crass kind that has been demonstrated by the involvement of the Minister of Education, the member for WindsorRiverside.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We have been very clear and forthright and upfront about this whole process from the beginning. The honourable member is very aware that from the beginning of the initiative, this government has been very sensitive to the Windsor community. In keeping with the spirit of that commitment, of that partnership with the Windsor community, we decided to put the interim casino downtown. Once the request for proposals was out there for the selection of a site, the city council passed a resolution in the middle of that process. There was a demonstration of over 600 people, business people from downtown. We received many letters from the community, making it very clear that they wanted the interim casino downtown. In the spirit of cooperation with the community, we decided to make what I believe to be a sound business decision to put that casino where the people of Windsor want it to be.

Mr McClelland: Minister, you have in the most incredible fashion taken the euphemism of "community sensitivity" and translated that for crass political and I say inappropriate interference by the Minister of Education. The fact of the matter remains that the decision was made prior to the opening of the documents, and you tell me that that was in response to community sentiment expressed. The community sentiment was clearly that of the Minister of Education and he called the shots. If I were you, I would be embarrassed that you didn't even have a management role in making that decision.

1440

Minister, there are people who have put a lot of money into it. You know that. The other two organizations are asking about compensation. In some cases, as much as $200,000 was invested in preparing the documentation for the interim site, and that was all for naught when your Minister of Education made his decision. There were nine other groups involved, $30,000 minimum on the table to get into the process, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars in developing it.

They have no confidence whatsoever that there will be any integrity. How can you even ask them to go ahead with this process right now, those who have put their money on the line and invested, when it's seen very evidently and plainly that you are prepared to make political decisions to interfere with tendering in a business process? You have politically interfered and compromised the integrity of the tender process. How are you going to answer to those other nine groups that are out there now?

Hon Ms Churley: This was not a tendering process. It was an RFP, request for proposals. The government reserves the right to pull out of any RFPs that it has issued.

I don't know at this point how much money the three short listed spent, but I do know that Management Board has offered to sit down with them and discuss that. I don't know if that $200,000 figure is correct, but that will be discussed with them.

I do want to make it clear that there are three members from Windsor in this House, all of whom, quite frankly, yes, made it known to me, all three of them, that the majority of the community of Windsor would like to see the interim casino downtown. I heard from the mayor of Windsor. A unanimous decision was made by city council in Windsor to put the interim casino downtown.

If it were a perfect world, city council would have made that decision early on. Nobody was sure in the beginning of the process, but some time after we issued the RFP, it became very clear that the citizens, the city council of Windsor and the business community wanted that interim casino downtown. It is as simple as that.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same issue, to the same minister, your assistant deputy minister is quoted today as saying, "It's regrettable it had to happen....These things are not done lightly and one can appreciate why [the losing bidders] are seething. But what I would say to them is: 'Take comfort in the fact that it has never happened before'" -- well, he can certainly say that -- "'and it's very likely never going to happen again.'"

Why did you put the proponents that made proposals through this charade of a process if you knew in the end you were going to make a political decision anyway? Why did you go through this charade?

Hon Ms Churley: That question relates very specifically to the issue of the RFP, and I believe the appropriate person to answer that is the Chair of Management Board.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): There are two parts of the member's question that have to be addressed, and addressed very clearly. First of all, the decision was not made before the request for proposals went out. That has to be very clear.

Secondly, as my colleague has already indicated, when a request for proposals goes out like the one that went out, right in the request the government reserves the right to withdraw the proposal, which was done. It's part of the process.

Mr Eves: According to a letter that's now been sent out to the unsuccessful proponents, the government will now apparently consider reasonable compensation for expenses incurred while preparing their proposals. How that translates to me is that the taxpayers of Ontario are now going to be asked to pay in excess of $200,000 to cover up this political decision, to compensate for this political mistake.

How can you justify the taxpayers of the province paying for this because you've decided to politically intervene after the proposals went out, to quote you?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite is confusing two parts of the process here. The letter he refers to is the letter which I sent to the three short-listed companies that came through the RFP and that may have spent money on the second phase of this proposal, which would have been the tender process if it had not been cancelled.

The companies that were referred to in the first member opposite's question, which participated in the request for proposals, are not going to be compensated. The conditions under which they make those proposals under the request are very clear; they were set out clearly in the original request for proposals.

EVICTIONS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): My question is to the Attorney General. On June 3, Bill 20 was debated and subsequently referred to the standing committee on administration of justice. At that time the member for Leeds-Grenville attempted to convince the members of this Legislature, and since that time constituents in the ridings of those government members who voted against this bill, that no such legislation existed and, therefore, this legislation was necessary.

During the debate members of our government attempted to point out that there exists in the Landlord and Tenant Act a section that serves the purpose of this bill.

Minister, my question is simply, what is the legislation as it exists in the Landlord and Tenant Act in regard to the eviction of individuals convicted of criminal offences?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity to outline the steps that are currently available under the landlord-tenant act to evict persons who are conducting illegal activities in a rental unit.

The section that the member refers to is section 107 of the landlord-tenant act. It provides that a landlord can take eviction proceedings if there is an illegal act going on in the rental unit. In the case of an allegation of an illegal act, on 20 days' notice a landlord can bring that matter to the court of competent jurisdiction and can seek a termination order and also a writ of possession.

Part IV of the landlord-tenant act provides access to summary proceedings for landlords or tenants. So on a case-by-case basis, on the strength of the evidence provided either by the tenant or by the landlord in the particular case, the judge in the court of competent jurisdiction can arrive at a decision.

Unlike what is contemplated in Bill 20, which may actually slow down the process, this provision of the act provides that a landlord, upon becoming aware of an illegal act, can move well before a criminal conviction is registered, so the process can be much quicker for both the landlord and the tenant.

Mr Cooper: Once again, what has happened is that during the debate the member for Leeds-Grenville said near the end, "There may be some problems in terms of this legislation, I freely admit, but this exercise is to approve of the principle."

My understanding in this House is that if you want to do something in principle, you bring in a resolution on Thursday mornings rather than a bill. Being that it has been referred to committee, what has been suggested by the member for Leeds-Grenville in the letter he wrote to my newspaper and also to the newspaper of the member for Cochrane North, calling into question the integrity of the constituents in electing us as their representatives -- wouldn't you say that the member, in your opinion, could be accused of political grandstanding and wasting the time of the House and the committees?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I certainly would not impute any motive to any member of this House, but I would answer the question by saying that members on this side of the House are just as concerned as the member for Leeds-Grenville about the need for us to help control the distribution and use of illegal drugs and to ensure that that is not something that proliferates in rental accommodation.

1450

But the problem with his bill as it stands is that it may well punish others who don't have direct involvement with illegal activities. His bill does not pay any heed to the manner in which drug dealers or others exploit vulnerable women and their children. If a tenancy were to be terminated, they would be thrown out of their homes, and they are certainly not involved in the activities.

It also begs a question of equity, because persons who are found guilty of wife assault or murder or sexual assault or a host of other heinous crimes would not be subject to the kind of sanction that he suggests.

NURSING HOMES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. On July 1, with 30 days' notice, the Minister of Health increased fees for nursing home residents by up to $4,380 each year, and $4,380 is the increase in cost for accommodation, not the whole cost that many residents have to bear. That increase is 32%. All other landlords in Ontario are restricted to an increase of 4.9% this year. All other landlords in Ontario are required to give 90 days' written notice of an increase. The Minister of Health gave 30 days' notice, and she didn't even send the notice directly to those who are affected.

My question to the Minister of Health is, will you rescind this 32% increase and reduce it to the 4.9% increase which every other landlord in Ontario is not allowed to exceed?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm sure the member is well aware that nursing homes and homes for the aged and homes for long-term care are not covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act or the Rent Control Act. That, I think, is her point: They are quite different from that kind of rental accommodation.

With respect to the question of notice, again the issue of how to equalize the fees that are paid by occupants of accommodation in such facilities has been under discussion for a very long time. The member was part of the debate around Bill 101, at which point it was well known that upon passage of that legislation what would be put in place would be a standard accommodation fee, as opposed to the very real discrepancies that have existed up to now, where some people have been paying $26 a day and some people have been paying $90 a day.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister is correct: She is not covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act as it applies to residents of nursing homes. None the less, just as an independent landlord would be, she is responsible for making the determination of the fees which will be paid by residents in those nursing homes.

Of the $647 million that the Minister of Health has said will be committed to long-term care in additional funds, $150 million will be taken from residents of nursing homes themselves. The share that the government will commit -- $497 million -- will not be put into place until 1997.

I am asking the Minister of Health if she will change her approach to ensure that the patients' share of the increases will also be phased in and that their full $150 million in additional charges, which she's requiring nursing home residents to pay, does not hit them all at once but is phased in over the same four years that she will allow herself.

Hon Mrs Grier: The kinds of changes that the member is requesting, I can't remember whether or not they were part of any amendments that she or the official opposition made when we were discussing the legislation --

Mrs Sullivan: No, regulation, Ruth.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- but certainly I appreciated the support of the member when we adopted that legislation here in this House. The basis of that legislation was a standard accommodation fee across the board for accommodation.

Mrs Sullivan: It was all regulations.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me also remind the member of the major change that we made, which was that, in determining ability to pay under our legislation, only the occupant's income is taken into account as opposed to the legislation in the situation that existed beforehand, when people were very frightened that their assets might have to be sold in order to pay for their accommodation charges.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question's for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it concerns the devastating impact this government's social contract legislation will have on municipalities across Ontario.

Municipalities recognize and accept the need to reduce the cost to present and future taxpayers in this province, but the same municipal governments have already seen their transfer payments slashed substantially. They have already trimmed their budgets and they're already operating with minimal staff. You've already negotiated and they have already negotiated days off.

Ontario's municipal governments have already undertaken cost-reduction measures. Would the minister, who chose to ignore the proactive approach the municipalities have taken during budget deliberations, outline exactly what additional cost-cutting measures he expects the municipalities to take when they have already cut to the bone?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): We recognize that a good many of the municipalities have in fact been trying to find ways, as we have as a government, to cut the costs and overhead of government. Indeed, I've met with many of them and some of the ways they've been doing this have been innovative. I think they deserve a lot of credit for doing so.

At the same time, I think they recognize, when I talk to them one by one, that there's only one taxpayer and that we cannot have a deficit that will rise to where we're paying 26 cents in interest to foreign banks and pension plans and that they have to be part of the solution. They're willing to be part of that solution and are looking at various ways of saving costs. A number of them have come to me with some proposals, some of which they brought to the sectoral table, that we concur would be of benefit to their taxpayers and our taxpayers, who of course are all the same taxpayer.

Mr McLean: You did not answer my question. The municipalities are wanting to know what further cuts you're anticipating they will have to make since they indicate they have already cut their budgets to the bone. They have laid off staff in some cases. They have given days off without pay. What you're telling them you want them to do in the social contract has all been done. You're also saying to them now, "We want you to cut further."

The question I have is, how can they cut further and where do you anticipate they should cut further? Do you want them all to be in trouble? As far as we can gather, you're looking at it. You said you've met with the clerks; you said they agreed with them. You said you've met with AMO; you said they agreed with what you're doing. But the municipalities have that question out there, and they want to know what you would advise them to do before they leave town and the last one will be able to turn out the lights.

Hon Mr Philip: Nobody's leaving town. This province at the present time, with 33% of the population, is getting almost 60% of all foreign investment. They're coming into town, not leaving town, as the Conservatives with their doom and gloom would have us paint the province.

In terms of the municipalities, you see a similar doom and gloom. What the member is saying is that the municipal councils cannot find any other ways of reducing costs. I don't buy that, the municipal councils don't buy it and the ratepayers don't buy it either. They're asking the municipalities to sit down with their employees, get back to the sectoral table and in fact have their allotment reduced in so doing. That's what we're hoping they will in fact do.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. The other day I read with interest an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail -- I am starting to sound like Noble Villeneuve --

Interjection.

Mr Wiseman: -- that was not included on the list of potential landfill sites. It said the owners of the land are pressing to have it included as a potential site for Metro and York garbage. The minister knows this site is not in my constituency, but the people in my riding were disturbed because they feel this article implied that the Interim Waste Authority was considering using this site and that it is prepared to relax some of its criteria in order to accommodate the land owners.

My constituents are concerned that, if the IWA does this for Superior-Crawford and Metro Toronto, sites might come on the list in Durham if the criteria were relaxed there. They want to feel confident that the rules are the same for all the players. My question to the minister is this: Is the Interim Waste Authority undertaking negotiations with any land owners in any of the three site search areas and relaxing its criteria in order to make a particular site work?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank the member for his question. It's a most important one and I'd like to confirm for him that the Interim Waste Authority is not undertaking or carrying out negotiations with any land owner who is a proponent for a landfill site in these areas, and it is certainly not relaxing its criteria in order to make some site "work."

Mr Wiseman: Another important issue in the same article had to do with the ownership of the sites and the revenues generated from them. The article said that it had always been the province's plan to turn the ownership of the sites and therefore the revenue generated over to the municipalities. This was a surprise to me when I read the article. Can the minister shed some light on this issue? Has this always been the plan?

Hon Mr Wildman: I would not want to question the sources of the Globe and Mail but there certainly has not been any decision made one way or the other as to the possible ownership and control or management of any of the sites once they have been assessed by the environmental assessment and any decision is made. There have been some very preliminary discussions between myself and the chairs of the regional governments about what might be done and in those discussions, it was clear that no decision has been made. As a matter of fact, we're open for suggestions.

1500

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have here a letter to the member for Norfolk and it is --

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

Mr Daigeler: The question is addressed to the Minister of Transportation. This letter to the member for Norfolk is from a trucking company in his riding, and I'm not sure why the member for Norfolk did not raise this question, since it concerns jobs and businesses in his area. Be that as it may, here's what the letter says:

"For quite some time now, we in the trucking industry keep hearing legislation will happen any day. That was months ago. In our own particular company, we were recently awarded a major contract, to which 53-foot trailers were a must to secure the contract. Upon the good news, we ordered 40 of these trailers at an investment of $800,000, plus applicable taxes, and more importantly, jobs."

The letter goes on to say, "Should this bill not pass in the next several days, we will be forced to withdraw from our contract, and I can assure you that many other Ontario carriers are in the same position."

Minister, why are your forcing this Tillsonburg trucking company to cancel this contract, and why are you forcing the Tillsonburg people to lose these jobs?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): There are different sorts of analogies, of the way people look at the world in the future as they go to a crystal ball. There are those who say that gloom and doom will prevail, that the cup is always half full. The same people will say, by way of attitude, that it cannot be done.

I say to the people of Tillsonburg, I say to the people who have their lives at stake, in terms of configuration, I ask them to have faith, because the member has specifically focused on the future. If I were a gambling person, if I believed in games of chance, I would have no fear. I would look to the future, near-term, with a great deal of confidence, because trucking is alive and well and trucking will well be made more competitive indeed. Tell your friends to hang on. You have that responsibility. Tell them that their place under the sun will be near them very soon.

Mr Daigeler: This answer really, truly makes me angry, because we're talking about jobs here. We are talking, as the minister just said himself, about the lives of people in Ontario. This is not a matter for fancy rhetoric, not a matter for fancy announcements. This is a matter for action, minister.

You have been giving this answer, that a decision is pending, for the last two years. Minister, you should act now. The people's lives are at stake, as you said yourself just now, this minute. Why are you not acting?

Hon Mr Pouliot: With respect, this is cheap theatre. Thank God, it's free. The member is trying to find passion within his soul. Let's deal with the reality. There is such a thing as process. A few more days, a few more weeks of consultation, a little more lobbying and we will get there.

Yes, I'm concerned with configuration, very much aware that it's $100 million of business, the need to address the permit issue, the need to have people at the factory level producing those trucks. We're sympathetic, we're working towards it and we're very much aware of competitiveness in the marketplace. I don't wish to remind the members that those people -- because with those people, you always pay but there is no action -- sat there for five years and four months, procrastinating but doing nothing. We're doing something in less than three years.

TIRE TAX

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Mr Minister, when you were in opposition and when the Progressive Conservatives were in opposition against the Liberal government, both of our parties were very strongly against the Liberal tire tax. We felt that was a tax grab for their wild spending, and you of course, about three years later, withdrew that tax, although it took you all that time. Will you confirm that revenues raised from this tax since your government came to power were used for funding the tire recycling programs and research?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I don't have all the figures on hand, but I can indicate to you that approximately $30 million to $35 million a year were collected from the tire tax and about $16 million a year were spent -- I think, now -- on projects for recycling of rubber, crumbing rubber and so on, and new technologies for reusing rubber. What the industry said is quite true, that the whole amount was not used for recycling and for new technologies related to rubber. The revenues, of course, went to the consolidated revenue fund and were used throughout our whole program on the 3Rs.

Mr Tilson: As you know, I asked an order paper question on this very issue, and unless I misinterpreted the answer to your question, my interpretation of your answer was that about 20% of the moneys, the revenue that was collected from this tire tax, was used for that process and the rest of it --

Hon Mr Wildman: Almost half.

Mr Tilson: Well, that's what the order paper question said. The rest of it, which was about $180 million, went into the consolidated revenue fund. This is from the beginning of when you came into power till now.

My question is, now are you prepared to redirect the remaining moneys that were collected by not only the Liberals but even by your government alone into tire recycling programs and research, as opposed to going into the consolidated revenue fund, which it wasn't designed for in the first place?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member knows full well that this was the basis of our opposition, as of his party's opposition, to the implementation of the tire tax in the very beginning. I'm happy to say that there was significant investment in new technologies, which will continue, and we will continue to make those investments in new technologies for the recycling of rubber products, particularly tires, in this province.

I had the opportunity to participate with my colleague from Cambridge in the opening of a plant there that has developed new technologies that are being marketed in other parts of the world: in Italy, in Mexico and also perhaps in Spain. So there has been progress made, but I agree with the member that those revenues were never intended, as they were said to be by the Liberals, to go specifically to a particular program. They were going into the consolidated revenue fund, as all tax revenues go into the consolidated revenue fund. It's for that reason that we decided to continue our investments in recycling of rubber products but to withdraw that tax, because it wasn't dedicated to one particular purpose.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Eglinton has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Education and Training concerning Jobs Ontario Training. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to the members of the Legislative Assembly, Ontario, re Bill 38, an amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act to permit wide-open Sunday shopping and eliminate Sunday as a legal holiday:

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38. We believe that this bill defies God's laws, violates the principle of religious freedom, reduces the quality of life, removes all legal protection for workers regarding when they must work and will reduce rather than improve the prosperity of our province.

"The observance of Sunday as a non-working day was not invented by man, but dates from God's creation and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people, both physically and spiritually.

"We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

It's signed by 116 constituents, and I affix my signature.

1510

AMALGAMATION OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 251 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel, mainly from the towns of Shelburne, Grand Valley and Orangeville. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Housing Corp has announced its intention to consider the amalgamation of the Dufferin County Housing Authority with the Wellington and Guelph Housing Authority; and

"Whereas we are in strong opposition to any amalgamation involving the Dufferin County Housing Authority;

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

"To direct the Ontario Housing Corp to abandon any consideration of amalgamation of the Dufferin County Housing Authority with the Wellington and Guelph Housing Authority."

I have signed my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here signed by approximately 600 people from Woodslee, Belle River, La Salle, Essex and Tilbury in my riding, to the members of provincial Parliament:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for quality of life, religious freedom and for family time. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

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

I have attached my signature.

PETS IN CONDOMINIUMS

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario relating to an absolute prohibition against pets in many condominiums. It's signed by hundreds of people from my riding and neighbouring communities, and calls on the Parliament to amend the Condominium Act or any proposed changes to it, to allow the keeping of pets in condominiums to be subject to the approval of a majority of unit owners.

I have put my signature to it.

GAMBLING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition from parishioners from the Burlington Baptist Church on New Street in Burlington. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

That has my signature of support, as well as quite a few constituents and parishioners from Burlington Baptist Church.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition from Dr Norman Munnoch who resides in my riding. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under government expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

There are approximately 150 to 160 signatures on the petition.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I have a very fine petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which says:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

That petition is signed by a couple of hundred constituents and very happily by me as well.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition from approximately 400 residents of my riding.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping.

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

I have affixed my signature.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition here from hundreds of people from my riding against Bill 38 and against the flip-flop of the New Democratic Party government, a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament.

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

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

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

I'm very happy to affix my signature and join with these hundreds of people who object to the New Democratic bill.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too have a petition signed by hundreds of individuals registering their opposition to Bill 38 in the same language expressed in the petition just read by the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

GAMBLING

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario opposing the legalizing of gambling and calling on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, "That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos." It has a number of "whereas" clauses, including, for example:

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity," and a number of others.

I'm pleased to sign my signature in support and indicate that I voted against this bill.

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 233 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel, mainly from the towns of Bolton and Palgrave. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"To object to the recent cuts to GO Transit bus service for Woodbridge, Kleinburg, Nobleton, Bolton, Palgrave and Highway 9;

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers; and

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy; and

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and encourage public transit systems; and

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto during peak hours; and

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers in one of the worst economic times in Ontario history to incur extra expense in finding another form of transportation;

"It is resolved that the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and restore GO Transit service to Bolton and Palgrave."

I have signed this petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition signed by about 73 people from North Simcoe, Simcoe, Hamilton, Moulton etc. It's to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

1520

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas these proposals will enable the government to unilaterally and arbitrarily restrict payments for psychotherapy; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality mental health care services across the province;

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

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw the proposal to restrict payments for psychotherapy and withdraw the proposal to allow the cabinet to make decisions with respect to the number of times patients may receive particular insured services and set maximums with respect thereto. The government of Ontario must reaffirm its commitment to the process of joint management and rational reform of the delivery of medical services in the province as specified under the OMA/government framework agreement."

Mr Speaker, I've affixed my signature to this petition, concur with it and present it to you.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 42 signatures from around my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament. It's with respect to the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping.

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

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

Mr Speaker, I have supported this resolution and I have signed it, as I have voted against the bill on second reading.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition that's signed by approximately 100 people in my riding, but it is in addition to the 1,600-plus that I presented a couple of weeks ago. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, request that Ridgetown and the surrounding district be recognized as an area of the province which has a shortage of family physicians. Specifically, we require exemption from the following aspects of the Ministry of Health expenditure control plan:

"The plan to withdraw older physicians from practice. This could result in the loss of three of the four doctors in our community who serve over 10,000 people.

"The plan to reduce fees for the new physicians by 75% for the first five years of practice. This will force the two doctors who are planning to start practising in our community in 1994 to leave the province.

"The plan to reduce payments to general practitioners who provide services above a certain threshold. This restriction will discourage the only physician who would be left in our community if the above aspects of the expenditure control plan are imposed on our community."

GAMBLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have another petition here opposing casino gambling. It's signed by such people as Olive Huntley, Dorothy Royles and Beatrice Howe, who live in the Ingersoll area, and some people from the Thamesford area as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ALLOCATIONS DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

On motion by Mrs Sullivan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 73, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les allocations de retraite des députés à l'Assemblée législative.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Yes. The bill that I'm presenting is one that I hope will be considered in the discussion of the retirement allowances act. It provides that members retiring after the commencement of the 36th Legislature would not be entitled to a pension unless they'd contributed five years of service over two or more consecutive legislatures by providing that such members could not begin collecting the pension before attaining 55 years of age and that spousal benefits would commence at age 55 unless the surviving family were simply a child or children.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)

Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Firefighters / Loi modifiant le Code de la route relativement aux pompiers auxiliaires.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I move that the order for third reading of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Firefighters, be discharged and the bill be referred to the committee of the whole House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 25, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe the member for Markham had the floor.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I want to carry on in the whole vein of our presentation as a caucus, that running government should be much the same as you run a business. If you were to have that sense of the way you run the affairs of the people of the province of Ontario, then you'd be cognizant of business practices: You're not in a position to borrow more money than you can pay back.

Business today is going through a tremendous readjustment as every business tries to become more cognizant of its own real terms of dealing with the economy. They know they can't afford any fat in the system. They know that old systems have to be looked at and revisited and renewed, that in business, in order to stay alive and stay competitive, one has to continually review and open up the old ways of doing things with a fresh look and a fresh set of eyes.

We in the province of Ontario continue in the same old ways. We continue to borrow. We continue to spend. We continue to hire. We continue to grow. We continue to do all things in the way they were done several years ago. It's time we put a stop to the constant spending of government money. It belongs to the people, and we need to put government into the same kind of box that business is in so that government becomes more accountable to the people. The politicians are accountable every four or five years, but it would appear that the bureaucracy and the spending carries on without interruption.

When we today are looking at the government coming forward requesting another issuance of money, some $17 billion, does it surprise you that the public at large would be concerned about this? I think we all have to be concerned, because for government to continue as we are is to bankrupt future generations.

It is a deficit we're creating. We're already living with a deficit of around $10 billion. "Deficit" is only a word for deferred taxes, only a way of taking the spending of today and putting it on future generations, and for us to do that is irresponsible. It's irresponsible for us to continue to spend, spend, and tax and spend. There has to be a renewal of government, and that had a lot to do with the recommendations our caucus presented during the debate on Bill 48.

We presented a series of amendments, none of which were accepted by this government, that would have caused this government to review in an objective way how the money is being spent on programs and on services, to see if there is any way those programs could be sunsetted so that we just wouldn't continue without interruption.

1530

So we are here today one more time, kicking the cat, making a point heard but maybe not understood, because there is no sense in my mind that the New Democrats need to listen to anyone. Even yesterday when the government was threatened, according to the media -- I think most of us on this side of the House knew that the government wasn't really in jeopardy of losing the vote on Bill 48, that the government had the numbers. If the government didn't have the numbers yesterday, then there would have been some sense in which this government would have listened to the opposition.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): A big if.

Mr Cousens: Oh, it's a big if. I realize that.

They knew that the Conservatives were ready to work with the government to achieve the reduction of $2 billion in spending on salaries in the broader public service. We were prepared to do that, we were committed to do that, and in order to do it, we wanted to make some meaningful amendments to the very poorly drafted bill for the social contract.

It illustrated the way in which the government can do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, without any regard to what anyone else has to say. It also was a day of reckoning when everyone saw that this government doesn't listen to anyone. It has to do with now they've got the power. Mr Rae and Mr Laughren and his cabinet have the control of the purse-strings of the province, and even though the visitors' gallery was filled with a lot of their former friends, the heads of the various unions that make up the different sectors of the province of Ontario, even though they were here in the House, the government arbitrarily, unilaterally and without consideration of their views proceeded to enact a bill that's going to have very serious ramifications in the province.

I want to make one point that underlies my major concern about the debt and the increasing debt of the province through this bill. Even though the government has addressed the spending of government by removing some $2.4 billion from the expenditures of the province and even though the province has taken $2 billion, as it will through the social contract -- there's $4.4 billion saved -- and even though the government is going to tax us to the tune of another $2 billion a year -- that becomes $6 billion more that the government has, $6.4 billion, $6.5 billion -- do you realize that the government will spend, in 1993-94, $160 million more than it did last year? They are still spending more because they have not put the lid on other parts of government spending.

The government just continues to allow the housing boom to go on and on. It's going to cost us $1.5 billion by 1995, when we start to pay for the way in which they're building houses and affordable homes for people, because they're spending more money on that than they could get away with if they gave people who need housing some support payments. Instead, we're going into the housing business. Even to maintain those units that the government is building is going to be a huge, long-term operating cost for the people of Ontario.

Even though the government has heard that 10% of the social assistance budget is being wasted -- the Provincial Auditor, who should know because he's looked at the books, says that 10% of the total cost that's going out to social assistance is wasted. There's fraud; there are problems. Look at it and you can save 10% of it, and 10% of the social assistance budget for the province of Ontario amounts to $620 million. What does this government do about it? They don't take the time to look at it. I don't think they know how to be accountable for the kinds of problems they're creating.

We look at the fraud that's going on with health cards. The honourable member for Simcoe West, Jim Wilson, has done an outstanding job for our party and I'm most grateful to him for the way in which he has come to the Minister of Health and tried to recommend other ways in which we could address health card fraud. Here is another in excess of $600 million that could be saved by the province of Ontario.

My point is that if this government were to look at that $600 million and another $600 million that we could save in social assistance and another $1.5 billion that could be saved from other areas that have been suggested by members of the social contract negotiations, you know, you're up to over $2.5 billion.

You come along and you say, why does the government go ahead and build the new unemployment insurance building in downtown Toronto? There is an actual deed that this government is doing. We're borrowing money to build another structure in downtown Toronto when there are all kinds of empty spaces around. We know that the government will be downsized over the next number of years. All the more reason then; don't borrow money on that.

We're borrowing money to build a new unemployment insurance building in downtown Toronto. That is ludicrous. We shouldn't be doing it. I mean, any person who would do that has to be out of his skull. Well, you guys are out of your skulls, that's really what I'm trying to tell you, because the moment that you come along and start spending money on things like that, you have lost sight of the balance that should be going on within government: balancing priorities, balancing the books, balancing what you're doing with what you have to do and what you can sort of put off till tomorrow.

There aren't any of us in this House, who have our own personal finances that we have to watch -- we can't go out and say, "Oh, I'm going to borrow more to do this, I'm going to borrow more to do that," because the debt load then starts taking over our total income. We lose control of our budgets, the banks take us over. Because governments don't go bankrupt; we can tax, but individuals wouldn't be as dumb as government is in continuing to expand this horizon of government.

How embarrassing it is when in fact there are only 21 of us in the PC caucus and though we try every day, though we are diligent in trying to bring to the attention of the government the importance and the urgency of dealing with these issues, the frustration that we feel at the failure that we have in not persuading the Treasurer, the Premier or the caucus of the New Democrats to react and respond to the genuine needs of the province of Ontario is in itself one of the greatest problems we have to carry. It's the kind of thing that we know that the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus could do better, would do better and is committed to doing a much better job than this government is doing and the previous Liberal government did for five years before it.

I tell you, as we've gone along as a caucus, we have delineated and defined our position. There is no other group that has done it as well as we have. We've put a stake in the ground and said: "Here is what we stand for. This is what we believe. This is what we are going to do." We have had several books that we have put out, and we are prepared to continue to do that because I think we owe it to the public to tell them before they elect us what we're going to do, rather than get elected and then change our minds. I mean, that's the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party and the New Democrats.

Mr Mammoliti: Go talk to Kim.

Mr Cousens: Talk about hypocrisy. Now, that's what you really want to talk about. Talk about Bob Rae and his hypocritical position --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Markham will please address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I realize that you're sitting there but, you know, when these honourable members of the New Democratic caucus are in the process of responding to what I'm saying, I can't help but go and talk to them. I appreciate the fact that they are paying some attention. I suppose it's one thing to listen, but it's another thing to understand.

Our caucus put out, just after the budget came through -- we got on a little bus and we couldn't even all fit in it, but we went out and we took the bus. We took it to Brockville and Leeds-Grenville, we took it up to Markham and Richmond Hill, we took it up north to Sudbury and the Sault and we talked to thousands of people. We got them to give us their thoughts of what the budget meant to them and about the taxation level of the province of Ontario, and they came back and helped us define our prosperity agenda for the province of Ontario. I want to put on the record what that agenda is.

1540

The first principle -- and I'm proud to say that this has been clearly enunciated by our leader, Mr Mike Harris, who after the next election will be called the Honourable Mike Harris, the first minister of the province of Ontario, and I hope to be one of those sitting near him as he is leading this province -- one of the principles we have clearly stated in our booklet, Ontario...Ours to Recover, is that higher taxes are no longer an option. I just want to read into this presentation today these five points, and it really doesn't take a long time.

The first one is, higher taxes are no longer an option. We have reached the point where higher taxes will kill jobs, kill investment and stall Ontario's economic recovery. The way to get more revenue from income tax is to have more people working. The way to generate more revenue from corporate tax is to have more profitable corporations. The way to get more sales tax is to have more people buying. So higher taxes have ceased to be an option.

When you understand the level of taxation, you've got the federal level, you've got the provincial, the regional, municipal, school taxes and only one little person to pay all those taxes. Is it any wonder that we've reached the tax wall and that, as a society, we must address the dysfunction that is part of this heresy in overspending and overtaxing?

The second point we make is, spending cuts are the key to deficit reduction. I repeat, spending cuts are the key to deficit reduction. Independent studies show that every new dollar in taxes translates into only 75 cents in deficit reduction because of the dampening effect on economic activity, while every dollar in spending cuts nets $1.25 in deficit reduction because of lower borrowing costs. The real principle is, reduce government spending. Don't raise taxes, reduce spending, and then there will be more money to go around. The multiplier factor is visible very, very quickly.

The third point we make in our statement of principles for the prosperity agenda of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party is, the fiscal deficit contributes to the human deficit. We say that left unchecked, interest payments will soon become Ontario's biggest program expenditure, eating into the very health, education and social assistance programs which enable Ontarians to reach their human and economic potential. There it is, part of our statement and what we believe, knowing that you can't continue to build this deficit.

The deficit has to stop. There has to be a hold placed on government spending. When that is done, we put a hold on expectations so that when people, as painful as it might be, may want more services, more support, more of something, we as a government are going to say: "We've got to reduce the deficit. There is going to be a hold."

Now, when there are programs to help specific needs within society, the last thing we want to do is to hold back on that. The very idea of Conservative principles has to do with there always being a progressive social policy. I would not want anything to do with a party that did not have that kind of progressive sense of making sure that everyone within our society had the physical health and personal needs in order to not only survive but to thrive and to have an opportunity. So we are concerned with the human deficit, and in order to do something about that, we have to do something about program expenditure.

It's a matter of reprioritizing. It's a matter of reorienting government thinking to make sure that we're not just continuing to build a huge bureaucracy and a larger public service, but that we have somehow put people first, that we've somehow brought back that fundamental sense that we're here to serve people. In fact, in all my giving a tough time to the New Democrats and the Liberals, I have to say that I don't think there is a member in this House who doesn't feel a genuine sense to serve people, but we come at it in different ways. What I believe is that we have to establish an environment in which business can thrive and, as business thrives, we'll be able to afford to do more for those people who need our help and support within society.

Our next point is the fourth one in our statement of principles, that the private sector must be upsized while the public sector is downsized. Conditions must be created for a vigorous private sector to compensate for any reduction in the government's involvement in the overall economy, as well as to ensure career opportunities for public sector workers whose skills will be in renewed demand in a revived private sector economy. I couldn't believe more in the need to have a strong private sector economy.

I was reading today, and I received it earlier, last week, the Ontario Natural Gas Association submission to the Ontario Fair Tax Commission. They made an excellent presentation. They go into some of the principles for change as well to allow for a stronger economic performance.

The tragedy is that I didn't circle all the sections that were of concern to it as it had to do with the downsizing of the government. I'm sorry that I don't have it just at my fingertips, because they brought that into it. They did say that rather than adding new taxes, efforts should be focused on improving the fairness of existing taxes and on seeking intergovernmental consensus on required changes and administrative simplifications.

They had a number of other points, and there is something in their report that would have supported the argument I'm making that the private sector has to be upsized and the public sector downsized.

We have to reduce the amount of government there is. There is too much government in Canada. In fact, I've heard it said, and I believe it, that we have enough government in Canada, with all the different levels that we have, for 130 million people, not just the 30 million who make up this great country, Canada.

The next point, and the last one in our statement of principles is that public service reform must involve programs as well as people. It makes no sense to enact reductions to the staff of the Ontario public sector without a parallel review of the programs these personnel deliver. Every aspect of government service delivery should be reviewed to determine if that service is needed or if it could be delivered more affordably and efficiently in other ways.

That was one of the key amendments that our caucus and I made on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus during the debate on Bill 48, asking that there could be an expenditure review committee of the province of Ontario. Over the next three years, that committee would look at a number of the different aspects. It would look at the tremendous waste that's going on within the Ministry of Housing, where they have the year-end spending review. We'd have it in a minute.

Our leader recently raised in the House the problem where they had a directive to their different housing authorities, "Don't forget to make note of how much money you haven't spent this year so you can spend it in the spring spendoff." That kind of wasteful spending, unnecessary, would have been analysed, assessed and there would have been incentives brought in for everyone within the public service to try to address those areas of overspending.

The other thing we were saying is, look at existing programs of all kinds. Take your time and assess them all.

I sense that the Minister of Community and Social Services is beginning that process with welfare reform. I haven't had a chance to look at it in detail. It was announced today, and I will look at it. But if the intention behind that is that you're really trying to remove some of the problems to it and provide more equity and fairness, and that you're looking for ways of getting people back to work and out of the welfare syndrome and circle and cycle of just being in it all the time, then that would be good.

When I look it and see that, if it's there, that would be especially pleasing. It's the kind of thing I want to see done across the whole broad public sector, where we then can identify opportunity for doing things more efficiently, doing things better, or being eliminated; then, if necessary, maybe amalgamate it.

It's the kind of thing that I saw as well, and that I wanted to refer to, in the whole statement that was made by the Ontario Natural Gas Association, where they're saying that in federal-provincial relations, what you have to look at is having constructive dialogue with the federal government. We don't have that. Our Premier doesn't even attend the Prime Minister's meeting. We want to get rid of conflicting national and provincial taxation strategies. Can't we somehow begin to work better as a country?

1550

We've seen the problems existing between Ontario and Quebec. New Brunswick is trying to work out the anomalies between its province and Quebec. Our member for Carleton, Mr Sterling, has been raising this in the House from the very beginning as a major national crisis, that the people who live in the eastern part of Ontario are not able to go and work in Quebec, and yet Quebec construction workers and others come to Ontario to work. Let's make sure that we synchronize our national and provincial strategies, especially in taxation.

What they also point out is the lack of tax policy harmony. It is true. We're taxed for schools at every level. Every level's collecting money on education and we're paying out an awful lot. People, as I talk to them, aren't necessarily happy with the product and quality that is going on. Not everybody is thrilled with the outcome within the school system today.

The duplication in tax administration: Isn't it terrible that here we now have storekeepers who should almost be given money to collect the GST and the PST? They are spending time out there collecting taxes for the government. If they miss a payment on time, they're fined. We're so fast to get in there to make sure they've got the money forwarded to the coffers of both the federal and provincial governments as quickly as possible. We've got duplications, certainly, in the collection of sales taxes between the federal and provincial governments. Couldn't there be a way of homogenizing it, of putting it together?

Then, when you come along and try to find out what's going on, it's just about impossible. I know that seniors in my riding have had a terrible time. My riding office put together a seniors' guide, because we couldn't figure it out ourselves. It took us some six months to put together the information in one cover-to-cover manual to tell seniors exactly what's available for them at the federal and the provincial and at the local levels. Because we've got so much government, each one is tripping over itself, doing its own thing, without, again, synchronizing their activities.

Then we have, as they point out, the differing ideologies and questions of control. They go on. They make a series of recommendations. I guess that's the problem: Everybody's been making recommendations on the problems we have with the spending and the taxation, but you can't get a government to listen. The only time the governments start to listen is when there's an election coming up. I'll tell you, you see it right now with the feds. With an election coming this fall, if anyone wants to get hold of their federal member of Parliament, now is the time to get hold of them. They're returning their calls now because there's an election coming up.

The truth is that so often with politicians, for one reason or another, having been elected, they lose touch with their constituents in being able to keep in touch with them as to what's important, what's needed, "How can we do something to help them?" Those become the principles that are part and parcel of what we see a responsible government moving towards, not a government that's coming in and saying, "Give us the permission to borrow another $17 billion for the next two years."

Two of the phone calls I had yesterday -- both people will remain anonymous. It has to do with the failure of government to deal with people. One was a woman who I know is just a fantastic lady who has coped for a number of years. She is a senior citizen. Her husband is now in a nursing home in our community. He's in semiprivate. Without any notice, without her being aware of it -- she's very limited in her means but is able to afford to pay for the proper comfort and care of her husband -- the semiprivate rate increased by $247 in that seniors' home. She didn't have any notice of it at all. So suddenly one month it was less by $247 and the next month she has to pay that much more.

She is going to find the money to be able to pay for it because she's extremely happy with the care and attention that her husband is receiving. But the fact of the matter is that we in this province of Ontario forget how important it is to serve the needs of people, to make sure that they understand what we're doing and why we're doing it and that the administrative procedures are in place so that they can have some comfort level that we give a darn.

Anyway, when she asked what I could do about it, I said: "There's not very much. The government is having to recover more money from its seniors in order to pay for the services that are being provided. I just don't know what else you can do but pay."

I had another lady, and she's a pensioner. Her property taxes this year in the Thornhill community of Markham have increased by $350. She receives $14,000 annually and pays, personally, $2,500 in income tax. The education tax alone is $1,800 and she says, "We never had children, but we still pay that." The government encourages the elderly to stay in their own homes as long as possible, but then it makes it impossible for them to live there because of the increase in the cost of living in their own place.

I tried to explain to her that in fact a lot of this began during the Liberal regime when there was a downloading of provincial government services to the local municipalities. They mandated that school boards would have to provide junior kindergarten and they mandated pay equity and then they mandated court security levels. All that affected the local tax level. Then you keep on seeing more things passed on to other levels so that as one government says it has balanced the budget, it has done it on the backs of the taxpayer who is paying at the local level.

She said, "Can you give me some suggestion on what I can do?" Should she start a petition and what can she say? I said, "Beyond becoming involved in the political system in some way" -- I didn't use it as a chance to sell a Conservative membership -- I said, "Get involved so that when you have a chance to vote for somebody you know what they stand for and what they're going to do."

I pointed out to her that in the by-elections in Metro Toronto this year for Don Mills and St David-St George, it was 42% and 44% of the population who went out and voted. In other words, well over 50% didn't even bother to become involved in the election.

Therefore, what people have to do, if governments are going to be accountable -- we have to be accountable to individuals and people who elected us, and we have to be able to report back to them on a regular basis. We have to be able to apologize for what we did, and to apologize in the traditional old-fashioned language was a way of explaining what you've done and why you've done it. This government that's elected today, the New Democrats, have a lot to apologize for. They have an incredible amount to apologize for.

I have a couple of other things that just tie in to what is happening in this province. One is a letter from Marty Goldgrub. Yes, that's his name. Marty no longer runs his business in Ontario. I have an insurance firm in my riding and it sent me a note that said: "Don, the enclosed is self-explanatory. We thought perhaps you might find the same interesting." What happened was that they were sending for a renewal from this company and they got a letter back from Mr Goldgrub.

"I just received your invoice for the commercial package for the office and warehouse. It occurred to me that I should have called you sooner. During the month of May, I moved the warehouse to Niagara Falls, New York. It's funny that you would include a sheet on the new provincial sales taxes on insurance, for it is all the taxes and the government bureaucracy that finally convinced me to move the business to the States.

"There are inherent problems having a business there and living here, but they are trivial as compared to the uphill battle a small business faces here in Canada, and particularly in Ontario. This goes for all of us in the trenches. Governments must realize that there is no more and we can't be pushed any more.

"In my case, two jobs are gone and future employment opportunities will not be in this country. The bottom line after my diatribe is that as of May 31, 1993, I no longer need the commercial package. If you want to, send this letter to Bob Rae.

"Best regards,

"Marty Goldgrub."

Marty, I just gave it Bob Rae and he'll get it in Hansard and in the 20,000 copies that go around. There is just another person who has hit the wall of Ontario's inefficient, incompetent New Democratic government. God bless him. I'm sorry he isn't here to help us out of the recovery. I'm sorry he's not here to be on deck to help us in 1995 when the New Democrats are gone and we have a new Conservative government in power in Ontario. That is the sad news for him.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): That's a lot of hot air.

1600

Mr Cousens: I have another letter. You'll love this one, Mr Mackenzie, Minister of Labour. Mr Mackenzie will love this. So will you, Randy. This guy's writing me. He didn't sign it. I don't normally read a letter that isn't signed. He says:

"Dear Mr Cousens:

"I'm writing to tell you that I am a crook. I do not want to be, but working in this economy, with the country and this province controlled by the silly buggers that are in power, I have no other choice."

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Signed, Richard Nixon.

Mr Cousens: No, it isn't. But he does go on and say, "What bothers me is that I know that one day I'm going to get caught."

Here's what he says: "Today, 100% of our clients, new or old, refuse to pay the taxes. I can convince maybe 30% to pay a minimal amount. I've not been able to calculate it yet, but since the latest provincial budget came out, I'm sure the percentage has dropped.

"In the good times, I'd submit about $2,400 a month in PST. Today I submit about $300 a month. That's an 88% drop in government revenue from me alone, even though my total sales have only dropped 30%. Federal returns have dropped even more, because before, I was paying 13% on over $200,000 in purchases. Today I do not submit anything, as my minimal tax payments on purchases which are not cash deals outweigh any taxes collected. This also affects my tax returns, both commercial and personal, as naturally, I'm not going to leave myself open for a sales tax liability, so I state my loss in my business and no income for me personally.

"Again, where I once paid $20,000 a year in provincial income tax alone, now I pay nothing, and because I personally cannot show an income, my wife pays even less. All of this means that I've held back, by today's estimates, about $25,000 a year in provincial sales tax and provincial income tax. And this is only me. Multiply this by the number of people who are doing it, and you've just wiped out the deficit.

"Many of those out there who are avoiding taxes are also like me, small businessmen who do not want to evade the taxes, but because of the economy and the buying public's attitude, we have no other choice but to turn into crooks. We cannot afford to walk away from business because our clients refuse to pay the taxes due, and we cannot afford to cover the tax liability ourselves.

"So the next time you're standing up in the House, please thank those in power for turning my mother's little boy into something that she never expected. With bad fiscal management, during an extremely difficult economic time, this government has made me a crook, and I resent that more than anything else that they have done or will ever do.

"Naturally, I leave this letter unsigned. You guys are going to be knocking on my door soon enough, and I'm certainly not going to help you get there."

We've got a problem in Ontario. There's no way this government's going to begin to do anything about it. They're going to go out, march to the bank before the end of 1994 and collect another $17 billion. Well, I hope they don't get it.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Sutherland: I just have one question for the member for Markham. I want to know if he told his insurance company who passed on the letter and the business person who said he moved to Niagara Falls, New York, that maybe one of the reasons taxes are higher here in the province of Ontario is due to the federal government's policies of free trade, putting people out of work so they can't pay, the reduction in federal transfer payments to the province of Ontario and the fact that the federal government continues, even with a new leader, to ignore the concerns and the issues of the largest province in this country. Could he respond and let us know whether that is the response he has sent back to this person?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I always find it entertaining to listen to my friend from Markham deliver a speech in the House, even if I disagree with the contents of that speech. I would have been quite interested to hear him elaborate further, because there are ramifications in the loan act, on the change in the Progressive Conservative Party from the second reading to the third reading on the Social Contract Act. I was very hopeful that the Conservative Party would have analysed the bill carefully, would have on that occasion spotted the flaws in it and on a principle basis would have said: "We simply cannot support this. We understand why the government's bringing it forward, but we can't support it."

It certainly took a lot of telephone calls and letters and so on. They must have been coming in to a great extent. We started to hear the change coming, and I've known my friend from Markham long enough, I think, in this House to know that he probably at the beginning felt that bill was so fatally flawed that it could not have been improved, that going through the exercise of proposing amendments to a bill which was so contrary to many of the principles which people have stood for in this House -- I was quite surprised, and I know he'll help me out considerably in that matter, at seeing the Conservatives go from second reading, where they were with the government because they were saying this was close to Tory policy, to third reading, where they headed entirely in a different direction.

I think it's probably a sign -- and I guess this is good for democracy -- that those telephone calls coming in to the office of the leader of the Progressive Conservatives and the letters and personal representations made to members of the Legislature indeed had a considerable influence. I want to congratulate the member for joining his colleagues in voting with the Liberal Party on third reading against that piece of legislation, which will have ramifications even on the bill we're speaking about today. I look forward to the response, which I know will be positive and have the proper injection of humour.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Markham, you have two minutes.

Mr Cousens: Let me deal with the honourable member for St Catharines, who is always a treat. When we voted for the social contract on second reading, it was much the same as the Liberals when they voted on second reading of Bill 4, the rent control legislation.

Mr Bradley: That was different.

Mr Cousens: No, it was the same thing, buster. Then when it came to third reading and it just didn't go right, they voted against it. So how can you come along and say what you just did?

Notwithstanding that, when we made the decision in support of making amendments for Bill 48, the social contract, I got a letter just today. It gives me a chance to read it. It was a letter from the Georgina Public Libraries. The chief executive officer says:

"In my opinion, those amendments of the PC caucus would have created a bill which would have been a fair compromise working towards fiscal responsibility. On behalf of a small group of employees who will be very adversely affected by Bob Rae's social contract, I thank you for your efforts."

You say we wasted our time putting in those amendments. We at least represented the small people, the people out there who make up a strong Ontario. I'm proud to be part of a party that was willing to stand up and try to make something better. I'm disappointed that these people over here who call themselves politicians couldn't accept any of our 29 amendments, but that being the case, that's what you win and lose in this game, and I'm here to win. I hate losing.

The honourable member for Oxford, you'd better remember where you are. You're living in Ontario. Ontario is in a position to do an awful lot to either hinder or help free trade. We've been helped by free trade when it comes to the automotive market. When you look at the surplus that we now have in automotive trade with the United States, it's been a boon. Don't say it's been bad.

The one thing that really disappoints me, though, is that if the federal government made a mistake, it set up expectations on free trade. I thought they'd be doing a lot more to help us adjust to the ramifications of free trade. I think the federal government has really let down Ontario and Canada, because those people who have had to adjust to it have not been able to do it easily.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Markham, you had over 32 minutes to speak. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the opportunity, albeit I'm confined by Bob Rae's rule changes of last year to speaking for only 30 minutes on this particular important bill, which has great ramifications for this province.

I hear, interestingly enough, the old threat of the government that not only is it content that it has a new set of rules that were brought in in July of this year, but of course, whenever it feels legislation isn't moving as quickly as it should, it wants to bring in even more draconian measures. If this were to happen, I think you would see the greatest uproar this Legislature has seen since the election of the New Democratic Party government.

But that's always interesting to see, because I well recall my good friends on the government side, particularly those who have served in the past, who were the defenders of liberty, who were defenders of proper and appropriate and comprehensive debate on legislation. I know they will be putting the brakes on the Premier and others who would simply like to see this Legislature used as a machine to put forward what perhaps the bureaucracy wants, but more likely what the political operatives in the Premier's office want for legislation.

I was reading a book the other day that is called Just Call Me Mitch, the life of Mitchell Hepburn. I was trying to think, "Who does Mitchell Hepburn most remind me of these days?" I was thinking, "It can't be a person in the New Democratic Party," because consistently the New Democratic Party has been critical of some of the things that Mitchell Hepburn did in the past, but you know, the more I read the book, particularly when it got into dealing with labour legislation, the kind I found in the social contract, I was slipping and I was saying, "Mitch Rae" instead of "Mitch Hepburn."

1610

Mr Hope: It doesn't look like you opened the pages yet. It doesn't look like the pages are creased.

Mr Bradley: I don't crease the pages when I'm reading.

But I want to read further into the book, because it really reminds me very much of what I read here. When things got difficult, it appears they were certainly prepared to take it out on the collective bargaining process in Ontario, and I see that that has been somewhat abrogated by legislation which just passed the House.

Then I thought of some other people who have been commenting lately. I will be quoting Tommy Douglas a little later on. I'm just waiting for my assistant to bring that down to me. If Brad Ryder is listening right now, he should bring down that information to me. But I've been reading Michael Davison, and Michael Davison has had column after column.

For people who don't know who Michael Davison is, Michael Davison was the member for Hamilton Centre, and certainly a hard-nosed, fighting New Democrat, the kind that one always expected to be the true New Democrat of the 1980s and 1990s. And unlike some people who write columns in newspapers and simply defend the government even when the position of the government is indefensible, who are simply virtually flacks for the government and use their columns for those purposes, Michael Davison certainly has not been that. He has expressed a very independent point of view, albeit his own point of view, and I expect that, but as a New Democrat. I know my friends, particularly from the Hamilton area, must be opening the Hamilton Spectator daily and eagerly to see what Michael Davison is saying on each occasion. I have quoted some of the things he's said in the past. I might have time later on in my address to the House to quote them.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): You can't tell him from a Conservative any more. They all sing the same song.

Mr Bradley: Michael Davison is now being attacked. I would have thought Michael Davison was somewhat left of everybody else.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for Hamilton West has become very exercised. He's usually a very calm, cool, collected, cerebral individual in this House. I mention Michael Davison, and there appears to be a lot of interjections coming.

Michael Davison is a person who was a true New Democrat, and he continues to say things that I know will disturb the government caucus, but I think secretly there are some people sitting over there who say: "Good for you, Michael. You're the kind of person we really need in this party to keep us on our toes."

I read a number of publications. This week's Maclean's magazine has a headline on the cover that says, "So Long Solidarity: A Crisis Within the NDP Rocks Canadian Socialism." They have a wonderful photograph of our Premier, Mr Rae, who did not want to have a photo opportunity with the Prime Minister of Canada. As I mentioned in the House, one thing I could always say about my good friend the Premier is that he was never one to turn down a public photo opportunity when the television cameras were there, and I find now that he was not prepared to do so.

And I understand. Listen, I understand what the Tories are up to. I'm not pretending that a photo opportunity wasn't part of this. I'm not saying that. I'm not a person here to defend the Conservative cause.

The thing that I think emerged from this, though, was that my Premier of my province, until such time as he's re-elected or defeated, whatever the population chooses, looked small and petty by not meeting with the federal Prime Minister. I can understand some of the motives there. I think it just made him look as though he was somewhat small.

Roy Romanow, a New Democrat: Roy shows up and he's prepared to enter into some discussions. Mike Harcourt, a long-time fighter for the NDP cause: Mike was there. He didn't head off to Asia or somewhere else on a trade mission; he was there to meet with the Prime Minister. Only Mr Wells, who had plane trouble, was unable to make it. All of them came out and said: "This was a useful exchange, a good start. This person, whether we like her and her policies or not, is the Prime Minister of Canada."

What I'm most afraid of is that our Premier, my Premier, the Premier of all the people of Ontario, once an election is over, is going to find that when he gets into his final year of office, others are going to say: "Well, you're just going into an election campaign. We won't meet with you because it's a political exercise or it's simply an opportunity to have a photograph." I wouldn't want that to happen, because I want our Premier to be taken seriously. Whether I'm in agreement with what he's saying or not, I want him to be taken seriously by others in this country.

I think it's an unfortunate precedent and I think he would have been better to bury the political hatchet. The people out there are telling me they don't want the federal and provincial governments fighting along partisan lines; they're looking for them to work together. That's not easy, because there are views that are different. I certainly have different views from the federal Progressive Conservative Party on a number of issues, as I'm sure members of the government do, but I think it would have been nice to have our Premier there putting our case forward.

I hope that if a future opportunity arises he'll be there, and I hope that I'll be saying to people in the last year of this government's office: "I hope you still meet with our Premier even though he's in his last year of office before an election and even though it may appear he's simply looking for a photo opportunity or something. I don't want you to think that. I want you to be able to deal with a person until such time as the government changes."

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): That's a good point.

Mr Bradley: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt and I were discussing this the other day in a non-partisan manner, and we were hoping that indeed that would be the case.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I'm still waiting for the Tommy Douglas quotes, but I'm asked to comment on Tommy Douglas. Now, one of the people whom I admired in politics over the years, and I used to quote him often, was in fact Tommy Douglas. One interesting quote I well recall.

I admire him because he was the pioneer of provincial medicare in this country and I was a strong supporter of medicare as it was implemented in this country, and he had a difficult battle to fight on that occasion to implement it. He would be, I'm sure, were he alive today, extremely concerned when he saw that the NDP was now embarking upon user fees against individuals in our province. Tommy would have been, I think, as I know of his policies --

Mr Hope: Be careful.

Mr Bradley: The member for Chatham-Kent says, "Be careful." He may know something about Tommy that I don't, but Tommy was a person who I don't think was in favour, as far as I can recall, of user fees in the health care system. But he said something that covers an awful lot about what we have been doing in this House, what this government has been doing. He said, and it makes me hark back to the election campaign of 1990, "I would much rather be defeated fighting for something I believe in than get elected standing for nothing at all."

I can well recall that the New Democratic Party in 1990 was fighting for a number of things. They stood for a number of things that perhaps the mainstream of Ontario may not have stood for at that period of time. Perhaps it was a minority of people within the province, but you knew where the NDP stood on these issues. They had the Agenda for People. My friend for Scarborough-Agincourt, Mr Phillips, often brings it out and talks about the Agenda for People.

Hon Mr Allen: Most of it's done now.

Mr Bradley: I look carefully down there. I'd like to see it implemented. The member for Hamilton West, who had the portfolio at one time of Colleges and Universities, I know was a long advocate of abolishing tuition so that people of all --

Hon Mr Allen: No, I never have. No, I never personally advocated that.

Mr Bradley: Well, he never personally advocated it, but it seemed to me it was in the Agenda for People or the NDP platform over the years. Now I see that not only has tuition not been abolished, but tuition has been increased for students.

I understand the economic circumstances, but it goes back to what Tommy Douglas said. Tommy said, "I would much rather be defeated fighting for something I believe in than get elected standing for nothing at all." When we see policy after policy after policy of the NDP being cast aside, one wonders whether the party was standing for nothing at all on that occasion. I don't want to believe that, but that might happen. If they go back to the electorate again, that might happen.

Now, sitting in the chair -- and I hope the member for Victoria-Haliburton will be sitting in this chair till the end of this session of Parliament, this whole Parliament, until there is an election. I hope the fact that he has shown some independence will not prompt the Premier to give orders to have him removed from the chair, because I've always appreciated his objectivity in this House. Even though he sat as a member of the New Democratic Party, I certainly appreciated the fact that although he may have disagreed with some of the things that we on this side said, he was impartial in the chair. Now, I have this feeling that those who have a streak of vindictiveness in them will want to remove him from the chair.

1620

Mr Phillips: No.

Mr Bradley: My friend from Scarborough-Agincourt cannot believe it. He, as well, does not think that could possibly happen. But now that I see him in the chair, I have a file that is referred to as "Casino gambling" and I've asked a number --

Mr Phillips: The NDP are against that, aren't they?

Mr Bradley: Well, I thought the NDP was always against that, I really did.

If I went person to person in the NDP before this government was elected and said, "Are you in favour of casino gambling?" which is largely a tax on the poor, I think most New Democrats said, "We're prepared to fight against casino gambling." I admired that stance, I agreed with that stance, as I did with a number of the old CCF policies which I thought were quite progressive. Then I find out through the newspapers, because the government certainly wasn't easily announcing it, that the NDP was thinking of establishing casino gambling.

One has to wonder what comes next. Will it be the video display machines that have caused so many problems in other provinces, that have people totally addicted to them, that have people throwing bad money after good and good money after bad, because it's just one chain of money going out to these machines and other forms of gambling.

I think the New Democratic Party still has a chance to change its mind on this issue. If I thought they did, I would not say, "Sound the bugles of retreat." I would not be critical. I would not call it a flip-flop. I would say the NDP has come not only to its senses but back to its roots, if it were to abandon casino gambling.

The reason I bring up casino gambling under the purview of this bill is because obviously some of the money that is gained through the loans of this province or the financial affairs of this province has to do with expenditures on casino gambling. I hope it will be abandoned because, first of all, the only good argument in favour of it is in fact that it has in total a positive financial impact, and that happens only if you're the only game in town.

If you're the only person with a casino anywhere around, you can make some money. But Ontario is not. I've watched the vote in Detroit over the years. It has been soundly defeated when put to the people of Detroit whether they will have a casino there. The last one, however, which was held in June, when they heard that Ontario was thinking of establishing one in Windsor, the vote was very close -- about 51% to 49%.

I hate to use this terminology, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if in fact there is a casino established in Windsor, we will see one in Detroit which will be a huge operation which will take the money away. If you establish one in Niagara Falls, Canada, they'll establish one in Niagara Falls, New York, and if you establish one anywhere in a border area, you can be sure that somebody else will have one.

So it removes the argument that it's a cash cow. By the way, one of the things I think is a cash cow is this bill that they have for setting up cameras for the police department to collect money when they should be doing others things than collecting money from motorists in the province, but I might get a chance to talk about that a little later.

But on casino gambling, I don't think it's going to be the only game in town. I don't think it's going to net the government the kind of money that it would hope for, and I'll get back to it.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for Middlesex wants me to come back to it. I'll certainly deal with it then because I know she wouldn't want her police forces simply setting up cameras to collect money, but would want them to be devoting their time, effort and energy to getting the really bad drivers off the road and to catching crooks in this province instead of collecting money. We know, of course, that with casinos coming in Ontario, they'll have to devote even more of their time to fighting organized crime, and they won't have time to be manning and womanning the cameras that are out in the province.

The second point I want to make on casino gambling is that it really appeals to those who are addicted to gambling, to those who are prepared to squander virtually their entire paycheque, because it's a disease. They can't resist the impulse to be gambling their money away, and the most glamorous kind of gambling by far is casino gambling. So we're going to find out that in fact we have a problem with those who are addicted to gambling and we're going to have to devote far more money then to countermeasures in that regard.

Third, we're dealing with organized crime. I was quoting in the House the other day from people who know this well. One of the people I mentioned was William Jahoda, who is a former mob overseer of gambling in Chicago. He wrote a letter on May 16, 1992, to the Chicago Crime Commission and I quoted this in the House in my question to the minister.

It said, as follows, "that converging on Chicago 'will be every pimp, burglar, drifter, car thief, booster, arsonist, counterfeiter, prostitute, dope dealer, con man, hijacker, extortionist and worse.''' He says this is what casino gambling will draw to Chicago, and one I think can sense the fact that this could happen even in good old province of Ontario. I don't know how you can resist organized crime.

I heard this afternoon, for instance, the member for Brampton North, Mr McClelland, ask a question about the choice of the site. Apparently, there was a political decision made. They were asked, "Where would you like to have it?" One of the ministers in the area -- it is alleged the member for Windsor-Riverside, the Minister of Education and Training -- said, "I want it downtown in Windsor," which I can understand. I can understand him saying that.

But they had set out a process where they said, "Everybody can give a bid, not necessarily a tender, but everybody can say where they would like to have it." I thought that was reasonable that if they were going to do it, that's what they would do, but already we have political interference saying, "It's going here instead of somewhere else." I'm afraid we're going to see that happen when organized crime moves in, as it inevitably does.

The best example I saw -- frankly, I was quite flabbergasted to see it -- was when Donald Trump appeared on the CBC program Venture. Everyone here knows that I am a very ardent fan of the CBC, which I consider to be a very impartial network that never gives the NDP too much of a break.

Laughter.

Mr Bradley: There's laughter in the House. I don't know why. I just love the CBC. They do a good job.

Venture was asking Donald Trump, who is a big-time operator, what he thought of casino gambling, and Donald Trump, of all people, sat there in an interview and talked about all of the disadvantages of casino gambling. They even asked him about whether he thought it was going to be good for the city of Windsor and he suggested it would not be.

I was shocked, because of course Donald Trump is an individual who is going to be making a bid in Windsor. He said, "If you're going to do it, I don't think it's going to be good for your community, but I'm going to be there to bid on it, if indeed you're going to have it in your community." I thought that was one of the most compelling arguments.

We're not talking about some of the old speeches of Bill Temple or Woodsworth, or H.W. Herridge or Harold Winch, or any of the icons of the CCF and NDP. We're talking about Donald Trump, big-time developer, big-time financier, talking about the problems with casino gambling.

We find as well that there are going to be adverse effects on the horse racing industry, which provides a lot of jobs for a lot of people. The member for Fort Erie and I were discussing, along with other members in the peninsula, the importance of the Fort Erie track to the Niagara Peninsula and that many of the people who have an opportunity to work in that particular venue were in fact people who were grooming the horses, looking after the horses -- they love them -- were people who perhaps didn't have some of the skills that will be required for other jobs. She was talking about the importance of that. Casino gambling is going to adversely affect that. It is also going to be taking away money from the local charities, the local volunteer organizations that have little fund-raising nights. That is where the money is going to be drawn away.

I cannot think of a good reason why particularly an NDP government would proceed with this. If it were Social Credit, I might understand it. If it were perhaps an extreme right-wing or libertarian party, I might understand it.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Yes, but they've given up all their principles.

Mr Bradley: Maybe that's what we're dealing with, says the member for Brampton South. But I am disappointed that my friends in the NDP have not persuaded the Premier, at one time one of the greatest opponents of casino gambling, to abandon that.

Some of the other issues that we're dealing with these days: I am getting an awful lot of telephone calls at my constituency office about a number of items. I'm very pleased that the people call to express their point of view and that they write to me to make some positive suggestions on what the government might do to govern in a different way in this province.

1630

One of the things they're very concerned about is the increased cost to seniors. I'm getting several calls. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the member for Halton North, the member for Brampton South, the member for Etobicoke West, we're all getting calls from seniors who are concerned that they're seeing some very significant increases in the cost of care within nursing homes and other homes. They're seeing these jumps coming all at once and that makes it mighty difficult.

I think I'm going to be getting some more quotes from Tommy Douglas in just a moment. The member from Scarborough will get those for me. But I'm concerned about that.

Our House leader, Mr Elston, the member for Bruce, today raised the issue that there's a lot of concern out there, naturally in the community that I represent, about the whole issue of the court system, how clogged the court system is and how what is transpiring out there ends up in plea bargaining and other things happening.

These matters are before the court today, so I'm not going to get into the details of those when they're before the court, but I simply want to share that I know my other colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula are getting telephone calls as well from people on this issue. As I say, we're always interested to know what the people are saying.

I want to go back to Tommy Douglas, because as I say, New Democrats in this House, when they sat on this side, used to quote Tommy extensively. Tommy represented at one time a Saskatchewan riding. He was defeated there fighting for something he believed in. Then he went to Burnaby-Coquitlam, I believe was the riding at one time, and he was defeated on that occasion. But Tommy always, as he said, would much rather be defeated fighting for something he believed in than get elected standing for nothing at all.

Here's what Tommy had to say about matters. I think government members might be interested in this. He said, "If there is to be a leisure class in our society, let it be the men and women who have already contributed so much to the building of Canada." That sounds like senior citizens to me. I'm going to read that again, "If there is to be a leisure class in our society, let it be the men and women who have already contributed so much to the building of Canada."

So Tommy, along with Stanley Knowles, for instance, who was always a defender of senior citizens, these two well-respected people within the party, felt that it was important to defend the interests of senior citizens. Now we see that you're going to take away their ability to receive prescription drugs out of the drug plan, so it's going to cost them a lot more money. We see that you're going to charge them more in the nursing homes, and now they're going to have to pay that tax on insurance.

I wonder, when I see some of the measures being brought down, what Tommy would think, because I'm going to quote him again. This is from a book called Tommy Douglas Speaks. It's right in our own legislative library, by L.D. Lovick, and it's got some excellent photographs of Tommy. Here's what he had to say. He's talking about the NDP government in Saskatchewan:

"The philosophy of this government is 'humanity first.' We believe that the measure of any community is the amount of social and economic security which it provides for even its humblest citizens."

When I see the NDP government beginning to remove services from the humblest of its citizens, begin to talk about means tests, which used to be considered to be mean tests as opposed to means tests by members of the New Democratic Party, I wonder whether we actually have an NDP government or whether it's Social Credit. I really don't know, but Tommy said that, and I again say that Tommy was a person who was extremely well respected, not only in the NDP, but I think fair-minded, middle-of-the-road people in all political parties probably believe that Tommy Douglas was on the right track when he said that.

There's another quote here that my friend from Agincourt has found on page 263. He said: "The marvellous thing about New Democrats and about democratic socialists is that we are more than a political party. We are a great family bound together by common ideals and common objectives and a common dedication to a cause."

When I was looking at that, how common they were, I then picked up the latest Maclean's magazine and it said, "So Long, Solidarity." Then I picked up Rob Martin's articles where he's critical of the government, a strong New Democrat in the London area, and Michael Davison and others, and I began to wonder if indeed it's not just another political party, because I think many of us who listened to the speeches of our good Premier, the Rhodes Scholar -- I listened to his speeches and I thought, my gosh, the NDP was different. I suspect any who have once been in the NDP and have left the NDP for whatever reason may feel that at one time the NDP stood for those things. As I say, whether you agreed or didn't agree with them, you knew where they stood.

Practicality has taken over, and so when I read in here that it's not just a political party, well, you know, if Tommy were around today, I think he would be very much disappointed in what he had found because: "The marvellous thing about New Democrats and about democratic socialists is that we are more than a political party. We are a great family bound together by common ideals and common objectives and a common dedication to a cause."

I'm looking at all the ramifications of the policies that have been brought down by this government lately. The Lincoln County Board of Education and other boards of education have faxed letters to us saying that they're in total jeopardy now, total anarchy as a result of the provisions of Bill 48 that just passed the Legislature. I know that local agencies are now phoning to ask, "Where do we stand in this regard?"

Mr Callahan: Children's aid societies.

Mr Bradley: The children's aid societies, or family and children services, as it's known in our area.

Those ramifications are showing up, and I suspect in the next few weeks the letters and the telegrams, if there's such a thing any more, and certainly the faxes and the telephone calls are going to be coming in fast and furious to members of this government to ask them what they're going to do about the next wrinkle.

That's why the Liberal Party opposed that piece of legislation, because we thought it was fatally flawed from the beginning. It would have been easy to vote for restraint. That's always the easy to thing to do. You say: "Oh yes, we'll get on the bandwagon. We'll vote for restraint no matter what because we don't want to be perceived to be against restraint." Well, everybody is for very careful expenditures, value for the dollar, restraint in the appropriate areas, but this bill from the beginning was fatally flawed, and that's why I was proud to stand in this House both on second and third reading and vote against that bill.

I thank members for their kind attention this afternoon and look forward to any comments that might be forthcoming.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Questions and/or comments?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just want to take a couple of minutes. I always enjoy the light-hearted comments on the part of my colleague from across the way, Mr Jim Bradley. It's always most interesting to listen to his way of putting things across in a most jocular manner, but I think in a highly politically charged way.

I would remind the member of a couple of things, first of all that the whole tone of debate he took this afternoon I thought was one to minimize the problem we're facing as Ontarians and that we're facing as Canadians.

I think the member knows quite well that if you look across this country, there is a very big problem that every province has to deal with, as well as the federal government, in terms of what's happened to our economy. We can debate ad infinitum the reasons that has happened. I think most people can draw those conclusions themselves. But the problem we have is trying to deal with a very real problem, and I'm sure the member for St Catharines would agree that you have to do something.

The thing that struck me about the position you took was that on the one hand you're saying you're in favour of constraint, "But don't do constraint, because anything that looks like constraint is going against the principles of the New Democratic Party." I remind you that we have to be practical in our approaches to dealing with some very difficult problems.

I would also remind you that Tommy Douglas, when he became Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, basically took an approach of trying to wrestle with the very real problem that was happening within the economy of Saskatchewan. It took some 17 years to build up enough money within the treasury to move on medicare. So I appreciate the debate from the member, but I would only say that it was fairly highly charged politically, with regard to his comment, and I appreciate his response.

1640

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Callahan: It was interesting to hear the member for St Catharines talk about Tommy Douglas, because Tommy Douglas truly was a person who cared, yet I watch this government talking about the education amendments where it's going to eliminate care for the hard-to-serve, the learning-disabled, this government that voted with the Conservatives, when the Mental Health Act was being amended, to absolutely deny to schizophrenics and their parents the ability to look after their loved ones. I find that amazing, absolutely amazing, and all in the name of constraint.

They're going to eliminate some 900 jobs for court reporters. Some 90% of them are women, single-parent families. The NDP always talked about being in favour of women and single parents. What are they doing about it? They're eliminating it. The Attorney General hasn't even got the guts to put it through here as a bill. She'll probably do it by regulation. These people will lose their jobs.

There are librarians in the correctional system who are going to lose their jobs. They're women. They're probably the only buttress for people in the correctional centres so that they can get some literacy.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Are you speaking to what Bradley said? Speak to what Bradley said.

Mr Callahan: Well, you talk to the Attorney General about it. You find out about these things they're doing: cost constraints. Why don't you take away some of the rights for inmates as opposed to taking away their opportunities for literacy? Maybe if we can get them literate -- there are 40,000 people who are illiterate in my riding. I'd love to know what kinds of moneys you've cut back from that program. You probably see that as unnecessary.

I'll tell you something. The member for St Catharines was dead on. Tommy Douglas would find your type of New Democratic policy totally objectionable, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, the honourable member for St Catharines has two minutes to make a response.

Mr Bradley: I have a couple of further comments from Tommy Douglas here that perhaps would respond to some of these things, because I really enjoy quoting Tommy.

He reminds me of some of the interruptions in this House. He said the following: "I do not mind the interruptions, Mr Speaker. There is an old saying in the north that if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs and one yelps, you have hit something." Whenever one is able to provoke a reaction, Tommy said, that's what's going to happen.

Because the member for Cochrane South was concerned about whether I recognize the seriousness of the situation, I want to quote Tommy Douglas again on this. Tommy cautioned against panic. He said the following: "A recession is when your neighbour has to tighten his belt. A depression is when you have to tighten your own belt. And a panic is when you have no belt to tighten and your pants fall down."

My suggestion is that that's what happened in this circumstance, that all of a sudden there was a turn -- I don't know if I'm supposed to say a 360-degree turn; at least a 180-degree turn -- on the part of the government. They appeared to be fighting the recession by trying to create jobs, and said that was important; they were going to fight unemployment and the recession and not worry that much about restraint.

It seems to me one of two things happened. The panic set in either after they watched the program on New Zealand on W5 -- that appears to be when it set in -- or they became spooked by the people in New York City, the lenders who said, "Your rating's going to go down a notch if you dare to do something other than what we dictate."

I think Tommy was probably right when he said, "Yes, you have to deal with a recession and, yes, you have to deal with a depression, but don't panic." This piece of legislation we had is a true sign of that panic.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I always enjoy following my friend from St Catharines, who I think offered an interesting speech. It is true that he tends to be jocular in nature but somewhat biting, one of the few things I can agree with the member from Cochrane about.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Middlesex is heckling again. I think she's still upset about the humour course.

We're talking about $16,000 million. That's how much this government is going out to borrow. They call it $16 billion. It's kind of neat to talk about it as $16,000 million. It kind of brings it down to a level that more of us can comprehend.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: No, I'm not saying it just for me; I think just for the general public out there. When you start talking about $16 billion, to the member for Middlesex, it's all such a huge number that they really can't equate it to their everyday life. Unlike yourself: Being the wealthy, independent person you are, you can probably equate $16 billion more easily than most of the taxpayers, but it sounds a little more interesting at $16,000 million because it is a little simpler to equate for the average taxpayer.

It's interesting that we're debating this bill today, the day after the social contract came through. The little episode up top was rather interesting to see: The New Democrats' supporters in previous years and at least during the last election came in here and so vociferously and vehemently condemned this government for its position on the social contract. It was very interesting. It makes you think that quite possibly, come next election, we could be in for some very interesting dynamics in this province. Maybe we will just see a rather significant split in this party, a party that may split off with its academic, eclectic sorts: the professors and so on, and the Stephen Lewises and the Bob Raes, the wealthy New Democrats who have done rather well through their lives and have come to this party in search of a certain vision. Maybe they'll separate from the rank-and-file union people who have supported this party so much in the way of workers and dollars and cents and so on and so forth.

I'm going to find it somewhat interesting, come 1995, to see exactly how that decision yesterday -- I think that decision yesterday was historic, very historic. It was historic because we saw a great chasm, a split, take place within this party. Tommy Douglas himself, as we just heard, said they were a family. If they were a family, they've just had their dirty laundry hung out very, very publicly yesterday, with a split that probably hasn't been seen or may never be seen again. I look forward to the election in 1995 -- I don't think we'll be going any sooner -- and seeing exactly what effect that decision will have.

Mr Callahan: That's what yesterday was all about, Chris, two years of solid work. They don't have to go back out into the rain or do any heavy lifting.

Mr Stockwell: The member from Brampton makes his point. But I think it will be very curious in 1995 to see exactly how that decision will affect the rank-and-file members of the NDP.

Mr Callahan: You will be on the unemployment line. You gave away a principle. I am ashamed of you.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Those have got to be your favourite words. I am ashamed of you; I am ashamed every time you say those words.

Mr Callahan: You've got no principles.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): You've more positions than Masters and Johnson, for heaven's sake.

Mr Callahan: That is a sexist comment, I think.

Mr Stockwell: It's not a sexist comment. It's got to be the oldest joke in the world. We'll just assume that Ed heard it very recently. Let us move on.

I say to the members in the House today that there's been much talk about the reality of the fiscal situation we're in; thereby, this reality has forced the social contract. I suppose there could be a scintilla --

Mr David Winninger (London South): A scintilla.

Mr Stockwell: I just said that; the member from London is now correcting me -- of reason given for that thought. If there were any history within this party of having any concern at all about the public debt, about government spending and about fiscal reality; if this government, when it was in opposition, had offered up alternatives or solutions that would have reduced government spending or reduced debt, then there could be a degree of support of believability with respect to the social contract.

The very difficult task this government has is that when in opposition, never ever was enough, enough. Never ever were expenditures acceptable. Whenever anyone brought forward a recommendation on government spending, it was never enough. That was the criticism, "More, more, more,"and if you didn't give them more, you didn't care. You didn't care about the poor, you didn't care about the seniors, you didn't care about the working poor, you didn't care about the common folk, the people in the province of Ontario.

1650

So although you've made the argument, and the member for Cochrane made it once again, that there's a fiscal reality out there that you have to deal with, it rings hollow, in my opinion, because of your 50 years of history on the issue. Your 50 years of history were: "Damn the torpedoes. Spend all you can do. Tax the rich. Tax the corporations." If you read Agenda for People, how was this government going to pay for the promises that it made? Through increased taxes on the rich, minimum corporate taxes etc.

I find it a rather shallow argument to make that all of a sudden you people have found fiscal reality; you people are now fiscally responsible; you people are now the saviours of the taxpayers' dollars. Having said that, since they've become fiscal champions, while becoming a fiscal champion, you must give up the principles that you held so dear to your heart in opposition, because you can't be both. You can't be fiscal taxpaying champions and spenders and spenders and spenders. It just doesn't add up. If you're going to spend a ton of money, you've got to tax it to get it. If you don't tax it, you've got to borrow it.

So we've got a clash. We've got a really serious clash here. The clash is the reality of money versus the reality of the social problems and concerns that this government feels we have in the province today. I think that argument itself is somewhat shallow. I know from my friend the member for St Catharines -- I talk around this province to a number of people, including Mr Bruce Williamson, "Booty" as they call him. He often writes to me.

I've received a letter or so in the past about the concerns that he has around this place. He's one person who in fact was a printer, worked at the local newspaper and now is retired and spends a great deal of his time watching the goings-on at this place. I think he himself would admit -- Booty would say that the transformation to power has been astounding. The transformation of this party, once in power, has been astounding.

But I will say that they still haven't taken on the financial responsibility of admitting that some of this problem was their fault. They still insist on blaming the federal Conservatives and the transfer payments. I think there is some concern there. I think the federal government reduced its transfer payments. They capped them; that's what they did. They capped them at X and they didn't go on financing them ad infinitum. I also believe there was a deficit left by the Liberals. I don't think anyone would say there wasn't. Even the Liberals will say they left a deficit and they ran up some debt, and the Conservatives before them ran up some debt.

But what this government still has not accepted is how completely wrongheaded that first budget it introduced was. This government, in the eyes of the beginning of the worst recession since the Depression, ran up a $13-billion deficit. They've institutionalized double-digit deficits. They've institutionalized expenditures that can't be kept up with. They've run up in their two or three years some $35 billion in government debt. Now they tell us, after spending $35 billion they don't have, they're facing the fiscal realities that this government must accept.

Again it's a rather shallow argument. If truly this party wants to really admit why we're in the crisis we're in today, it was some dumb, stupid financial decisions made by the powers that be in the front benches of that government.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Middlesex would know full well they stood here and their Treasurer said, "We've chosen to fight the recession, not the deficit."

Mr Callahan: And we're going to be spot on, eh?

Mr Stockwell: And he hasn't been spot on yet. What came of that? What came of that was the world bankers, the moneylenders out there told this government, "You either better clean up your act or we're not lending you any more money." What came of that? The social contract.

Don't tell me that this opposition party or the general public brought this government to its knees and forced it to realize it was in a fiscal mess. We all know who brought them to their knees. Who brought you to your knees were the world bankers because they told you, "You're in a mess and we're not lending you any more money." That's what brought you to your knees. That's what brought this government to its knees.

We face now today an episode like yesterday and the social contract vote that, in my opinion, has split this party in irreconcilable differences. In fact you may well see a petition before the courts in not too many years that will guarantee the separation -- irreconcilable differences.

The irreconcilable differences are that one section of this government wants to go and run up the debt and the other section, small be it but the front benchers, has realized, finally, that you can't spend money you don't have.

That's how we get to borrowing $16,000 million, but if they came forward today and admitted a clean slate and said, "Yes, we made some bold, bold mistakes in those first two budgets," I would agree with them. You know what? I'd work with them to try and put this situation back in order.

But rather than coming forward and making the admission that those first two budgets were a horrendous mistake --

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): They weren't a horrendous mistake.

Mr Stockwell: You see, they still don't admit they were a horrendous mistake: $25 billion spent in money they didn't have; the social contract that's ripping this party apart; unemployment rates at 15%; an economy that is just absolutely dead; the most minor of growth projections are being quashed by this $2-billion tax grab, and they still don't admit that those two budgets were a mistake. So they bring in their third budget which calls for this $16,000-million loan.

The third budget, rather than admitting the faults and laying it on the table for the people to see, is full of jiggery-pokery: crown corporations set up to move debt off your books; crown corporations set up to move employees off your books; asking municipalities and school boards to borrow money on your behalf and you'll pay them back in 20 years. It's jiggery-pokery. It's smoke and mirrors. Why? Because they still haven't admitted those first two budgets were a horrendous mistake and they're in a financial mess.

Further to that, the social contract: My prediction is this social contract may well save you people $2 billion but it is not saving your partners $2 billion.

I put to the member for Oxford when he was answering the questions in place of the Treasurer -- and I think he did an admirable job, as well as can be expected considering the complexity of that bill -- the entire social contract is based on pay pause days. That's a big grab for money.

I said to the member for Oxford at that time, "Sir, who of these people are considered critical and will not be forced to take pay pause days, then ultimately thus be paid off three years later, thereby deferring the cost?" The member for Oxford tried his best, but he finally had to admit: "We don't know. We don't know who's critical. We don't know who's going to have their cost deferred."

They don't know how much money they're saving. That's the admission, as bald-faced as it is, as unbelievable as it is. They don't know how much money they're saving. They're saving $2 billion, but what about their partners?

Let me give you an example. The Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, 5,000 policemen, they can't get their holidays as it is. They can't get their time off they have now. They're too busy. Now you're going to say to them, "You have to take 12 more additional days on top of the days that you don't get."

It will come as no surprise come August 1 that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force will be classified as critical. What does "critical" mean? The member for Oxford knows what critical means. I think the Speaker knows what critical means. I know the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who I thank for the water, knows what critical means. It means you won't get the 12 pay pause days, so come 1996, you're going to have 5,000 cops in Metropolitan Toronto with 36 pay pause days in the bank. Now, they've got 36 pay pause days in the bank and you owe them the money. You don't, of course; your partners owe them the money, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Where are the savings? That's not a saving. that's called a deferral.

1700

If I could have sat in this House yesterday and voted on the social contract, knowing full well there were $2 billion in savings on a long-term basis, I would have supported it. I tell you now that I would have supported it. I believe in it. Check my record. I believe in cutting government. I believe in cutting the costs. But I'm not going to pull the wool over the eyes of the constituents and I'm not passing down government responsibility to my partners to pick up the costs for it. I thought you believed that too last election. Come 1996, when you go down to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, every cop's going to have 36 pay pause days. What do you say to them? The Treasurer says, "They can take their days off come 1996." That's what the member for Oxford said.

I say to you, if they can't get the days off in the three years this thing is in place, how the hell are you going to take them off come 1996? So what do they say? They say this. This is their answer. This is how shortsighted this piece of legislation is. Do you want to know how shortsighted this is? They suggested that come 1996 -- and the response -- they'll hire somebody to take the cop's place who's going on holidays. Where's the savings there? This is the narrow, shortsighted, backward logic this kind of legislation puts in place.

What do we say to that? That's one example, just the police force in Metropolitan Toronto. What about all the other cops in this province?

Mr Phillips: What about the firemen?

Mr Stockwell: What about firemen? They've got banked holidays coming out of their ears. Every municipality has problems with their firemen and banked holidays. If you sat on any municipal council, you'd know that. What about those people who look after the seniors in senior citizens' buildings? They're mandated. What about day care workers? You mandated day care workers. How do you take a pay pause day when you mandate they've got to be at work? Where do they get the savings there? There isn't a saving.

What about teachers? What are you going to say? Their pay pause days come in July? What is that? That's going to be their pay pause day. I don't think the teachers are going to like that and I don't think they'll agree to it. In some estimates, and I speak to this directly, municipalities have said that as many as 58% of our staff are mandated critical workers. They can't take a day off. Where are the savings for the municipalities? Do you know who they include? Who do you want to take a holiday, I say to the member for Oxford? A cop? A fireman? An ambulance driver? The mechanic who fixes the ambulance? The senior citizen's nurse? Who do you want? The day care worker? Who do you want to take the holiday? The TTC? We'll shut them down for a day. Who takes the holiday? There is no holiday.

But they get their $2 billion and come 1996, I say in this House today, and I hope I'm here to measure the correctness of this statement, municipalities, school boards and hospitals will owe $3 billion in pay pause days. So of your $6 billion you save, you only save $3 billion and you pass $1 billion on to your partners in sharing. This is Bill 48.

I've been wanting to give this speech for a couple of days because I think --

Mr Sutherland: What about the loan act?

Mr Stockwell: This is all part of the loan act. This is why you're borrowing money, because of these kinds of things. What are they going to do with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board? It just reeks of absolute stupidity. It reeks of stupidity. Here it comes. How much money do you transfer to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board in transfer payments? It doesn't take long to calculate the figure: nothing. You've included them in your social contract. You're going to phone the Metropolitan Toronto School Board come July 1 -- you've probably placed the call already -- and you're going to say to them, "Send me a cheque for $90 million." That's what you're going to do.

Mr Perruzza: No, $96 million.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, $96 million. Can you imagine the absolute, breathtaking, how ironic this is? My taxes on my home, that I'm supposed to clear the streets and put out fires and educate my children with, will be sent to the province of Ontario to pay off your debt; my home owner taxes to pay your debt. We've got the Metropolitan Toronto School Board subsidizing the province of Ontario. That's unbelievable.

I don't know what they're saying. Mr Cooke, the Minister of Education and Training, stands up and he says the Metropolitan Toronto School Board will agree. I've seen the quotes from the senior bureaucrats of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. Their quote to Mr Cooke is, "Over my dead body will you get this money."

The property taxpayer in Metropolitan Toronto, and Ottawa I might add, will then come forward to subsidize your lavish expenditures, your spending in the past two years and your irresponsible fiscal attitude. That's who gets to subsidize you: my taxpayers, my home owners. I know this party believes one thing, because I've heard them say it a number of times, over and over again: If there's one form of regressive tax, it's the tax on homes. It's not based on the ability to pay. So you know what you're going to do? Single mothers, senior citizens, the lowest income people now are going to pay for your social contract because it was drafted hastily, without thought and without amendment. Where's the fairness in that? There's no fairness. This is your social contract.

I believe in reduction of government. I believe we could have reached a deal. I believe we could have come to a conclusion that maybe would have been painful. I'm not saying it wouldn't be. Of course it is. But this is nuts. This is lunacy. This is just something haphazardly put together because Bob Rae watched W5 one night. That's what this is based on. This is what it's based on.

Here we are with $16,000 million more being borrowed at the taxpayers' expense. Here we go with $3 billion transferred from your spending to your partners in pain, and they will accept your debts that you've spent the money for. Here we have local municipalities paying their home owner taxes to subsidize your spending. Where's the fairness? Where's the thought? Where's the reason? Where are the amendments? Where are the socialists? Where have they gone? I don't see any any more. I have no idea where they went.

No socialist I know would raise taxes on homes on a regressive tax and take that money and pay down a provincial debt. No socialist I know would do that. No socialist I know would take $3 billion of government spending at a provincial level and transfer it to municipalities. No socialist I know would do that. No socialist I know would take a time during the worst recession and look at laying off upwards of 16,000 people so they can line up in the unemployment rolls. No socialist I know would do that. Whether it's 16,000 or 5,000; 16,000 was the figure; I will equate it back to 5,000. But nobody I know, no socialist, would do that during the worst recession.

What are the alternatives? I can only say my alternative to the social contract was very simple: a 5% rollback; everybody shares the pain, case closed. It's the only fair way. It's not going to be nice, it's not going to be pleasant, but it's the only reasonable answer to the mess that you created with $35 billion in government debt.

You say to me that somebody under $30,000 shouldn't be paying 5%. I say everybody's got to pay. We are in such an economic crisis everybody better get on board and join the club, because we're broke.

Hon Mr Allen: That's the crudity of your politics.

Mr Stockwell: It may be. The suggestion from the member from Hamilton is that's the crudity of my politics. I say to you, sir, I don't believe in having taxpayers subsidize you and your spending from a municipal level. Home ownership taxes shouldn't be used to subsidize your spending. I also say to you that I don't think $3 billion should be transferred to your partners, because you've introduced a bill that they can't put the people on pay pause days. It may be crude, it may be difficult and it may be painful, but you know what? It's fair. Everybody pays the same. Your system isn't fair. It's not fair at all. What's fair in your system?

1710

So we've come to borrowing $16,000 million today, $16 billion. We asked in this party for some amendments that weren't taken up. I continue to go back to that document I like to read sometimes, the Agenda for People.

Mr Phillips: This is the property tax one you were mentioning.

Mr Stockwell: There we go. Here's a quote in Agenda for People; I thank the member from Scarborough.

"The cost of this initiative over the next two years would be $1.5 billion. That's also the $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 what I believe you wanted to do. I think that's a fair statement. What you're doing in Bill 48 is exactly opposite to what you said here. What you're doing in Bill 48 is prolonging pay pause days for cops, ambulance drivers -- a whole list of them, 58% of them. You're saying to the municipalities and school boards and hospitals, "In 1996, you pick up your share, you pay them the $3 billion, and you put it on the property tax bill." Further to that, you're asking Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers and taxpayers in Ottawa -- seniors, single mothers, the working poor -- to subsidize the social contract by sending you money, because you don't transfer them any transfer payments.

We can see how far they've come. And it comes to the end of my time, Mr Speaker. I thank you for keeping the House in order. I can understand why they don't agree. I can understand why it bothers them to hear this, and I'm certain it's going to bother them in the future.

I'll tell you, I'm not the only one saying this. This comes from all angles. You saw them yesterday. Those aren't my supporters. Believe it of not, Sid Ryan's not my supporter. Liz Barkley's not my supporter. It's not like I brought these people in to heckle you. I didn't. They've never supported me. They've probably never supported this party. They supported you, and they supported you because of this. You've gone so counter -- 180 degrees, as the member for St Catharines said -- that your legislation on Bill 48 is absolutely unfair; completely unfair.

I thank the members opposite for listening and I certainly look forward to any questions or comments that may be coming.

Mr Perruzza: To respond to a couple of the member's comments, the one about the social contract not being fair and what he would do, the 5% rollback across the board, he talked about the horrendous mistakes this government has made in the past, and I guess history will tell the tale on the performance of this government vis-à-vis the economy, vis-à-vis getting people back to work, vis-à-vis getting the finances of this place in order and in shape from the shambles and the ruins we inherited.

But I'll just quote a couple of the truly horrendous mistakes, the ones that history has already checked off as truly horrendous, that were made by the former Conservative government. You remember William Davis's establishment of Suncor, the bottomless pit where the then government and subsequent government threw hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Darlington: Do you need to say any more? Produce electricity you'll never be able to sell to anybody, because nobody will ever be in demand of that kind of power. Mistake? That was a $16-billion mistake, a $16,000 million mistake. History has already chalked that one up as a horrendous mistake.

Then he says 5% across the board on the social contract because that's fair. A government that tries to give some local control, some local autonomy to try to develop fair, reasonable, local agreements: That's not fair? He says that's not fair.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Brampton South.

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: Don't. Please, not in my time, all right?

I'd like to pick up on the comments of the member from Etobicoke whatever it is. I think one of the things he missed saying was that this government, after hearing debates in this House, suddenly discovered, "Well, what do we do with these people who retire before the end of 1996?" They brought in an amendment and here's their answer to it. Their answer to it is, "These people will be able to take the money." Now, in addition to having 36 days during which time crooks will run rampant in Toronto in 1996, when you haven't got any police officers to look after it, fires will burn and rage because you won't have any firemen to look after it unless you're prepared to hire the people to fill the 36 days.

You know what I find really incredible? The most hypocritical thing of this government is the fact that they know they won't be here in 1996 to pick up the 52 cards. They're going to put it on my kids, my grandchildren, their grandchildren. They are prepared to do anything possible with the hopes, with the gamble that casino revenues, the thing they couldn't stand when they were in opposition -- and the only member, apparently, is Victoria-Haliburton, who rails against it -- they're hoping that the casino profits they will make will get them the money to pay for all this.

Finally, I have to say in closing that I find it passing strange that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Madam Bingo, doesn't know that a South African corporation is bidding on a casino contract. I'd like to know how much investigation she and the rest of you have done on the other bidders and we how can be certain that organized crime has not in fact infiltrated one of the bidders. If they can't tell South Africa's involved, how do they know the mob's not involved?

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: I first of all would like to compliment the member for Etobicoke West for his eloquence today, and I'd compliment him as well for the control he exhibited. If there was ever a time when a person pulled himself back and withheld the true outrage he felt, it was today. What you saw was just the very edge of the temper and the anger and the frustration and the deep sincerity that this gentleman has for what is good and right for the province of Ontario.

I compliment you as well, Mr Stockwell, for -- as you define it, $16,000 million, doesn't that change it? It really starts to make it look like a lot of money. I mean, a million dollars -- I was looking at the top 101 billionaires in the world today, and there are a couple who are close to it in Canada, but we're losing our share. In fact, the chance of anyone ever really earning a billion dollars in Canada unless we have a pile of inflation and some other things -- but the government will take it all back from you, they'll claw it away and there won't be anything left. The fact that you're talking about $16,000 million, and this government can come along and do that as if it's nothing. And the Liberals got in the habit before that; by the way, you also exhibited tremendous control in not accusing the Liberals of the tremendous wastefulness they perpetrated in the province of Ontario during their reign.

As we look at the total scene in the province of Ontario, let's start dealing with today and the present. What we have to do is that we're in this together to try to lead Ontario into the future. Indeed, the kind of leadership I saw from Mr Stockwell, the member for Etobicoke West, is exactly that. I thank him.

1720

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable member for Niagara Falls.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): The previous member has talked about his view of Ontario's fiscal situation. I'd like to show a slightly different or more profound view of Ontario's fiscal situation, and this is quoted from June 27 from the Catholic New Times.

It says Newfoundlanders have faced adversity and so have the farmers of Saskatchewan. "Now it is Ontario's turn "to face the adversity of the economy....it is not an abundance of resource that makes justice possible. It is the generous...sharing of whatever is available that invites justice and joy into human affairs.

"Are Ontarians ready for the task of dividing the diminishing public purse more justly?

"The government of Premier Bob Rae, from where we sit, seems to have some pretty good ideas about how to begin.

"First of all, it's good news that the government is encouraging all parties to preserve jobs and services, rather than to preserve higher salaries for fewer workers.

"Next, it's good to exempt the lowest-paid workers," those earning $30,000 or less.

"It's also good that unions are being treated as crucial social agents.... Union leaders have not...become irrelevant.

"On the contrary, this government" prefers "negotiated agreements to unilateral solutions. And the law sets strict limits on the extent to which signed collective agreements can be 'opened.' ...this process is not 'designed to destroy collective bargaining.'...

"Ontario's government is treating the views of workers as an essential voice in society's conversation about its future....

"There is pain ahead for our whole society, so long addicted to easy affluence."

And the conclusions?

"...we who are believers" face "the challenge to do better with less: to share more radically. We can help our entire society meet the present challenge without bitterness and without fear -- although not, of course, without struggle."

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Etobicoke West has two minutes in reply.

Mr Stockwell: To the member for Niagara Falls: I understand that position that you enunciated by the -- I didn't catch the organization --

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): You don't want a --

Mr Stockwell: The member for Middlesex, the humour course is coming up, so don't worry.

I can only say that I just don't agree with them. I don't agree with their opinion or their philosophy -- I don't think it's the best route to go -- as I don't agree with the government, and that's the beauty of democracy.

The member for Markham: Again he's his eloquent best and I have nothing more to add to that.

The member for Brampton South: There is some concern with respect to getting the money at the end of the day. I don't think there's an answer to that. I think in the future it will bear out the fact that the $6 billion is a bit of a ruse. There is no $6 billion. It may be $3 billion, but the real $6 billion is saved over there. The partners will have to pick up the additional $3 billion.

The member for Downsview: I just want to comment quickly. Suncor: huge mistake, I agree, bad, bad mistake. Darlington: big mistake, I agree, shouldn't have been done. Casino gambling: My position on casino gambling was I'm pretty much in favour. I think there should be a split: money left in the community, money taken out by the operator, money given to the province of Ontario. I'm not a huge opponent of casino gambling.

I won't defend some of the decisions made by Bill Davis, and probably John Robarts and Leslie Frost, all of them. What I'm trying to say to you, though, is, based on the 43 years of their government, I think it was pretty well governed. I think we had a pretty good province. I think they did a pretty good job. I don't think there was ever a time in the public opinion polls where our governments, any governments --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: You can't hear me and be yelling at me at the same time.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Etobicoke West has a very short time to respond.

Mr Stockwell: I don't think that they did a bad job in their 43 years; I think they did a pretty good job. I also think that never in those 40 years of governments was their popularity as low as yours is today, and I think that should be very indicative to you and your government exactly how wrong the people think you are in the tack you're taking.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): For those who perhaps might be watching this scintillating debate at home, I just want to underline again that we are debating today the loan act, which will enable the province to borrow $16 billion between now and December 1994.

I think it's important to point out that the need for the provincial government to avail itself of access to capital markets through the public markets and through the Canada pension plan is not in dispute. It enables the amortization of capital equipment in facilities, investment in our schools, in our roads, in our hospitals, in our sewers, in our water facilities and other capital programs.

I think it's fair, though, to point out that in order to borrow and in order to borrow at an appropriate rate, the government must have credibility not only in national but in international capital markets. The money will be available to finance the borrowing needs of the province not only from domestic sources but from international sources, and that has been very clear and very much a part of our history over a period of time. Indeed, over the past five years, the province of Ontario has done some imaginative financing in European markets. That began with the Treasurer between 1985 and 1990, when borrowings in Canadian dollars in the British market, by example, were first introduced.

It's very clear that there are no international borders left in financial markets, that the computer, the fax, the international financial news media etc provide the assurance that whether one is in Tokyo, New York, London, Munich or downtown Toronto, one knows and makes investment decisions based on the immediate news of the time.

International markets, capital markets, work 24 hours a day. There is no difference in terms of access to information about what is on the agenda and how well the fiscal management of the province is operating. Therefore, the credibility of the fiscal plan in this province is paramount and is being judged by experts not only down the road on Bay Street or a block away -- the investor who, himself or herself, wants to invest in provincial bonds -- but by international experts in many centres of the globe.

The management of the fiscal plan is judged on a daily basis and analysed on a daily basis by people who are experts and who are reviewing the fiscal and financial capabilities and management of many, many other government jurisdictions, and the credibility of Ontario's plans has to be placed side by side with those.

The current fiscal plan, as you know, calls for a $10-billion deficit. The fiscal plan of 1992-93 ended with a $12-billion deficit. The bottom line on that particular fiscal plan changed three times during the implementation of that plan. Since this government came into power, there has been $35 billion of new debt added to our fiscal problem, new deficit added on an annual basis and added to the long-term debt of the province.

In each case, in each fiscal plan that has been presented to the Legislature by this government, both the revenue and the expenditure projections were singularly off base. They were not spot on as the Treasurer indicated to us last year, and the credibility of the fiscal management has clearly been brought into disrepute.

I'm going to speak to that in a couple of areas, but it seems to me that, for the most part, the projections have been singularly out of whack on the revenue side of the budget. If we look at the 1992-93 budget plan and what the interim or final results were of that plan, we find that the Treasurer miscalculated the revenue sources by some $3 billion.

One of the reasons this revenue source was so badly miscalculated was that the government decreased confidence through its actions in business investment. It created a climate for business investment that in fact was a dilatory one. Whether it was the labour legislation bill that certainly assured that the business community would hesitate about expanding its existing operations or about creating new investment -- that was certainly one of the actions.

But there were other signals as well, not the least of which was the decision of the government to eliminate the private sector, the independent operator, from the delivery of child care. We have seen another reiteration of that very same kind of ideological approach in the government's announcement of last week that the private sector in the delivery of home care will be eliminated to 10% of market share.

Those two actions on their own, and there are many others I could name, provide signals that this government is anti-business and anti-private sector. Its decisions in those areas have been made in an unpredictable way. They have been made on ideology and not on analysis of health outcomes -- by example, the case of the home care decision -- not on the basis of whether the service can be better delivered in one sector or another, but on the basis simply of ideology and not on the basis of what in fact are the needs of the province.

1730

As well, those decisions have indicated very clearly that the government is prone to making decisions in the absence of expert advice and that it lacks the competence to do so. I want to move on to that in a few minutes as I move into my remarks.

In 1992-93, the revenue projections were out by $2.7 billion. That very stunning report by the Treasurer provided a major signal of the mismanagement of the fiscal plan to the capital investment community, not only, as I say, on Bay Street but in Tokyo and Munich and London and New York.

There's another trend as well, however, that I find particularly disturbing. I'm not certain this trend has been brought to the floor of the Legislature earlier in this or other debates, but each NDP budget so far has added significant numbers to the operating deficit, to the budgetary requirements of the province. In other words, we are adding to the budgetary requirements not only capital borrowing needs, but we are adding current operating needs, not only to the current deficit but to the long-term debt.

This year, the operating deficit is predicted to be $6 billion. Last year, it was predicted to be $8.3 billion. In fact, the operating deficit last year was superseded by $2.3 billion. In other words, the Treasurer's projections on operating were $2.3 billion out.

If I can take that operating deficit argument to an understandable level, to indicate why it's a dangerous trend, I'd like to do so. If one owns a home and has a mortgage on it, one mortgages the capital requirements for the home, the borrowing, perhaps some interest involved in it. One does not add the cost of the groceries that one puts on the table in the home to the mortgage that one takes out on the house. In this case, the government is in fact doing that. It's covering the cost of the groceries as it's paying for the cost of the facility that houses those groceries.

I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that with this policy of the government to continue to borrow and add to our long-term debt significant operating expenditures, the government is borrowing for the papers, the pens and the pencils, the oil and gas for the vehicles, as well as for the schools in which those papers and pens are used and the vehicles in which the gas is placed.

That trend is one that is dangerous. If there is a signal of any competence from the federal government, it is that Michael Wilson in his term of office as Finance minister in fact brought that operating expenditure scenario under control. In the previous government to this, the operating expenditure was brought under control. There was no borrowing done for operating purposes under the last government.

What is happening now is that there are no assets left for a significant portion of the borrowing capacity of the province. I expect the Treasurer would find absolutely nothing wrong with my analysis here, to the member for Middlesex. In fact, he would concur with my analysis of the situation. Last year, the budgetary requirements were $11 billion; $8 billion of that money was for operating purposes. In other words, there is no asset left at the end of the borrowing period to cover the borrowing requirements. The money's been spent, it's gone and there is nothing left to show for the expenditure.

I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature some of the ways the government has mispredicted not only in its longer-term predictions with respect to the fiscal plan, but in the management of ongoing and very current issues. To do that, I want to refer to some documents that have been on the table during the social contract discussions and the kinds of decisions that have been made with respect to fiscal and financial management, particularly on the expenditure side of the budget, having already spoken to the revenue side.

We know that doctors in Ontario, through a combination of the expenditure control plan and the social contract plan, will be asked to take a cut of some $400 million, actually closer to $500 million, in terms of their activities. That cut is going to be reflected in services that are provided to people.

To illustrate how predictions were made about where those cuts should be, I want to refer to a particular section of the social contract paper. First of all, the expenditure control paper provided an indication, in the first instance, that ophthalmologists and optometrists would be limited to providing one eye examination per person per year.

Questions were asked by those who are delivering those services, and latterly, some information came forward that was spelled out further in a paper to the physicians, which only went to the physician component of the health care sector. That paper said that the eye code test for physicians would be de-insured and billing criteria for eye tests by optometrists would be tightened; the billing criteria for those would be tightened.

The government anticipated at that time, and it says, "It is anticipated that this will save $2.1 million in 1993-94." That is the paper, the document, that was put on the table.

We started to ask some questions, as did those who were affected by a decision that was in no way wrought, in no way put forward, in the context of any consultative process.

I give you, by example, what became a later decision, and that is that for optometrists the code under OHIP, called V402, which is the follow-up oculo-visual code, would be eliminated. The projected savings for eliminating that, according to OHIP, are $3.6 million. Indeed, in the social contract paper, the government hadn't even done its initial calculations of the savings correctly. The calculations of the savings of $2.1 million were in relationship to the elimination of code A0009, which is the oculo-visual assessment fee for GPs and family practitioners.

Here's another $3.6 million worth of savings that ought to have been on the table. Why weren't they there? Because they came totally out of the air. When optometrists met with health officials, including those from OHIP, and asked what the savings were that they were required to produce and where those savings would come from, they were told that their billings were approximately $80 million; 10% of that was approximately $8 million. The V402 code cost the province $8 million. Therefore, that code would be eliminated.

Now, the code cannot be eliminated. The reason it cannot be eliminated is simple. First of all, to eliminate that code interferes with the scope of practice of optometrists. Secondly, optometrists are included in Bill 94, which says that they cannot extra bill. So a necessary medical treatment, which the government threw in on the basis of grabbing figures out of the air, cannot be implemented. Where is the competence? Where is the appropriate approach? Where is the analysis? Where is the consultation in this kind of process?

1740

I could give you numerous other examples of such incompetence that were included and that have come forward very much in the past few weeks. I give you, by example, hospitals, which are being asked to reduce their expenditures by some $400 million through both the expenditure control and the social contract discussions; 54% of hospital workers work part-time. The government's analysis of those workers who work part-time does not take into account, by example, the nurse who may in fact be on call for four different hospitals.

This could be the case in Hamilton; I know the Minister of Labour, Mr Mackenzie, will attest to this. It certainly is the case in Toronto, in Ottawa, in London and other urban areas where there's no accounting for what the government's targets are, nor how these workers who will be critical workers will ultimately be hit by such incompetent analysis that's being put forward.

Those issues of competence and management of our economic resources are seen not only by those who deliver our services and those who are our so-called partners -- in my view, the government wants them to be silent partners here -- but those issues are seen and the competence is judged around the world.

The last area I want to go into is the analysis of what is the debt. The government is adding new agencies that will require capital borrowing from our schools, from our municipalities, from water and sewer agencies and so on. I have asked the Treasurer to include the bottom line of the new agency borrowing as part of a consolidated statement of debt of the province in order to ensure that the capital markets will have what is a true and appropriate picture of the borrowing needs of Ontario. The Treasurer has said no, and indeed the capital markets heard that he said no.

The availability and the cost of borrowing that's available to Ontario is totally dependent on the credibility of this government as it moves towards the capital markets and attempts to borrow money there. This government has a long way to go to prove its competence and its credibility to ensure that we'll be able to access those funds at an appropriate interest rate.

I appreciate being able to participate in this debate and look forward to hearing questions and comments.

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

Mr Sutherland: I'd just like to make a couple of comments in terms of wrapping up the debate. I want to thank all those who participated.

The only comment I want to make, a general comment, is that we've heard a lot of the opposition members say that this government has mismanaged how it's done things. I want to say that in three years, this government has implemented a lot of management principles that were not in existence for many different ministries and for many different sectors of delivery of public services, whether that be health or other areas, and I think this government's record can be very proud.

Predicting government revenues in these uncertain times is by no means any science. Many of our predictions are also based on what other levels of government and other professional indicators or professional people who do these types of projections are based on as well,and it's not an exact science when you're in these very, very unstable economic times. I'd like to wrap up the debate with that.

The Acting Speaker: No questions or comments. This is the wrapup of Bill 25.

Mr Sutherland has moved second reading. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

I do now leave the Speaker's chair, and the Legislature will be in committee of the whole.

House in committee of the whole.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)

Consideration of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Firefighters / Loi modifiant le Code de la route relativement aux pompiers auxiliaires.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): In relation to section 1 of the bill, subsections (12.1), (12.2), (12.3) and (12.4) of the Highway Traffic Act, I move --

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): You are moving the entire bill. You have to move the entire bill and then we will deal with the amendments.

Mrs Fawcett: Just read it? I move Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Firefighters.

I move that subsections (12.1) and (12.2) of the Highway Traffic Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Firefighters

"(12.1) On application by a person who meets the requirements of this act and the regulations and who is a firefighter under the Fire Departments Act, the ministry or a person authorized by the ministry may issue to the applicant a sticker, that indicates that the vehicle is registered to or leased by a firefighter, to be attached to the lower left hand corner of the front number plate of any motor vehicle of which the person is the registered owner or lessee.

"Same

"(12.2) For the purposes of this section and subsection 62(33), "firefighter" includes a volunteer or full-time firefighter.

"Same

"(12.3) A person to whom a sticker has been issued under subsection (12.1) shall not display the sticker upon ceasing to be a firefighter under the Fire Departments Act or upon ceasing to meet the requirements prescribed by the regulations.

"Regulations

"(12.4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the issuance, replacement and cancellation of a sticker referred to in subsection (12.1)."

The Second Deputy Chair: Mrs Fawcett has moved an amendment to section 1 -- dispense? Agreed.

Comments from the member for Northumberland?

Mrs Fawcett: Very briefly, I want to congratulate and thank all the members who are supporting this. I also want to put on the record that the changes to the bill have been in consultation with the ministry and the stakeholders, the various representatives of firefighters across Ontario, to include all firefighters in the province's 656 fire departments: men and women who protect us in so many ways and also put their lives on the line.

Mr Speaker, I also have two further amendments, very briefly, regarding the title of the bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: We will deal with your amendments as stated first, and then we'll proceed with your further amendments.

Do we have further discussion on the bill or the amendments?

Is it the pleasure of the House that section 1, as amended, carry? Agreed? Agreed.

Further amendments?

1750

Mrs Fawcett: A further amendment to section 3. I move that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Short title

"3. The short title of this act is the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Firefighters), 1993."

The Second Deputy Chair: Shall section 2 stand as part of the bill known as Bill 87? Agreed? Agreed.

Shall the amendment to section 3, as moved by Mrs Fawcett, carry? Agreed? Agreed.

Shall section 3, as amended, carry? Agreed? Agreed.

Do we have further amendments?

Mrs Fawcett: I move that the long title of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Firefighters."

The Second Deputy Chair: Mrs Fawcett moves that the long title of the bill be struck out -- dispense? Agreed? Agreed.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment to the long title carry? Agreed? Agreed.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 87, as amended, be reported to the House? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that the committee rise and report? Agreed? Agreed.

I want to make the committee aware that I now leave the chair of committee of the whole and go back to the Speaker's chair.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

Orders of the day. The government House leader.

Hon Mr Charlton: I seek the unanimous consent of the House to call the fourth order for third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House? Agreed? Agreed.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)

Mrs Fawcett moved third reading of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Firefighters / Loi modifiant le Code de la route relativement aux pompiers auxiliares.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member have any comments on third reading?

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I'd like once again to thank everyone. I see that the former Minister of Transportation, who certainly did support this, is in the House. I want to thank all members of the House who did support this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have further participation?

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Firefighters, carry for third reading? Agreed? Agreed.

I do now resolve that the bill pass as in the motion. Orders of the day.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): It being almost 6 of the clock, it was not my intention to call any further business but simply to read the business statement for next week.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable House leader will please provide us with information regarding next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to announce the business for the coming week.

On Monday, July 12, we will give third reading to the Ontario Loan Act, Bill 25, followed by the adjourned second reading debate of the Employment Equity Act, Bill 79.

The remainder of the week's business will be announced, and hopefully we'll be having some discussions about that on Monday morning.

On the morning of Thursday, July 15, during private members' public business, we will consider ballot item 21, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Villeneuve, and ballot item number 22, second reading of Bill 53, standing in the name of Mr Kormos.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We are slightly ahead of schedule. It is not quite 6 of the clock. The member for Eglinton has requested a late show with the Minister of Education. Pursuant to standing order 34, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made. The member for Eglinton has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given recently by the Minister of Education. The member for Eglinton now has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister then has five minutes in response.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, $640,000 of the taxpayers' money has gone missing from a Jobs Ontario Training fund broker in Brantford, and while the minister claims there's no problem because the missing money was discovered by a member of the Jobs Ontario staff, he refuses to answer any questions with meaningful detail about what steps he has taken and is taking to protect the taxpayers' money.

While the minister tries to delude us that this is just an isolated incident, consider this: The $640,000 loss was discovered after the first monitoring visit by Jobs Ontario to a broker and has resulted in the very first audit of a Jobs Ontario broker.

The signs were all there in April. A branch office had been closed, a member of the senior management left suddenly, nine employees were abruptly let go, but it took the minister until June to call in the OPP.

Now, to find the money which has been missing for five months, the only course left to the OPP is to conduct a forensic audit: five months, $640,000, plus the cost of the Jobs Ontario audit, the ministry's internal audit and the OPP investigation.

It all begs one question, why was the minister so naïve? Any member of the public would tell the minister that he should have had proper safeguards in place to protect the taxpayers' money. But the minister was too busy getting an NDP public relations exercise under way to be concerned with small details such as where the money went.

Meanwhile, members of the general public, small business owners and the press have been calling my office to reveal other problem areas. For instance, Jobs Ontario is after an employer in Niagara who took $25,000 but did no training. In another case, there are allegations people are being charged a registration fee. That was not part of what they announced.

Numerous problems are cropping up with employers and brokers taking advantage of the government's offer for cash with no strings or built-in audit mechanisms attached: Waterloo, Toronto, Niagara and Ottawa-Carleton, the list grows daily.

The people of Ontario will take note for 16 months every minister of this government has stood in this place and crowed about numbers of positions created by Jobs Ontario. But recently and suspiciously, all we've had is silence. We're left to ask the question, "Why?"

Could it be that the NDP was in such a hurry to cobble together any type of jobs program that it didn't ensure the proper accountability mechanisms were in place? Is it because Jobs Ontario knows that there are many duplicates on the computer system and it's so afraid their numbers would be reduced that it's refusing to cull the system to remove these duplicates? Could it also be that the number of positions created and jobs filled aren't keeping up with the government's lofty targets? Why is the Rae government suddenly so silent about Jobs Ontario Training? The answer is all of the above. This is what my sources are telling me.

As I've said to this minister in this House on many occasions, he and his colleagues can't even get their own public relations numbers straight. Do they really have a handle on how many jobs they've created, jobs, I might add, that are only short-term and not highly skilled?

1800

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): There will be another full-page ad. That's what's going to happen.

Ms Poole: Absolutely. My colleague says, "Another full-page ad," and that's exactly what they will do. When in doubt, they pour the money into public relations, into advertising, rather than getting the job done.

I call upon this minister to do the right thing: Admit that Jobs Ontario Training is an expensive public relations scam and give it up. Cancel the program. Call in the Provincial Auditor before it's too late and bring in a meaningful program to create real jobs, not NDP public relations.

Jobs NDP will go down in history as the biggest waste of taxpayers' money. While this minister and this government are asking the people of Ontario all to make sacrifices, why doesn't this government make a sacrifice? Why don't you stop wasting the taxpayers' money on your pet public relations scam, Jobs Ontario Training, and why don't you bring in a meaningful program that will create real jobs that the people of this province so desperately need?

I'd like some answers to my questions and I'm hoping today that the minister will give me those answers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The Minister of Education has up to five minutes in response.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I find it quite unacceptable that the member started off her comments referring specifically to a case that she knows is under the investigation of the OPP directly in contravention to the ruling that the Speaker made in the House a few weeks ago.

When the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about this particular program, she deliberately did not ask a question about the Brantford case and made it clear that she wasn't doing that because she knew the OPP were investigating. I find it highly irresponsible and a direct contravention to the ruling the Speaker gave a couple of weeks ago in the House. The OPP are investigating and the member knows that.

I want to just run through a couple of points that I think are important for the member to understand, and for the members of the Legislature to understand. With every question that the Liberal Party has asked about the Jobs Ontario Training program, it has turned out that it has been completely wrong in the facts it has tried to present in the House. I want to go back to some of them we've documented.

On April 15, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question on Jobs Ontario Training. She said:

"Ross Pope and Co of Kirkland Lake applied for a training subsidy under your training scheme. A total of 43 pages of correspondence, of faxes, of documentation were sent and all of this resulted in a subsidy of $386."

The Leader of the Opposition was completely wrong. In fact, when we looked into this particular case, this company hadn't even participated in the Jobs Ontario Training program. This person applied for a subsidy under the Ontario skills financial incentive program and received considerably more than $386.

On April 26, the Leader of the Opposition stated, and the member just repeated, that the program was creating low-skilled jobs which do not require training. I want to outline for the members of the Legislature the placements that have taken place. Some 10% of the jobs are in the managerial and professional field; 30% are in the highly skilled trades and technical occupations; 43% are in the semi-skilled jobs requiring secondary education, up to two years of experience or specialized training; and only 10% of the jobs filled are in the lowest-skilled level. They're wrong again.

On April 29, the member who raised the question here tonight alleged that the buttons in the promotion program had been printed in Taiwan. We then investigated and reported correctly to the House that the member was wrong again. The buttons were printed here in Ontario, in Canada.

I don't think the member has a heck of a lot of credibility when she makes silly statements like she has about the program and the accountability that it has within the Ministry of Education.

I will just finish by saying that on the case of accountability and financial accountability, the member knows that the on particular case that has been referred to, specifically the way that was picked up was by our regular auditing and visiting of the Jobs Ontario brokers across the province. We picked it up. This didn't just fall upon the public through some investigation that the member carried out. Because this program is being closely followed, because there are reports that are constantly being turned in to the Minister of Education from each of the brokers, because we get out on a regular basis and visit the brokers, we discovered the problem in this particular agency.

When the problem was discovered, it was brought to my attention. We then took immediate action. We moved in a supervisor from the Ministry of Education and Training to take over control of the broker so that the jobs and the function that they were carrying out would not be lost, but the taxpayers would be protected. When material was put together and the audit was completed, the material was then all sent to the Ontario Provincial Police.

Considering the number of jobs -- 28,000 jobs have now been created under this program; nearly 15,000 people had been placed in those jobs -- considering the number of brokers that exist right across this province, considering the fact that there are thousands and thousands of people involved, this program has an excellent record in this province. I congratulate the ministry and the people who are working in this program for keeping very good track of taxpayers' dollars, at the same time creating thousands of jobs for social assistance recipients so that they can participate in Ontario's economy.

This isn't a program that should be criticized; this is a program that should be praised, as it is by thousands of people in the private sector from one end of Ontario to the other end.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank both the Minister of Education and the honourable member for Eglinton for their participation in this debate.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 48, An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program / Loi visant à favoriser la négociation d'accords dans le secteur public de façon à protéger les emplois et les services tout en réduisant les dépenses et traitant de certaines questions relatives au programme de réduction des dépenses du gouvernement.

The Acting Speaker: It being past 6 of the clock and there being no further matter to be debated, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried. The Legislature will resume on Monday, July 12, at 1:30 pm.

The House adjourned at 1808.

July 8, 1993

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARABRAM

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR GOOD CITIZENSHIP

ALCOHOL ABUSE

ORILLIA SCOTTISH FESTIVAL

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

HEALTH CARE REFORM

MEMBER FOR ORIOLE

BLOOD DISORDERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'AIDE SOCIALE

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

JUSTICE SYSTEM

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

CASINO GAMBLING

EVICTIONS

NURSING HOMES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

LANDFILL

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

TIRE TAX

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

AMALGAMATION OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PETS IN CONDOMINIUMS

GAMBLING

HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

GO BUS SERVICE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH SERVICES

GAMBLING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ALLOCATIONS DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE