Hansard Transcript 1993-Oct-28 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): At the end of yesterday's session, the member for York Mills brought forth a point of privilege. The Speaker, at that time, asked for time and will now be providing a ruling.

Yesterday, the honourable member for York Mills, Mr Turnbull, rose on a question of privilege, alleging that the honourable member for Yorkview, Mr Mammoliti, had taken his idea for a bill that he had been working on for a number of months. Mr Mammoliti's Bill 95 was printed on October 15; Mr Turnbull's Bill 104 was printed on October 20. They are both bills with the same general subject matter, but one is specific to the city of North York while the other, Mr Turnbull's, is general in nature. Mr Mammoliti's Bill 95 is up for debate this morning.

While allegations made by the member for York Mills cause me great concern, let me say first of all that there is nothing here that is against our existing standing orders. It is the right of all honourable members to introduce bills and it is not for the Speaker to determine whether or not the origin of an idea for a bill is original to the member introducing it or not. Secondly, there is nothing out of order with these two bills eventually coming to debate and being decided upon by this House at second reading.

As to the question of members' privileges being affected, I can in no way see that that has happened. The honourable member for York Mills still has every right to proceed with his bill and it is not a privilege of members to have exclusivity as to a subject matter. It would even be possible for the honourable member to debate his bill when his turn comes up for private members' hour next week, if the House agrees to waive notice. I would suggest that he consult with his House leader if it is his intention.

I thank the honourable member for all the work that he has put into his presentation and the notes that he has made available to me and I'm sorry that I cannot agree that there is a prima facie case of privilege.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Come on, you ruled.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Mills, there has been a ruling. I will give you a very short time.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling. I will say that in future I definitely will not provide any drafts of any bills I'm working on to the ministries so that I will not have to have the suspicion of some untoward behaviour.

The Acting Speaker: We have very limited time; it's private members' hour.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've listened with great interest to your ruling and I have heard what you've said. However, I always thought that the Speaker's place in the Legislature or any parliamentary body was to protect the privileges of individual members. I can recall an issue here some years ago where an individual, who was the member for Riverdale at the time --

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, I will give him the book so he can read from beginning to end, all 2,000 pages.

Mr Eves: Excuse me, is there an echo in the chamber, Mr Speaker? There's somebody speaking out of place. I'm rising on a point of order.

The Acting Speaker: Please, to the member for Parry Sound, we are --

Mr Eves: The member for Riverdale --

The Acting Speaker: To other members, please, interjections are out of order.

Mr Eves: The member for Riverdale at the time, David Reville, wasn't treated with such disrespect as some honourable members of the government party -- who happen to be in the same party as Mr Reville, by the way; they might know who he is.

Mr Perruzza: You haven't seen him in a long time.

Mr Eves: This is a serious issue, whether you respect or appreciate that or not.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Hurry up.

Mr Eves: Excuse me; the member for Yorkview, who steals other people's information, is babbling about somebody standing on a point of order. Give me a break.

Mr Mammoliti: Give me a break.

Mr Perruzza: That's a point of order, Mr Speaker. Come on.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Parry Sound --

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that the Speaker is here to uphold individual members' privileges. As I started to say before I was so rudely interrupted by members of the governing party, one of their members at one time, the member for Riverdale, had a serious issue about the bank of commerce, I believe it was, CIBC -- I stand to be corrected -- interfering with a member's privileges. That has nothing to do with the standing orders. There is nothing in the standing orders to deal with it, but the Speaker of the day dealt with it.

This member's privileges, by any prima facie factual case, have been abused. As the member for York Mills says, perhaps the only thing to do from now on is never to share any information with this government again, because apparently it doesn't know anything about ethics or truth.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Could the honourable member please sum up.

Mr Eves: Are you telling me, Mr Speaker, that you are going to do nothing about a private member's privileges being abused because there's nothing in the standing orders that says you can do so? Is that the tradition we're supposed to uphold in this place? There has never been a private member's privilege ruling upheld in this Legislature, ever, because it's not in the standing orders? Is that what I'm to gather from your ruling?

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We will now proceed to private members' hour.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)

Mr Mammoliti moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 95, An Act to provide for the passing of vital services by-laws by the City of North York / Projet de loi 95, Loi prévoyant l'adoption par la cité de North York de règlements municipaux relatifs aux services essentiels.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member will have 10 minutes to initiate debate, after which time every recognized party within the Legislature will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'll start off, first of all, by apologizing to the member for York Mills. I had no idea that he feels so strongly about my bill. I feel somewhat discouraged by it, and I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I feel insulted as well. I meant what I said yesterday when I talked about my activity in Yorkview and the problems that have occurred over the last few years in Yorkview and the amount of work I've done in this particular area.

The member claims that I stole his bill. I didn't steal any bill. I didn't see any of his drafts. I had no idea that he had presented a bill to the Legislature, and as the Speaker said, it was after I had presented my bill.

Having looked at what the member for York Mills has said over the last two days, I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I'm very sympathetic towards his bill as well, and if he wants to go forward with his, I will be supporting him on it. I would ask the member to perhaps use his energies not to argue whose bill it is and who stole whose bill and use up time in the Legislature that way, but invite him to work with me on my bill and his bill as well. Perhaps we can work together and try to get something accomplished in this place and try to deal with the concerns that tenants have out there, the real concerns in North York in particular. If he were to use those energies around that particular area, I'd certainly accommodate his energies that way and I'd work with him.

Having said that, I want to thank him as well for the comments he's made in the past in this place. I want to tell him that they're greatly appreciated and that, together, I think we could pass this particular bill fairly quickly.

The bill talks about vital services, and it actually gives North York the right to pass bylaws that would deal with vital services in North York. Mine is very specific, and it's very specific for a reason.

I have had problem after problem with landlords in my particular area, and in speaking to a number of officials at the city level in North York, they continually tell me there's nothing they can do about it, for whatever reason. I want to try and help them do something about problems that arise in our particular area, North York, when it comes to vital services.

Today there is an article in the Toronto Sun that talks about slum landlords. It talks about how I feel about slum landlords and what they have done not only to my community but to other communities as well. Slum landlords are guilty of not providing not only the essential services that tenants pay rent for but the vital services that they, as tenants, feel are their right to have, whatever time of day it is in the 24-hour span.

I can go through a number of landlords that I feel have neglected their responsibilities in this area and that have literally shut things down, such as water and hydro and elevator services. I think this particular bill will deal with a lot of those concerns. While this bill might not deal with every concern that a tenant might have, it deals with the immediate concerns and it deals with the vital services concerns that tenants have.

Yesterday I held a press conference in one of my buildings in my particular area, a building that we have had problems in for approximately -- well, the three years anyway that I have been representing the community. Continually I'm having to go up to that particular building and having to phone the landlord or in this case the landlord's representative, a lawyer, and talk to this individual about what the landlord has neglected this week or this month. The tenants are having to suffer repeatedly because the landlord deals with the elevator problem a day later and forces tenants to climb stairs for a 48-hour period. That happened in this particular building.

These particular tenants have my number at home. I was called out there at approximately 11 o'clock at night one night to try and convince the superintendent that elevators are a very important and vital service to the tenants. The superintendent told the tenants that they've got to wait, that there's absolutely nothing he can do about it because his hours are over and he needs time the next day to phone around.

We all know there are call-out numbers from elevator companies that superintendents can phone. I had mentioned that to him, and with a 10- to 15-minute discussion, I was able to convince the superintendent that it was essential for him to deal with this particular problem at 11 o'clock at night as opposed to 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning, a vital service in my opinion.

I think the bill will deal with North York's concern about its responsibilities. Having spoken with North York recently, over the last couple of days, I've got to tell you I may even have to recommend an amendment to my own bill, because what they're saying to me is that the definitions of "emergency" and "vital services" need to be looked at and that even my definition of "vital services" might not be equivalent to North York's, so I think we need to make that a little clearer.

Thinking about it, and having looked at the situation across North York and some of the problems that have arisen over the last few years, I would like perhaps to even amend my own bill to include security systems in buildings. Some people will argue that 15 or 20 years ago vital services would not include a security system. Over the last couple of days, and having spoken with some of my colleagues, I would argue that in 1993 security systems are a vital service and that we may want to look at even amending the bill to include that.

I would argue as well that we should look at a number of different areas to be included in vital services that aren't specific in the bill. The language is there, but people might argue that we need to be a little more specific. I'm quite willing to look at security, for instance. I'm quite willing even to look at garbage pickup. In a lot of the buildings in North York, these slum landlords refuse to pick up garbage.

Extermination of cockroaches and mice: Some will argue that that is a vital service as well, and I think we may need to be a little more specific in the legislation to include those. Why? The city of North York, while I was speaking with them, said to me very clearly on one particular problem I had in the example I gave you earlier in that building that cockroaches and mice, for instance, are the tenants' responsibility.

1020

If you've ever lived in a high-rise building you will know it's very difficult to get rid of cockroaches and mice. Tenants aren't able to just, at a snap of their fingers, get rid of thousands and thousands and millions of cockroaches. It needs to be addressed by the landlords.

These amendments are amendments that I think might be necessary and I'd be quite willing to look at.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member will have two minutes in response at the end of the debate. Further debate?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I stand to speak on this issue and I am tempted to look at the irony of all this, and the humour in it perhaps is not to be overlooked. I wasn't here in the House late yesterday when these matters were being debated on a point of privilege as to who owned this piece of legislation.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Come on, stick to the bill.

Mr Cordiano: I think it's important to point this out because this is not a matter that has come before us in quite such a way as evidenced today.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Lawrence has the floor.

Mr Cordiano: I think it's a question of not overlooking the real matter in this. Whether this is taking someone else's bill or whether in fact it amounts to theft of legislation, I think was the line that was used yesterday in the House, is left for others to decide. Obviously, today I want to deal with some of the substantive matters, but I can't help but look at this and be somewhat amused by what has taken place. As I looked at both pieces of legislation, Bill 95 as put forward by the member for Yorkview and Bill 104 as put forward by the member for York Mills, I quite frankly fail to see much difference between the two pieces of legislation, except for a couple of points.

Obviously, there is agreement in terms of the thrust of the legislation. The highest form of compliment, as they say, is having someone in fact copy what you do. Someone's got to compliment either the member for Yorkview or the member for York Mills. Each of them stand up and compliment each other, I would say, because at this point I don't know who's really to blame for this piece of legislation being drafted in the way it has been.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): To blame? Who do you want to blame?

Mr Cordiano: I'm saying around the particulars involved in the way this has unfolded. Let's forget blame for a moment and talk about giving a compliment with respect to who is to take ownership and that, as I said, will be left for others to determine.

Let me just say on the substantive matter -- because this is quite an important matter and on principle I am very much in favour of the thrust of this legislation. It is a necessary piece of legislation that I think the government ought to take very seriously. It is in fact very timely and I believe the government will take this matter very seriously.

I know the member for York Mills has been very vociferous on behalf of his constituents and I would also say that the member for Yorkview has made several points about this over the last number of months. Again, I'm not going to allude to whose piece of legislation really counts here, but I would say the government should bring forward a government piece of legislation to in fact deal with this matter. I would also encourage all members on the government benches to support that initiative because I think it would go a long way towards solving the problems that have appeared on this matter.

With respect to how this is best dealt with, I feel very comfortable in the thrust that has been made towards a municipal act, and the comprehensive nature of the bill that Mr Turnbull put forward I think is the right way to approach this. It would allow all municipalities the option of enacting bylaws to deal with vital services. It is long overdue in the sense that tenants should not be left defenceless and having to deal with landlords who are unscrupulous and very much overlooking basic needs and services.

That's simply not a situation that can continue to be tolerated, by virtue of the fact that if people are living in accommodation in whatever municipality across the province as tenants, they have a right to these vital services. That needs to be supported through legislation by the province, therefore, recognizing it legally as a right.

It also speaks to the flexibility which is granted to municipalities in order to deal with the matter on a municipality-by-municipality basis. Obviously in localities where this may not be a problem, it's left to the municipality to deal with in a flexible manner to reflect the local concerns and local needs of that municipality. It very much appeals to me because we on this side of the House and in our party very much believe in municipalities expressing their free will to deal with the matters that would be best dealt with at the local level, and I think this is one of those.

Having said that, I do believe that treatment of tenants should be dealt with right across the province equally, thus mandating municipalities to do the same, in effect bringing this about at the municipal level by virtue of a bylaw. It would in fact be giving municipalities the same access to this power to enact bylaws which would effect these vital services to be a right for tenants.

The government should act on this legislation. If they see the light of day, they would be wise to act on this legislation. God knows, they need some good news for a change. People out there in the province will be looking to this government at this time to deal with this, particularly tenants across the province. This is one of those items that would surely go a long way to at least allow the government to take some credit for something worthy that it has failed to do over the last months, in fact years now, as we put it in the opposition. There are a number of items the government has failed to act on that are as pressing as this.

There seems to be all-party agreement by virtue of the similar legislation that we've seen presented in this House. I would say to the government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he should not waste any time in dealing with this matter, making it a priority and bringing it forward to be dealt with. I think he would see that all sides of the House would be in agreement on that. Quite frankly, as I say, it would score a few political points for the government.

I'm sure the member for York Mills would take that if the legislation were enacted quickly. He's been an ardent advocate of this. I think at the end of the day he himself has said the government should make this a piece of legislation that it brings forward, so I encourage everyone to support this legislation.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The purpose of second reading of any bill is to discuss agreement in principle. I'm certainly in agreement with the principle which drives this bill.

As you know, I have had some concerns, which I have expressed over a long period of time, that legislation did not exist to allow municipalities generally in this province to be able to enact vital services bylaws.

This would be enabling legislation where the municipality would decide if it needed such a bylaw, and that would depend very much on the kind of demographic profile of that municipality. I suspect most rural municipalities probably wouldn't need this. However, in urban municipalities, we have recognized, with the passage of private bills for Ottawa, the city of London and the city of Toronto, that in fact it is appropriate that we give municipalities the ability to move to ensure the continuation of vital services to a building where a landlord fails to provide these services.

1030

Over the last several months, I have asked questions to the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs as to whether they would not bring in legislation which would enable all municipalities to do this, and I must say I have met with a great deal of stonewalling from these ministers. As recently as a few weeks ago, when I suggested to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that I was preparing a bill to enable all municipalities in the province to pass such bylaws, the minister's reaction was first of all that North York didn't want it. He was factually wrong.

Once again we found that the government wanted to play political football with tenants. We know the NDP likes to feel it has a cornerhold on all tenant matters. It just simply isn't true, because in fact the Conservatives have always led this province in terms of bringing forward enlightened legislation to help tenants. This goes back over a 10-to-15-year period that the Conservatives brought in such legislation.

Mr Perruzza: They're going to use this bill against you.

Mr Turnbull: I see that the member for Downsview is, as usual, heckling. Why don't you just listen to what we have to say?

Mr Perruzza: I am listening. That's the point. If I wasn't listening, I wouldn't say anything.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills has the floor. You will have your opportunity.

Mr Turnbull: The point is, we should not be using this as a political football.

The fact is that my concern was heightened by an issue that arose at 1002 Lawrence Avenue East. Constituents of mine, at the beginning of this year, had some terrible problems with a very unscrupulous landlord whose clear intention was to clear the existing tenants out of the building and then, through a legal process, to come to something which was close to a cooperative housing project but wasn't quite a co-op. I would suggest that those people who have been unfortunate enough to buy shares in that building may have some great difficulty in the future if they ever want to recoup the money they've invested.

The vital services were being withheld in this building as a way of forcing people out of the building. There were many seniors and there were people with young children in the building who were suffering. It doesn't matter what political party is in; we should have as our absolute, single most important aim the protection of those people so that they are appropriately accommodated, so that heat, lighting, water, those vital services, are provided. The whole intent of bringing forward my legislation was to ensure that all municipalities across the province would have the appropriate enabling legislation so that they could do this.

In speaking to the minister in this House and also in committee, I have spoken to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Housing to encourage them to take over this legislation, because the government can achieve passage of a bill far more quickly than a private member. Here we are with the member for Yorkview bringing forward his private bill today, and mine was due for debate next week. I have stopped debate of mine simply because I think we can address it in today's debate. But the point is that the government should have moved at an earlier stage.

As recently as this summer there was a debate in committee in which there was a discussion of the London law which allowed them to enact vital services bylaws, and a ministry official was asked whether this should not be extended to the whole province. There was one of these nice, fuzzy answers about, "Well, we're thinking about it." But the government hasn't acted, and I'd just like to read the following into the record.

Last week, the Toronto Area Property Standards Officers, TAPSO, which includes the senior property standards officers from the 11 municipalities in the greater Metro area -- namely Aurora, Brampton, East York, Etobicoke, Markham, Mississauga, North York, Richmond Hill, Scarborough, Toronto and York -- and a representative from the Ministry of Housing discussed Bill 104, my private member's bill, which is provincially focused, relating to the provision of vital services. The group expressed support for the approach of my bill in that if we as legislators have already endorsed the principle individually for Ottawa and London, there should be nothing to prevent us from going on one last step and enacting general permissive legislation. That approach is preferable to the piecemeal approach put forward by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the member for Yorkview in Bill 95.

When the standing committee on regulations and private bills was dealing with the London bill on June 2, 1993, the committee members addressed the unsatisfactory nature of attacking this problem in a hodgepodge way through private legislation. The legislative counsel indicated that a policy decision would have to be made by the ministry and the cabinet. The virtue of this commonsense approach was supported by members of the committee across party lines. Ministry policy rep Richard Doherty confirmed that the ministry was happy to be dealing with this on a request-by-request basis and that if more requests came in, they would address general legislation.

Why, then, are we being pre-empted in my bill, which was province-wide in its nature, from moving forward with province-wide legislation?

I have to say to my colleague the member for Yorkview that I would suspect you feel that in my rising yesterday, in some way I was making this a partisan issue. I was not. I will say to you that I was requested by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs some one week before you introduced your bill to provide a copy of the draft legislation which I had prepared. My bill was not completed, because I had consulted very, very widely with tenants, landlords and municipalities.

Mr Perruzza: Could we have the names of a few of those people?

Mr Turnbull: You can indeed. The point is that I believe on an issue like this there is no reason to turn this into landlord against tenant. The good landlords of this province, I have to tell you, were overwhelmingly supportive of my legislation. Why is that? Because they view their tenants as their customers, as they should do, and they understand that it is essential to provide the services those people have contracted for.

In his opening comments, the member for Yorkview suggested that perhaps security systems are a vital service and that they should be provided. Perhaps, but I have to say to you that under the present regulations which exist since the passage of Bill 121 by this government, there simply isn't any money for most landlords to be able to do this.

I believe Bill 121 was a fatally flawed piece of legislation and I believe it should be revisited, because we have the situation that some landlords who had their mortgage paid off and had done a lot of renovations in the few years under the Liberal legislation probably have fabulous returns on their investment. Those buildings which had changed hands during those latter years immediately prior to the election of this present government and had large mortgages were probably irreparably harmed by that legislation, and the lack of the ability to flow through the cost of substantial renovations has harmed the ability of landlords in many cases to be able to provide the services.

1040

What I am going to say in wrapping up, because I must leave my colleague just a few moments for his comments, is that we should move this legislation out to a standing committee. I am not allowed in private members' hour to move an amendment, but I would take it out to committee and I would then suggest that we enlarge the scope of this legislation so that all municipalities are able to pass such bylaws.

The cost to London in preparing its private bill was some $13,300, and that is without counting the cost of in-house counsel and staff time. That's just their disbursements that were involved. It took them several years to bring it. I'm not talking several years of continuously working at it, but several years to get it to fruition.

We should be able to give any municipality the blanket ability to move now. So I would hope that in his closing comments, my colleague the member for Yorkview would comment on his support for that type of amendment, which would allow the municipalities to help tenants, which should be the job of all legislators, and it shouldn't be turned into a political circus.

Mr Perruzza: It is indeed a pleasure for me to be able to take a few brief moments to participate in this debate here this morning on Bill 95, An Act to provide for the passing of vital services by-laws by the City of North York, introduced to us this morning in a timely way by the honourable member for Yorkview, Mr Mammoliti.

I don't see this as a bill that will impact on all landlords in the city of North York. Most of us will have witnessed in the last round of these debates when the Liberals championed a rather different cause, and our Conservative colleagues, and primarily the member for York Mills, who stood in this place and championed the cause of landlords and who, quite frankly, has done a backflip here this morning because he is now the champion of tenants. I say to him that the champions for tenants sit on this side of the House and not on that side of the House, and I can tell you there's a long history and we have extensive Hansard to show on all those fronts.

But what's important to note is that during the last debate, and according to Ministry of Housing statistics, over 70% of landlords are good landlords. They provide decent places to live and charge fair rents. Those are good landlords, and this legislation does not impact on them one iota. Then there's a whole bunch of other landlords who are reasonable landlords. Sometimes they forget and they neglect, but when they're reminded, they act, and they act on their own volition. This does not impact on them either. This piece of legislation chases those who are not good landlords, who neglect their buildings, who neglect --

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I would ask the member for Downsview to withdraw the comment that he has Hansard which suggests that I was a champion of landlords. In fact, I was a champion of good legislation which would ensure that tenants had decent accommodation and that they continue to have decent accommodation.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: I hope you give back me the two minutes he ate out of my time.

In any case, this is a piece of legislation that chases bad, negligent landlords, people who are in the business to maximize their profits, not just simply to make a profit but to maximize, and who abandon their obligation to their tenants.

Hence, the member for Yorkview introduces a bill which says, "The purpose of the Bill is to allow the City of North York to pass vital services by-laws so that vital services such as electricity, gas and hot water can be provided to the occupants of rented premises when the landlord fails to provide them." That's the key, "fails to provide them." They walk away, shirk their responsibilities, fail to provide vital services. That's who this bill is intended to get.

Now you have an awful situation. You have cases like a case which I'm going to allude to here this morning of a particular landlord, a landlord who, quite frankly, doesn't give a hoot about his tenants in his building. The municipality's hands are tied; they can't do anything to affect landlords who shirk their responsibilities to provide decent places to live.

We have 4750 Jane Street -- there are other examples, but this is one of them -- where tenants live under shoddy conditions and they pay darn good rents; in fact, premium rent.

In one particular case, there were countless letters and a paper hurricane with the city and bylaw enforcement officers from the city contacting the landlord. This started around April 22, 1993, when the letters started going back and forth. This tenant has cockroaches in his refrigerator because the rubber seal on the door of that refrigerator has been broken and the landlord refuses to fix it, along with a number of other deficiencies. This particular unit has had 25 deficiency orders registered against it by the municipality since April 22, 1993. We are today at the end of October 1993, and nothing has been done to date to rectify this bad situation.

So we have an individual here with cockroaches in his refrigerator, and the municipality is impotent in the face of all this because currently they can do very little. They'll drag this guy up before their property standards committee. Eventually they'll issue another order against him to comply. Perhaps a year or two years from now they'll end up in court and at some point somebody's going to have to come along and replace that washer, and maybe the cockroaches won't be able to get into that refrigerator any more.

This bill gives the municipality teeth to be able to say to this shoddy landlord: "Fix it. Fix the problem, because if you don't fix it we'll get on the phone, we'll get somebody in there to fix it for you and then we will bill you for it. If you don't believe you'll be able to pay your bill, we can place a lien against your property. If you don't believe we can take the money from you that way, we'll be able to levy it on our tax bill and, quite frankly, you will pay and you will fix the unit and you will provide the tenants with a decent place to live."

If all that fails, they will have the power at that point to say to the tenant, "Redirect your rent to us and we will pay the bill to fix the refrigerator, to repair your wall, to fix the garage door" which hasn't been working for several years and cars are being vandalized and it makes the place dangerous for people late at night. The city can say: "We will come in, we will fix it and we will have the power to extract the money for that from you. So, landlord, don't shirk your responsibility. Be responsible in what it is you are doing, because if you're not, we will make you a responsible landlord." That's what this bill does.

1050

For my Liberal colleague here this morning to stand in his place and say: "Gosh, this is a bad bill. Golly, this is like a bad bill. Why are you guys doing this" --

Mr Turnbull: He didn't say that.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): He didn't say that.

Mr Perruzza: Of course he did say that; it's in Hansard. I heard him, you heard him and we'll be able to get it from Hansard later today. Absolutely. That's precisely what he said. For him to simply say that is --

Ms Poole: He didn't. He didn't say anything of the kind.

Mr Perruzza: -- quite frankly beyond me, because this is a good bill. I think it's a timely bill. It's not a bill that purports to go on a witchhunt and chase every landlord in the province of Ontario -- actually, in the city of North York because it pertains exclusively to the city of North York. What it does say to the bad landlords is, "Don't shirk your responsibilities to provide your tenants with a decent place to live." That's why I'm going to support it and that's why I ask every other member of this Legislature, on both sides of the House, to support it.

Ms Poole: I am pleased to enter into the debate today. I first became aware of this particular problem when I visited the Cheyenne apartments in London when I was Housing critic for the Liberal Party. I went and I talked to the tenants and I found it really deplorable that in fact they had had their vital services cut off, that the city of London was attempting, in all good faith, to remedy the situation and yet there was no legal manoeuvre for it to do this because of provincial legislation. In fact, I was absolutely astounded to find out that it required provincial legislation in order to empower the city of London. When Irene Mathyssen brought forward her bill last year, I was extremely supportive and suggested to my caucus that we should give that bill our support.

When this bill, Mr Mammoliti's bill, was first brought forward and I looked at it, I thought, "This is a similar bill to Irene Mathyssen's, which attempts to do the same thing," and two things crossed my mind.

The first was that this was becoming a more widespread problem and perhaps, instead of doing municipality by municipality across the province, we should have one bill which would empower municipalities to pass their bylaws instead of having to come back to the Legislature year after year and pass yet one more municipality.

The second thought that crossed my mind when Mr Mammoliti introduced the bill was that obviously there was a problem in North York, one of our Metro municipalities, and that it should be dealt with and, although my preference was to see it dealt with on a widespread basis, that I would support this bill.

I was really quite astonished when I was sitting here last night and the member for York Mills stood on a point of privilege and said that he had raised this with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the minister had asked him to send over his draft bill. This was long before Mr Mammoliti's bill was even printed and, I suspect, given the circumstances, it may well have been before Mr Mammoliti thought to do this.

It disturbed me, because normally I would give the honourable member the benefit of the doubt and say he's acting on behalf of his tenants and maybe it was just a marvellous coincidence that these two bills came forward at the same time. But I had a rather unfortunate experience with the same member, Mr Mammoliti, the member for Yorkview, almost a year ago in private members' hour when he put forward a resolution concerning co-op conversions. At that time again it would seem like a great idea, where it was actually talking about having a pilot project to convert public housing to co-ops and allow the tenants a great deal of management say.

But what distressed me when I was doing my homework as Housing critic at the time was that I phoned the

Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario, which we know as CHAO, to see if it had any comments on it. They said, "We've had a working group working on this for a year; in fact, for the last few months we've been working with the Ministry of Housing to develop this pilot project" and an announcement was imminent. I went back to the resolution and said, "But there's nothing here giving credit to the co-op movement." This was indeed not Mr Mammoliti's idea; this was the co-op movement's idea, and he didn't give any credit.

The next morning when I came in, I listened to his speech carefully to see if in fact he would give credit to the co-op movement, to CHAO, and he gave nothing. He took the ideas as his own, peddled them as his own, and he took what I thought was a very worthy project by the co-op movement and tried to take his own credit for it.

Mr Perruzza: Does that make it less worthy?

Ms Poole: It certainly does not make it a less worthy effort, but it is unworthy of the member to have taken credit.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: According to the standing rules of the Legislature, when we speak to bills in this House, we refer to the bills that are before us. If the member is on some kind of witchhunt on another matter or on some other issue, then that should be clear --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): This is not a point of order.

Mr Perruzza: -- and she should bring the motion to this House that speaks to that so we can all debate it.

The Acting Speaker: To the member, I have made a ruling that this is not a point of order, and I would caution this member and the previous member not to impute any motive to any other member.

Ms Poole: I thank you for that ruling. This is a very important point, because it cheapens a bill or a resolution if you have this kind of acrimony. There are certain bills in this House and certain resolutions on which you do have goodwill among all members, that they think it's a good idea.

By the way, I really take exception to the member for Downsview's comments about the Liberal critic being critical of this bill; in fact, his comments were very supportive. I don't even know if the member was in the House at the time. I was watching it on television, and I certainly did not get that impression from the Liberal critic.

It is very important when we have a bill like this to work cooperatively, not to take other people's ideas but to work together for the benefit of our constituents. I find it very unfortunate that this is now the second incident in which a member of the government, the member for Yorkview, has been accused of borrowing somebody else's idea and taking it as his own. I think it's very unfortunate, and I don't think it speaks well when that type of thing happens in this House.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): All residents of the province of Ontario have the right to clean and decent living accommodations that are properly heated and served by all the necessary utilities. It is unfortunate that it is necessary to pass legislation to guarantee this basic right.

This legislation must provide the protection tenants need from a small number of landlords who have neglected their responsibility. At the same time, we must be cautious that the legislation does not go beyond what is required so that it acts as a disincentive to the majority of landlords who are responsible. If this occurs, then the legislation may be counterproductive.

From my experience in many years of municipal life, I've found that the property standards regulations that are in place work for the majority of landlords who are responsible. The municipalities can work with them and decent accommodations can be provided.

For the minority of landlords who will not obey the requirements, there is a real problem municipalities have, both with the living accommodations, for example, plaster, leaking toilets, leaking faucets, appliances that don't work, any number of facets of rented accommodation that are unacceptable -- the municipalities have a problem in terms of enforcing the property standards, because they need more authority -- and the vital services bylaw will help them address gas, electricity, water, those kinds of services which certainly need to be addressed.

The member for York Mills has been providing excellent service for his constituents, particularly at 1002 Lawrence Avenue in a case where a landlord has simply abandoned the building, has gone away, and the gas is turned off. At this time of the year -- at any time of the year, frankly, but particularly at this time of the year -- that's been a tremendous hardship for the tenants. I must commend the member for York Mills for his actions and for his foresight in recognizing that we should have a bill that pertains to all of the province of Ontario and not just to one city.

1100

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I'm in support of the member for Yorkview on this particular bill.

I think enough members have been talking about the issue in London. I sat on that committee with some other members in the House here and we passed a bill, which was Bill Pr13, on June 2, 1993. The presentation that was made by the city of London showed the deterioration of the apartments, and it wasn't the tenants' fault, the condition they were in. The grass was uncut, toilets were leaking. A lot of them had fixed up to a certain point, but a lot of them were moving out and there were a lot of empty apartments. With the empty apartments came rats.

I believe that this bill will provide for the member in Yorkview, but I think what was brought up also in that particular bill was that it be taken a look at for more of Ontario. If the member could wind up getting this bill through for Yorkview, then I think it would help his residents in that area, but I'd like to see an amendment to the point that it cover all of Ontario.

I know the member for Yorkview has looked at tenants and their problems out there and I think he's a very dedicated member to look after the tenants in his riding. I think there has to be some balance between tenants and landlords and I think this is some balance. You have to say that the basics in your life are shelter, food and good health. I think it's one of the most basic things, that your place of living is important for you and your family.

Again I say that I can support this bill and I'll be voting yes on second reading, and I imagine just about every member in the House will have the same opinion.

I find that some of these buildings, as they deteriorate, are reassessed at a lower value and I think the municipalities lose money on this also, but I think we should make sure in the bill that the cities are no longer the bill collectors. I think that when people are paying their rent, they're already paying in their rent the cost of hydro, heating and the services in that particular building.

I know the member for Yorkview is looking for some amendments to his bill, and, as I say, I'll be supporting this bill.

Mr Mammoliti: Let me just start out by thanking all who appreciate the bill and want the bill passed. I think that was a very consistent message.

Let me start out by of course telling the member for York Mills that at this particular time I don't see a problem in looking into province-wide legislation. I think it's something worthwhile looking at. But in order to make me a little bit more comfortable, I'd like to have a chat perhaps with some of the municipalities and maybe a committee, if this goes to committee. That might be an opportunity for us to do that. I could certainly work with him on that, and hopefully that particular amendment that he's looking for might be in order.

Secondly, for the member for Eglinton, I'm a little disturbed that she's rambling on about everything except the bill. She talks about stealing bills, taking credit for bills. If everybody wants to take credit for the bill, let them take credit for the bill; I don't care. As long as the bill passes, it's fine with me.

But you stand up and you give an example about co-op conversion. The member surely knows that members out on the street can't come in here and pass legislation, that they need members to be able to come in here and utilize this time in private members' hour to pass the ideas that are out there --

Ms Poole: It was a resolution and you took credit for it.

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, of course the co-op people did a wonderful job and they knew that because they were meeting with me on a regular basis in my office and they helped me put that piece of legislation together. So when I came in here, it wasn't just my idea. There were ideas out there from the co-op movement that helped me with that particular piece of legislation. They can't come in here and pass the legislation. They needed me to do it.

Perhaps the member was a little upset and still is a little upset that I beat her to the punch, I don't know, but that's what happened back then. For you to stand up here and bring that up in an argument like this I think is totally out of order, and if I was the Speaker, I would have ruled you out of order -- totally inappropriate.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Please take your seat. I would ask the member not to be provocative. We must respect each others' opinions. Would he please proceed.

Mr Mammoliti: I'd like to also thank the member for Lincoln for his remarks. I appreciate his support and I know he's looking for it to be province-wide legislation as well. I'm quite willing to accommodate that.

As I said, I'm going to try and refer this to the general government committee, and I'm hoping that everybody can agree with that. If we get it to a committee, then we could talk about not only the amendments that the member for York Mills wants -- and I'm hoping I can work closely with the member on this bill so that we can expedite it and pass it through quickly; we know that this is needed -- but also the amendments that even I want, after yesterday's meeting with those tenants in my riding who are saying very clearly to me that the vital services should also include security systems and garbage that isn't picked up in hallways and is left to rot and smell throughout the building. That is a vital service as well, so perhaps we could look at some amendments that tenants are looking for in this particular case. The general government committee I think might be able to look at these amendments and pass them. It might be a good avenue for us to take. I'd like to see it go there.

The issue yesterday in my particular riding with slum landlords is very pertinent to this piece of legislation. I believe that when slum landlords live in -- let me give you an example. In a small building in my riding recently I tried to track down a landlord who lives in China, for crying out loud. He lives in China and he owns a building at Jane and Eddystone in my riding.

This small, four-storey building has had a number of problems and I can clearly say that this guy is, in my opinion, a slum landlord. I couldn't get hold of him because he lives in China. There's no way for me to talk to this guy to get the vital services that these tenants need, because he lives in China. So for those who argue that this has nothing to do with slum landlords, I disagree with them.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Mammoliti: This, in my opinion, has everything to do with stopping some of the stuff that's going on --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Mr Mammoliti: -- in our buildings. Thank you for listening to me and I appreciate it, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The time for ballot item number 1 has expired.

1110

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Daigeler moved private member's notice of motion number 25:

That, in the opinion of this House, since in December 1992 the Bob Rae government postponed indefinitely the completion of Highway 416 between Century Road and the 401, and

Since this delay breaks the promise made by the NDP Transportation Minister Ed Philip in November 1990 to honour the Liberal government's commitment towards a 1999 completion date, and

Since the 416 postponement and the recent decision to charge significant fees for the Wolfe Island and Glenora ferries proves clearly that no one is fighting aggressively within the NDP government for the interests of eastern Ontario, and

Since the building of a four-lane link between Ottawa and the 401 has been a transportation priority for people in eastern Ontario since 1966 but was basically ignored by successive Conservative governments, and

Since for the first time a formal commitment was made to this project and moneys allocated by Liberal Transportation Minister Ed Fulton on June 12, 1989, and

Since Liberal Transportation Minister Bill Wrye in a July 3, 1990 letter to Nepean MPP Hans Daigeler promised the completion of phase 1 by 1995 and of phase 2 by 1999, and

Since the quick completion of Highway 416 topped the 1990 election wish list of Ottawa-Carleton's business community, and

Since from 1985 to the fall of 1992 there were 39 deaths and 721 reported accidents on Highway 16 with 90% of them happening between Century Road and the 401, and

Since area Conservative MPPs Bob Runciman, Norm Sterling and Noble Villeneuve have failed to ask questions in the House about this matter as requested of them by the Grenville Business News in March 1993, and

Since Ottawa-Carleton regional council in a motion of January 13 strongly urged the province of Ontario to stand by their commitment to complete the construction of Highway 416 from Highway 401 to Highway 417 by 1999,

Therefore, the Bob Rae government should be asked to re-establish funding for the construction of Highway 416 in time for the 1999 completion date as planned by the Liberal government and confirmed by NDP Transportation Minister Ed Philip in November 1990.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i) the member has 10 minutes to debate.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I'm really pleased to be able to address a subject that is of great importance for the people of eastern Ontario and I think for all the people of the province. What we're talking about here is jobs, what we're talking about here is improvement of the economy, what we're talking about here is making sure that we've got the infrastructure in our area, as an example, but in other parts of the province as well, that will help tourism, that will help small business people, that will help transportation companies to get to each other quickly.

What we're talking about today is job creation, is supporting the business community in eastern Ontario, and since a major project such as highway construction frankly involves companies that are not necessarily located in eastern Ontario, this motion and this project of the completion of 416 can be and is of interest to businesses and workers in other parts of the province as well. So I'm very pleased to again, because I've done so many times before, put myself on the record and put the Liberal caucus on the record towards the earliest completion of Highway 416 possible.

Obviously, when I put forward this motion it was quite a few weeks ago, because according to the process in this House we have to submit to the Clerk the motion well ahead so it can be printed and can be circulated among the members. I was pushing at that point, about four weeks ago, very much out of an interest to get the provincial government going again on this initiative because, as I said in my motion, unfortunately about a year ago, in December 1992, the Minister of Transportation very quietly, without making any kind of announcement, put on hold the second phase of the 416. He said, "We'd still like to complete it but we don't have any money and therefore we're not proceeding further with that second phase."

Frankly, if it hadn't been for myself, with the help of Leon Korbee from CJOH-TV, we wouldn't have found out about the fact that the NDP dropped its commitment towards the completion of the 416 in time for 1999, which is still more than five years away. We're still a significant time away from 1999, and they put it on hold indefinitely, which would prolong the thing for at least another five years, well into the year 2000. That is just not good enough for the people of Ottawa-Carleton, and not just for where I'm from but for all of eastern Ontario.

When we were able to uncover this unpleasant news, there was a lot of reaction already in eastern Ontario, in Ottawa-Carleton, and at that time we urgently requested -- and a lot of councillors and municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and not just in the Ottawa-Carleton area but in Kemptville and Prescott, a lot of people there were very upset and very concerned that a commitment that was made by two successive governments, by the Liberal government and the NDP government -- because the Minister of Transportation, Ed Philip, assured us in this House, assured me, and then I asked as well the new Minister of Transportation, Gilles Pouliot, whether he still was committed to the completion. I asked him at a committee hearing, and he said, "Yes, we're still committed." All of a sudden, he changed his mind, and no longer were they going to continue with this. So I have been pushing for the completion of this project for quite some time, and so have my Liberal colleagues in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

In addition to the fact that I wanted to get the NDP government to get moving again on this project, obviously we've had a very important event happen on Monday, which I think adds tremendous opportunity to my motion and to this debate today. Obviously, we have had a significant change in the federal government, and I think a significant change for the better, because the federal Conservatives did not want to contribute anything towards infrastructure and job creation projects across the province, and the 416 was one of them.

We know that the Toronto people were calling for a federal contribution towards the trade centre here, and we know that other areas were asking for a contribution from the federal government. The Tories did not come through with any kind of substantive promise, and we know what happened to them.

Yes, they were concerned about the deficit and they were concerned about spending money, but at the same time they realized there was a connection between spending on infrastructure, roads and schools and things that will last, and just giving increases to transfer agencies, to civil servants and other expenditures that don't leave a lasting impact. At least with infrastructure projects, we have something there that generations of people will be able to benefit from.

With the election of the federal Liberal government and Mr Chrétien's promise of federal support towards just these types of projects I think we have a fantastic opening for the province to come back on stream and to say, "Since the federal government is willing to contribute" -- at least he has promised -- "we want to see that now, and we are ready to come back on track as well."

That's what my motion is all about. As soon as the new federal Transportation minister is named, I will send him a letter by fax, saying first of all: "Congratulations. I think it's great that we finally again have a Liberal Transportation minister." The second part of my letter is going to be, "How about a federal contribution towards the completion of 416?"

You can be assured that I will be pushing very hard with my Liberal colleagues in the Ottawa-Carleton area, both provincially and federally, because I know they're all on side. I know they're all committed to this project, so I will be pushing with them very hard and very quickly and right there. Frankly, that's the important part, and that's where I've been missing the Tories.

As I said in my motion, we've heard very little from the eastern members of the PC caucus about the 416, even though I was at a meeting, I think it was in May or April, in Kemptville, where the business community of that area was calling on its representatives. That area, Kemptville, is just to the south of my riding; it's no longer a part of the Ottawa-Carleton region. However, because the 416 will connect the Ottawa-Carleton region, through Kemptville, through eastern Ontario, with the 401, that project is of great importance for the business community and the economic future of that part that's represented by Mr Runciman and Mr Villeneuve and Mr Sterling as well.

We've heard very little from them, even though they were asked at that meeting to keep hammering away at this. I understand that. If you want a project, you have to persevere. You can't just say, "Too bad; I'll give up."

1120

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Just stick with it.

Mr Daigeler: My motion today is a clear indication that I don't give up. Like the member says, you have to stick with it. You're quite right; you have to keep at it, because this isn't just a pet project for myself. This is not just something that is of interest to me personally or of political importance or significance. There are jobs at stake. And it costs quite a bit of money, I agree. It's over $200 million now for the remaining section of the 416 and it is an expenditure that's significant.

But, as I say, with that expenditure, there are a lot of construction workers in eastern Ontario and across the province who are looking for a job and who are looking for precisely the types of jobs that road construction brings.

I have only 21 seconds left right now. I think one of the worst things in the federal campaign was when the federal Tories were downplaying the significance of road workers and of people who are building and masons and people like that. I thought that was outrageous. So this kind of project I am very much in favour of. Not everybody can be a high-technology worker, and this is a project that will support labour across the province.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I rise today to address the private member's motion of the member for Nepean. I must tell you first of all that certainly I and my colleagues in the Tory caucus have been pushing very hard for Highway 416.

It's very interesting to notice that the member for Nepean is playing politics. I don't know if the word "demagogue" is a good word or not, but it says, "Do as I say and don't do as I do," and that's exactly what we've got.

I'll just set the record straight this morning for you, Madam Speaker, because the member for Nepean has very conveniently forgotten a whole number of things.

The most recent meeting that I attended was in the summer, immediately after the election was called. The member for Nepean says he was there in April. If he was there in April, I'm sure I was there. But I was in Kemptville at the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology and the incumbent member for Leeds-Grenville, a Liberal by the name of Jim Jordan, promised at that time that the government of Canada, if indeed it was a Jean Chrétien government, would pick up a third of the cost of 416.

Mr Daigeler: That's right, $60 million.

Mr Villeneuve: Well, I'm sorry, your facts are wrong, because this highway will cost $400 million to complete. So that's $133 million Mr Jordan committed, and we fully expect that if they're not demagogues, they'll come through with it. That was a promise that was made before a number of people in Kemptville in the middle of the summer. I want the member for Nepean to remember that.

I have had occasion to visit a number of the service roads that are being built right now, and the service roads are creating problems for the local municipalities because the government of Ontario will set them in place and then turn them back to the municipality for them to maintain. So that's a problem and I have been dealing with the Ministry of Transportation, trying to address these problems that municipalities, particularly Edwardsburgh, will have with that kind of return to them of service roads that are now being built.

I've been onsite and they're building the bridge over the Nation River and things are progressing reasonably well, in view of the fact that we had a Liberal government from 1985 to 1990 and now a socialist government.

But prior to 1985, I must tell you what happened. There was a government in place known as the Progressive Conservatives, and they acquired 98% of the right of way by about 1982. I was involved as an appraiser working for the individual land owner to attempt to make a decent deal with the government. By the early 1980s, completion of land acquisition, 98% of the land was acquired. Funny that the member for Nepean didn't mention that. In 1985, lo and behold, the government changed. The consulting was done by early 1982; the acquisition was complete by that time. In 1985, we have a Liberal government. No announcements on 416 immediately, construction or completion or even a schedule. We pushed and we pushed.

You may recall that we had big tax increases in those days, double inflation and one year I remember triple inflation. Nothing was being announced. Environmental hearings continued in 1986 and 1987. In 1987, the Queensway link was finally approved for construction to begin in 1991 and completion in 1996. First inkling that the Liberal government of the day even knew that something was going on.

On February 15, 1989, the Liberal Transportation minister of the time refused to provide a schedule for commencement and completion of the construction when I asked him in this Legislature. Andy Brandt, the interim leader of the Tories, asked the same question, February 1989, and it's reported in the Citizen. The member for Nepean never even said boo. He didn't exist at that time.

But would you believe that in March 1989, all of the Liberal members from eastern Ontario were called to the Coach House restaurant in Kemptville? Mr Fulton, the then minister, showed up. Lots of fanfare; lots of cameras. "We're going to finish it by 1999." The only thing he omitted was to put funding in place. It never happened. A big announcement, lots of media, lots of hype; no money. Yet the same government that had no hesitation in doubling and tripling the taxes in relation to inflation. Those are the facts.

In 1989, Ed Fulton in June reconfirmed, "We're going to have a highway from 401 to Ottawa, 1999." Fulton also announced the Queensway portion would be finished by 1995, a year ahead of schedule, and that construction on the remainder would begin in 1992. However, ministry documents from 1987 show that completion of the Queensway section was expected in 1995 and that the Liberal announcement would maybe speed it up by a couple of months. But we got some media hype. We got the Liberal members from eastern Ontario with their mugs in the paper saying great things. Interesting.

The NDP government continued its tax-and-spend, and I have to have some sympathy for the Minister of Transportation. I have spoken with him on numerous occasions --

Mr Daigeler: Are you in favour of the completion?

Mr Villeneuve: Ever since I was elected, I've been pushing for the completion of 416. For this member to have had the audacity of attempting to belittle the work done by eastern Ontario MPPs I say is an absolute fallacy. It's hard to remain in a mode that is parliamentary, because I think this is why we the elected people are sometimes frowned upon very, very consistently by the public. They are very cynical about us for exactly the type of motion that is coming in this morning. The Minister of Transportation has told me that through Jobs Ontario, funding is expected to be in place to complete the northern portion of 416 by 1996 and that it is indeed on track. We can get up every day in the Legislature and question and, as we did when the Liberals were here, get no responses. The work is being done behind the scenes.

We had three young ladies very tragically killed early this year. My letter went to the Minister of Transportation: "More bad news on Highway 16. Please remember your commitment." He replied several months later, and I appreciate that. It doesn't have to happen in the hustle and bustle of the Legislature.

I have provided to the road construction groups of Ontario the information on privatization of roads. They are looking into it right now, along with the construction industry of eastern Ontario. Has the member for Nepean done that? I don't know. He wants to get up in the Legislature and make noise so that he can make a little bit of headline.

I have two more of my colleagues who want to participate. I will support this motion, but this motion is why MPPs are considered to be very, very cynical people.

1130

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It's a pleasure to be able to rise today to speak against the resolution of the member for Nepean.

One of the things I have to speak against, as the member has already said, is the way you're playing politics with this. Let me come to the defence of the eastern members, whether they be from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party. They have worked very hard for their region. In fact, if I remember correctly, it was the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, Mr Johnson, who first raised the issue of the ferry expenses in his riding. Also, the member for Kingston and The Islands, Mr Gary Wilson, has been very vocal on that issue and many issues that do face eastern Ontario.

As you know, the ministry's original announcement for Highway 416 was made by the former Liberal Transportation Minister, Mr Fulton, that phase 1 would be completed by 1995 and phase 2 hopefully by 1999, but the completion of phase 1 was delayed due to some engineering complications. Then in December, the ministry announced that phase 2 was being delayed because of limited funding.

The development of Highway 416 is hopefully to allow travellers to reach their destinations and for businesses to be able to deliver their goods and products in a more efficient and effective way. It's also expected to stimulate some economic growth in the region and provide a high-quality access route to the nation's capital.

But phase 1 and phase 2 are distinctly different projects. Phase 1 is a high-priority project and it's designed for freeway standards. This is going to increase highway service and it is significantly going to reduce congestion on the road. Phase 2 of Highway 416 will continue the freeway into more rural areas south of Ottawa, and it's going to provide safe and high-speed construction. While preparation work continues for phase 2, from Highway 401 to Century Road, the completion date of 1999 is not as high a priority on our list as the completion date of phase 1.

As the member for Nepean was saying, with the new Liberal government in Ottawa they may be able to get some funding. In fact, the Financial Post of October 28 says:

"The new Liberal government could pave the way for speeding completion of Highway 416 to link Ottawa with Highway 401 between Toronto and Montreal, an Ottawa MP said....John Manley, formerly the Liberal transportation critic and a leading candidate for Transport Minister" -- maybe -- "said that, 'There's the potential for federal money to go to that project.'"

Is that like when Jean Chrétien during the election campaign was saying, "We're going to nix the airport deal," and then all of a sudden it's, "We're going to review the airport deal"? Is that where the flip-flop comes in? I think that's part of it also.

I think there are also a number of other things we have to look at when it comes to funding of highways. There are alternative ways of funding the phase 2 project. In other areas of the province -- Highway 407, for example -- innovative funding has included the use of private sector consortia and also tolls to pay for the new highway services. That is going to work quite well in the province of Ontario. I think in the Ottawa area we have to look at some of the different ways that we can fund highway construction.

One of the other things that I think we have to look at is the rationale around construction of Highway 416. The number one priority has to be phase 1, and that is where the government is going. The government has already spent a lot of money around the Ottawa area for construction of roads, for construction of overpasses --

Mr Daigeler: Any more than anywhere else?

Mr Fletcher: We have spent a lot of money in your area.

Mr Daigeler: Any more than anywhere else?

Mr Fletcher: Well, you don't just spend in one area and not in another area. There's a whole province that this government has to look at. Everyone is getting their fair share in this province. In fact, I think if you check the Ministry of Transportation's funding, we're looking at spending billions of dollars on infrastructure upgrading, but phase 2 at a cost of about $225 million for a 60-kilometre section does not carry the same rationale as we can see around other parts of the province. In fact, if you go to northern Ontario and the four-laning of Highway 17, I'm positive the Liberals said they were going to do that also, and that hasn't been completed either.

It's unfortunate that the politics of the day have to be played in this Legislature. I do believe the member is strictly playing politics with this issue. It's a local issue that will bring the kudos out and get him ready for the next election. But don't take all the credit for what's going on because, as I said earlier, there are many members from eastern Ontario who have fought long and hard, and probably much harder, to try and make sure that eastern Ontario is not neglected by this government.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to participate in the debate on the motion of my colleague the member for Nepean. The construction of Highway 416, providing a four-lane highway link between Highway 401 and the national capital, is a long-standing, long-awaited priority for my community of Ottawa-Carleton and many, many other communities in eastern Ontario.

As every member in this House is aware, the building of such a major highway is a massive undertaking requiring many years of planning, the acquisition of property, environmental assessments and zoning changes. But a project of this nature also requires political will, political will to push it through all of the required processes and hoops and to provide adequate funding for each stage of construction.

The presenter, the speaker for the government this morning, has not given me any assurance that there will be any political will, any political hoops to be jumped, on phase 2 of Highway 416. I'm sure the people of Ottawa-Carleton are going to be quite disappointed, disturbed, angered by the comments.

A serious commitment to this project was made by the previous administration of this province, and many references have been made to that this morning. Realistic time lines were established, funding was allocated, plans were drawn, environmental assessments proceeded and negotiations were undertaken to fulfil land acquisition and zoning requirements.

In fact, in 1990 a formal commitment was made to complete phase 1 of the Highway 416 project to Century Road by 1995, and of phase 2, Century Road to 401, by 1999. This commitment that the highway would be completed on time and on schedule was reiterated in this House by the first NDP Minister of Transportation in November 1990, very early in this government's mandate: on time, on schedule. But since then the progress has been slow, and plans, especially plans for work beyond Century Road, are becoming foggier and foggier and, after this morning's debate, I think mired in mud.

In my speech in response to this government's 1993-94 budget, I urged the Transportation minister to live up to his predecessor's commitment. I said then, and I repeat now, that for the NDP, some promises at least must be kept; some promises must be kept for eastern Ontario.

1140

The construction of this highway is, and has been for almost three decades, of vital economic concern to the region of Ottawa-Carleton, and indeed to all of eastern Ontario. The Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade said in a recent newsletter, "The completion of Highway 416 is so important to doing business in this region that the board of directors is now urging the provincial government to investigate using a toll system to help pay construction costs."

Yet even with this initiative, even with this commitment, this promise, this undertaking on behalf of Ottawa's business community, any reference to Highway 416 in any NDP announcement, in any NDP government budget plan or in any NDP government priority list is difficult -- is impossible -- to find. The commitment just is not there.

The Premier, when talking to the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen earlier this year, said the completion of the link with the 40l depends on whether Ottawa-Carleton can get the private sector involved in the construction. Yet the Premier said in this House, in answer to a question from my leader, Lyn McLeod, on Tuesday last: "We are ready. We are moving." Those words this week in this House, and we hear comments very different this morning from government members.

Ottawa-Carleton, in spite of what the Premier said this week, will have to put up its own bucks, will have to use its own imagination, will have to use its own resources and will have to gather its own collateral. I remind members that the pockets of eastern Ontario have helped to pave the roads of many other parts of this province.

It's time the infrastructure of eastern Ontario is on the front burner, is on the government's top priority list. Time lines change, change, and change again. No one really knows what the expected completion date is any more. As we enter 1994, there are very few who believe 1999, or indeed the year 2005, is a promise that will be realized.

In closing, I remind the House that the accelerated construction of this highway is an important safety issue. Lives continue to be lost. Highway 16, as it now exists, is a dangerous road.

Economic issues, safety issues, job creation: Highway 416 is a must. Eastern Ontario deserves to go -- must go -- into the 21st century with a highway from the nation's capital to Ontario's major transportation artery. Eastern Ontario demands this lifeline. Eastern Ontario deserves this lifeline. Let's go.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I think this resolution is unfortunate because we are dealing with a matter that is serious to the people of eastern Ontario and it's being dealt with in a silly manner. The doctor of divinity, Mr Daigeler, at least is honest in bringing forward a holier-than-thou attitude to this issue. This is a serious matter in eastern Ontario -- there are people dying on the highway -- and Mr Daigeler insists on bringing this in a very partisan way.

Last April, the member for Leeds-Grenville, Mr Runciman, Mr Villeneuve, myself and Mr Daigeler agreed to appoint two people each to a task force to work and bring forward important points to the ministry. I thought at that time we would work together, and I understand that task force is working to bring forward the various arguments, marshal those arguments together, to convince this government to keep this project on track.

Mr Daigeler breaks the pact today, and I don't know what to do to advise my people, who consider this matter a serious matter for the people of eastern Ontario. Now Mr Daigeler makes light of it by bringing forward a very partisan kind of resolution to this House.

I look at this resolution with disgust, because I have never in my 16 years in this House seen a member bring forward such a partisan issue to a very, very serious matter for the people of eastern Ontario. I say that and I'm angry, because I think this is a disgusting way for a member of this Legislature to act in here. I'm sorry, I'm getting a little bit --

The Acting Speaker: I would caution the member not to be provocative, please.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Sterling: The fact is that during a number of elections, politicians have played with this issue over and over again. David Peterson made promises in 1985 vis-à-vis the Queensway which he did not keep.

I can read articles and letters from Ed Fulton, the former Minister of Transportation wherein he said, for instance, in a letter which I received a copy of in 1989: "Please be aware that the financial commitments for Highways 417 and 416 command a significant portion of the ministry's overall budget. To commit additional funds for the widening of Highway 16 at this time would require a deferral of necessary rehabilitative work on existing highway systems."

All the politicians in the Ottawa area have been guilty of promising and promising that this is going to take place at an earlier date. The fact is that during the late 1980s, through the mismanagement of the Liberal government, moneys were spent wastefully on a number of things across this province. That is the reason the NDP government does not have the money at this time to put into the infrastructure, to build 416, which they should have put money aside for at the time when the economy was good and the revenues of this province were good.

I have been involved in this issue for some 13 years. I was involved in the cabinet of Ontario when the decision was made to go down the Cedarview corridor because municipal politicians at that time couldn't decide which way to go. I pushed in order to get a route into Ottawa and we did it, and that was probably harder than getting the funding, quite frankly.

I am sick and tired of politicians playing this issue over and over again, making silly promises which they do not keep. I think the member for Nepean has done a great disservice to the people of eastern Ontario in bringing forward this issue of 416 in a silly and partisan manner, and I think the people of eastern Ontario should view this resolution with disgust.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I would like to thank the member for Nepean for the opportunity to speak to this, because obviously highway construction is an issue probably for each and every member here. The reality is that the provincial budget isn't large enough to fulfil the wish list of each and every member, so I think he probably understands that highway construction, for us as well as our constituents, is filled with a range of concerns; one could even say emotion, if we are talking about running down the main street of a small village that happens to have a range of historic sites. I think we have to take into account that a range of constituent concerns probably exist. Some of them may have been answered and some may be left unanswered and unsatisfied.

This project, as the member for S-D-G & East Grenville has outlined, has been around for a long time. In fact, he has taken away a couple of my points, which I will just quickly allude to.

1150

An awful lot of preparatory work has already been undertaken over a considerable number of years, which includes a range of OMB hearings to deal with the acquisition of property. The reality is that each and every member here must understand that a lot of time and money have gone into this project already, and there's probably still a lot more work that needs to be done.

One of the issues that has not been raised so far is that the current section of the highway, the northern portion of 416, when being undertaken, the soil surveys concluded that there were certain pockets of clay which would present some problems for the engineers, but those deposits of clay were much larger and presented much more serious problems and as a result have presented cost factors as well as time factors. I think the member for Nepean must understand that you just don't move ahead without having resolved some of these problems.

I wanted to allude to the fact that you want to make sure, in any highway construction, that the project is done correctly. The member for St Catharines has just arrived, and we've talked about the whole issue of the widening of the Queen Elizabeth Way. We represent the urban area of St Catharines through which the QEW will run, and I know both of us have expressed concern about the neighbourhoods that would be affected and a range of agricultural land-use issues around the area. There are a lot of citizens' concerns out there and they have to be met by the engineers who are with the Ministry of Transportation, and none of this is either cheap or fast.

Personally, as a member representing an area which is looking at a major expansion, I appreciate the fact that time and care is being taken. Like every other member, it's always nice to see that dollars are being spent in your area but I think they should be spent wisely.

Mr Daigeler: Obviously, I got the goat of the Tory members, and perhaps that's good. The member for Carleton and the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry also were criticizing me for phrasing this in a partisan manner. Well, what I've done is simply put forward what the Grenville County Business News was asking of the members who are criticizing me, was asking of them in the March 1993 edition after the meeting we had in Kemptville, and I was there as well. Here's what they said. It's not me who's making these silly points about the Tories; it's their own journalists. And I understand Mr John Morris, who is the publisher of the Grenville County Business News and several other community newspapers, is a good Tory. I think it's their own people, their own supporters, who are putting those views forward.

Here's what Mr John Morris, in an editorial, writes. He says: "Our area politicians" -- and he's referring to the southern section of eastern Ontario -- "will have to do more as well, especially those representing us at Queen's Park. Bob Runciman, Norm Sterling and Noble Villeneuve should keep asking questions about the future of the highway every day in the Ontario Legislature. Let's keep the heat turned up. If we don't, Premier Rae will continue to give eastern Ontario the cold shoulder." I wonder what upsets the member for Carleton so much. It's his own Tory friends who are saying, "Mr Sterling, we would like to hear more from you on this matter."

My point here, really, is not to criticize the Tories. They obviously are taking offence at being told they should get on board again and be active and be seen on this matter. My point -- and this is where I do hope the Tories and the NDP as well will support me -- is that here we have a project that is of great importance to eastern Ontario, here we have a project that will create jobs, that will provide the infrastructure we need to get the business community working again, so let's get on board again, especially with the opportunity we now have of Mr Chrétien saying the federal government is going to put its money where its mouth is.

Yes, Mr Villeneuve, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, did refer to the fact that Jim Jordan, the re-elected federal member for his area, a Liberal member, did make a commitment in Kemptville, and I should tell him he made that same commitment again this week after his re-election. In fact he was on television yesterday with myself, where he said, "The federal government will come through with $60 million."

Mr Jordan is pushing for it. He's committed to it. I said and I will continue to say, "I will keep you to your word," and I do hope I will have the support of Mr Villeneuve and everybody else in this House to push my own Liberal colleagues at the federal level to come through with their contribution.

By all means, let's work together on this. I will be pushing very hard and I will be very, very mad and upset if my Liberal colleagues at the federal level do not come through with their commitment, but I think they will, if we in Ontario, because this is a provincial road, say, "Yes, this is a priority for us."

Here we have a major commitment that will be coming from the federal government, so let's get back on track in the province. This changes the situation. If the province said before, "Well, we don't have the money," here's an opening, here's a tremendous opportunity.

I couldn't understand what Mr Fletcher was saying a little bit earlier when he said, "No, we can't afford this." He's speaking against his own Premier. Here is today's newspaper. The Premier himself is quoted in the newspaper here. Here's what he's saying.

"Ontario plans to push the incoming federal government to start spending money quickly on a variety of road, sewer and transit projects under the Liberals' promised job creation program, Premier Bob Rae said yesterday." This is today's paper.

If your own Premier has said -- and good for him, I say, good for him. Be right there, be on the ball, go after the federal government. You can't just sit back. You can't just do what the Tories are doing, being quiet about this. This is an important project.

I understand there's a lot of money involved. You have to do lobbying. You can't just sit back and hope and pray. As the member for Carleton said, I am a theologian and I do pray, but there's more to it that's required. We do have to speak up, we have to be on the record and the provincial government has to be up front and say: "Yes, we are ready with this project. We are ready to go again with it and we are going to meet with the Minister of Transport at the federal level right away to work things out."

Again, to his credit, this is what the Premier said yesterday. This is a quote from the Premier: "I've asked everyone within the public service to go through the red book to see what we can do together," and "We'll start calling them up as soon as they're sworn in and saying, 'We're ready to do these things. Where are you?'"

I say, good for the Premier. That's precisely what I want him to do, and that's what I want especially the members from eastern Ontario in this House to do, on all sides of the House, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Liberals. I can tell you, I certainly will be there. I will be calling, and I sure hope Mr Wilson -- I guess he may be speaking a little bit later -- will be there as well and calling, because the people of eastern Ontario want some action.

They have been let down by the Tories, they have been let down by the NDP, and that's why we've seen the dramatic election result the way we've seen it on Monday night. I think that may be one of the other reasons why the Tories are so upset and why they're so sensitive about this matter, especially the member from Carleton saying that this motion is partisan when he puts forward the most partisan motions I've ever seen. The way he's been talking about the Liberal concern about the Quebec-Ontario construction exchange question, it was totally misleading.

But anyway, I just want to say that I am interested in getting the 416 back on track, and that's what this motion is all about, to make sure that we have in eastern Ontario the infrastructure that supports the business community and the economic vitality and structure of our area.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the member. The member's time has expired. Further debate?

1200

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'd like the member for Nepean to apologize to me for calling my remarks totally misleading.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Nepean wish to apologize?

Mr Daigeler: Well, Madam Speaker, it depends whether you find what I said offensive or not.

Mr Villeneuve: It's unparliamentary.

The Acting Speaker: The word "misleading" is unparliamentary.

Mr Daigeler: If you find the word "misleading" to be offensive, I'll withdraw it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a very brief period of time to comment in respect to this resolution. I want to say I'm not angered by the resolution but I am saddened by it because, as the member for Carleton mentioned earlier, four of us met in Kemptville some time ago, the Liberal Party representatives, Conservative representatives and a federal Liberal member, and there was an effort to work together with members of the community, concerned municipal politicians and so on, in respect to achieving what we all felt was a goal that needed to be achieved, a four-lane highway linking the nation's capital and Highway 401.

We can get into all sorts of arguments relating to other priorities in the province, but this is a link to the nation's capital. So I'm saddened by the wording of this resolution and the fact that the member has chosen to give the real concerns of residents in that area a back seat in respect to really accomplishing what we felt was a united goal in terms of four-laning all of the 416 highway.

I hope the area residents will recognize what the real goal of this resolution is: It's political gain. In my view, I have not seen a resolution or legislation from a private member worded in such a way, attacking individual members. It demeans the issue, and perhaps even more importantly, it demeans the Parliament.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased to join in this discussion of the resolution by the member for Nepean. He's trying to tell us that it's not put forward in a partisan frame of mind, and I'm willing to accept that, to some extent at least, partly in this new era where I hope we can look for more cooperation from the federal government and indeed all levels of government.

However, I'm a bit disturbed that he would include an item that's centred in my riding and my colleague's riding to the west, because this belies his non-partisan approach. Although he qualifies his remark here about our decision to charge "significant fees," I'm not sure then what kind of fee he would think -- I'd suggest that there should be a fee there of some kind and I think that reflects the reality of today's fiscal climate, that in all kinds of transportation issues it's expected that the users of the service will share in the support of them, of course to guarantee them.

The member also referred to the problems the Tories led to, the lack of commitment on promises, and then went to our government, seemingly forgetting the Liberal government. If he were non-partisan, he would include all governments in that way and say we'll all try to do better. I think it's fair to say that we have to do better.

I'm not about to say that all governments have done everything they can for eastern Ontario, but I don't want to say either that eastern Ontario is the only region in the province that deserves attention. We're all in this together, and I think it's only fair to say that what works well for eastern Ontario will work well for the other areas of the province, just as what works well there will benefit us. It's not to disadvantage any one region that we spend money in our areas.

But as far as standing up for our constituents, I want to say that through the work of Paul Johnson and me, we've got the minister to appoint an investigator to look at the circumstances of the fee. That's Mr Brooke McNabb, who's recently undertaken his investigation to look into all aspects of the fee, and I think it's seen to be fair by everybody in the area that we'll have a good look at what the details are.

As far as benefiting eastern Ontario or making sure that we fulfil our commitments, I don't think you have to take my word for it. We can look at something as recent as today's paper, as the member himself does, and we find a headline here that reads, "NDP Comes Through for Region with $17 Million." So I'm very pleased that the member raised this resolution to provide me with the opportunity to talk about this very significant development, to show that we are committed as a government to make sure the east prospers along with other areas of the province.

What we're looking at here is a program that will respond to the job creation needs in our area, and they're long-term jobs, high value added jobs, that will mean a secure future for our area. This is in keeping with an earlier announcement about a biosciences centre at Queen's, some $24 million that will be spent there in cooperation with other levels of government, and a technology transfer centre as well, a million and a half dollars.

Yesterday the Minister of Economic Development and Trade was in our area to announce the funding to improve the Norman Rogers Airport so that it can be there to support industry as we need it. It's something that's been long identified by area people as a need and our government has come through with the money to make sure that that improvement takes place.

One of the companies that has called for an improvement of the airport is Du Pont, a very important employer, not only for the Kingston area but for eastern Ontario. As you know, it has a plant at Maitland as well. To make the guarantee that the jobs will stay in our area, our government is coming through with a loans package that allows it to spend many more millions of dollars to guarantee that Kingston will be an important centre for Du Pont in the future.

So I suggest that our government is fulfilling its commitments to eastern Ontario. The members there -- and I say it's not only in our party; the members throughout the area, and the member for Nepean is an example of this -- are making sure that what is due our area is paid. However, I don't like the partisan approach that the member appears to have taken in this resolution. I hope it doesn't suggest that this is the way his federal cousins will approach the issue of combining or cooperating with other levels of government.

I just want to turn to, in closing, the remarks of Reeve Barry Gordon, the chair of the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission, another body that is interested in the region. He says about the announcement yesterday, "KAEDC is working hard on behalf of the local municipalities on these and other projects and we appreciate the support of the Ontario government." You see, it's something that we've got to work on in the area to make sure that money is generated in our area so that we can afford projects like Highway 416.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Nepean has two minutes to respond.

Mr Daigeler: Several of the speakers from the other parties said that I am too partisan in my motion. Frankly, I am partisan about this, I make no bones about it, because in order to get the 416 back on track you have to be partisan. You can't just sit back on your hands and say, okay, the transportation minister, either at the federal level or at the provincial level, they're going to be good guys or good girls -- it may be a woman transportation minister. You have to be up front.

You have to be right there when the decisions are made and if we are not at this level pushing the provincial government right now to go after the federal government for its contribution and to put these projects back on track, other areas are going to be smarter and they're going to be the ones that are going to get the approvals and they're going to be the ones to get the infrastructure improvements, and what are we going to do? It's going to be too late then to complain.

Now is the time, and that's why I put this motion forward and that's why I'm partisan about it. We have to keep this matter constantly in front of us. Again I quote the community newspapers of eastern Ontario. I quote the Grenville County Business News, which had the headline, "Constant Lobby Needed for 416 Construction."

This is how politics works. You have to make sure that people know about your concern. Don't just sit back and be satisfied if it doesn't come for you the first time around. Keep at it. If it is a project that's important enough, that's worthy of support, you have to speak up, you have to promote it. That's what this motion is all about, and I do hope the members will support it.

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

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We will deal first with ballot item 31 standing in the name of Mr Mammoliti. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Mammoliti has moved second reading of Bill 95, An Act to provide for the passing of vital services by-laws by the City of North York. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

This bill is ordered to committee of the whole House.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'd prefer it to go into the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a majority in favour of its going to general government? Agreed.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We will now deal with the second ballot item, number 32, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Daigeler. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.

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

The House recessed from 1213 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROGRAMMES DE TRAITEMENT DU CANCER

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : La mauvaise gestion du gouvernement néo-démocrate a entraîné en Ontario ce que certains n'hésitent pas à appeler une crise des programmes de traitement du cancer.

Il y a une pénurie de spécialistes tels les oncologues et les radio-oncologues. Certains des appareils de traitement du cancer ne peuvent fonctionner faute de spécialistes. Ceci explique en grande partie les listes d'attente inacceptablement longues.

Beaucoup de patients ne reçoivent pas les traitements de radiothérapie à temps. On doit, dans certains cas, recourir à des chirurgies seulement pour limiter les dégâts. Certains patients doivent quitter leur ville pour plusieurs semaines ou même quitter le pays pour recevoir un traitement à temps. Tout le monde s'entend pour dire que les besoins augmentent et que, si rien n'est fait, le problème va prendre des proportions énormes.

C'est pourquoi le groupe parlementaire libéral a mis sur pied un groupe de travail dont le mandat est d'abord d'étudier les problèmes empêchant l'Ontario de traiter les victimes de cancer et, ensuite, de recommander des solutions. Plusieurs questions importantes ont été soulevées à propos de l'accessibilité des programmes de traitement du cancer en Ontario.

Ce groupe de travail discutera avec des patients atteints du cancer et des professionnels de la santé. Il entendra les commentaires des spécialistes de la santé en ce qui a trait aux répercussions des politiques néo-démocrates sur les programmes de traitement du cancer en Ontario et recommandera des solutions à ces problèmes.

À compter de demain, le groupe de travail se rendra dans les villes suivantes : Toronto, Kingston, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Ottawa, London, Sudbury et Hamilton.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Last week, another sawmill in northern Ontario shut down, throwing nearly 100 people out of work. This time it's the Goulard mill near Sturgeon Falls, a family-owned business that has operated successfully for generations.

Ironically, and the real tragedy for all those hard-working men and women who no longer have a job, there's no shortage of business. In fact, business is booming.

The problem is that because of native land disputes and because of MNR's refusal to grant cutting permits, our mills can't get enough wood to fill all the orders. Meanwhile, MNR's own research shows that Ontario forests can sustain a 50% increase in the annual harvest. This is NDP mismanagement of the worst order, and it's a disgrace. NDP policies are killing business, they're costing us jobs and they're destroying our economic base.

To save these jobs, I urge the NDP to start listening to my leader, Mike Harris, who represents that area. Listen to Sturgeon Falls' mayor, Mike DeCaen, and to Springer township's reeve, J.P. Charles who, along with Mike Harris, are leading the fight to save jobs at Goulard's and other mills. Lift the native land cautions, issue the cutting permits, let them fill their orders and let our people work.

PUBLIC LIBRARIANS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Many in this House know that before my election, I was a public librarian. I would at this time like to welcome my professional colleagues, who are members of the Ontario Library Association, to the Niagara Peninsula as they begin their annual conference.

This is a somewhat unusual conference in that it is a joint conference with the New York Library Association. For those of us who live on the border, we find ourselves sharing many activities and interests with our American neighbours. In the library world, it has long been a basic tenet that sharing has to be the order of the day. No library, not even the US Library of Congress, can own everything.

There are those who would like to call librarians information scientists. Personally, I do not rank myself among those. That is not to discount the value of the new information technologies which have aided the library world in the dispensing of information quickly and accurately. My librarian colleagues will be discussing issues of technology, but they will also delve into topics that will improve the range of services that are provided to the public. The book is still very much a part of the library world, so it will not surprise anyone to know that there will be detailed discussions with authors and the book-publishing industry.

The first Public Libraries Act was passed during the 1880s, but it is clear to everyone that the libraries have moved into the 1990s. Conferences like this one continue the sharing of resources and information to help to advance the profession.

We in Niagara welcome these important visitors to our area and hope that they will partake of the peninsula's many attractions: the falls, beautiful Victoria Park, but also our Niagara wines and various historic sites.

SARAH MCLAUGHLIN

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Members of the Legislature may recall that I raised the case several months ago and on an ongoing basis of a young girl by the name of Sarah McLaughlin and her needs, which are not being met by the Ontario government and by our health care system at this time. She is the daughter of Jerry and Jill McLaughlin, who reside in St Catharines, and the girl requires physiotherapy once a week, occupational therapy twice a month, audiology review every three months, in-home resource teaching at W. Ross Macdonald twice a month, in-home resource teaching with E.C. Drury once a month, medical appointments with a paediatrician, neurologist or general practitioner once a week, low-vision clinic twice a year, as well as other unexpected appointments due to illness or increased seizure activity, such as emergency hospitalization.

As a result of Sarah's combined loss of vision and hearing, she requires constant one-to-one intervention. Sarah cannot obtain routine information from her environment by watching, listening or touching. In other words, Sarah has multiple disabilities which require a good deal of service on the part of those who have that expertise. At the present time they are kept to only nine hours per week.

What Sarah McLaughlin is asking for, through her parents, Jill and Jerry McLaughlin, is that the Ontario government respond positively to their appeal to provide more service to a youngster who requires the greatest of medical care.

LIVE THEATRE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to rise today to recognize the contribution of live theatre to Toronto's economy. In recent weeks there have been media reports about the outstanding success of live theatre in Toronto. Canadian residents, Ontario residents, as well as American visitors, are flocking to Toronto like never before to see productions like Phantom of the Opera, Miss Saigon and Show Boat, as well as countless other successful plays.

Despite the numerous policies of the provincial government which discourage tourism and economic growth -- like the cancellation of the retail sales tax rebate on goods and accommodation and high food, high gas and high liquor taxes -- live theatre is thriving.

The impact of the theatre on tourism and the economy is dramatic. Approximately seven million theatre tickets were sold in Toronto in 1992 alone. One half of these ticket sales were to out-of-town visitors, and it is estimated that the Phantom of the Opera alone generates approximately $200 million a year in spinoffs for the Metro Toronto economy.

The success of theatre in Toronto is an example of private enterprise boosting tourism and the local economy. Just imagine the potential for even greater economic growth if the provincial government stopped strangling the tourism sector with high taxes and excessive regulation.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): As we all know, residents of the Lincoln riding, myself included, have been fighting the Ontario Waste Management Corp's proposal to build a $250-million hazardous waste incinerator near Smithville. We have all consistently argued that there are alternatives to burning Ontario's toxic waste at one central facility, options such as onsite treatment and 3Rs waste reduction.

Well, guess what? A highly respected private waste management company agrees with what we've been saying. Laidlaw Inc has abandoned its bid to build a $50-million hazardous waste incinerator near Sarnia. Why? Because company officials believe the province doesn't need any more hazardous waste incinerators. They believe Ontario can be served either with other environmental technology or by existing kilns in the United States. The other technologies are designed to treat hazardous wastes onsite rather than requiring them to be transported to a central facility.

Four years of environmental assessment hearings into OWMC's toxic proposal wrapped up last month and a decision is expected some time next spring. But even if the proposal passes assessment, it still must be approved by the cabinet. While I am not trying to prejudice the outcome of the hearings, I would urge members of cabinet to take a long, hard look at this proposal if it indeed passes assessment, and I would ask them to weigh the alternatives carefully. I would hope they come to the same conclusion that I and the people of Lincoln have: that OWMC's toxic monster should not be built in Smithville or anywhere else in the province of Ontario.

1340

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm disappointed and I'm dismayed that members of the government today underlined the fact that there is no commitment on the part of this NDP government to complete Highway 416 to Highway 401. In fact, the government is now stating that the project is "too expensive," it's "not on any priority list" and that it's "a local issue." These statements by the government members are unbelievable. They are very unacceptable.

As I said in my statement this morning, a project of this nature requires political will, the political will to push it through its processes, to push it through its hoops and to provide adequate funding at each stage of the construction. I did not hear one hint, I did not hear one whisper of positive political will by members of the government this morning in this chamber.

Economic issues, safety issues, job creation: Highway 416 must be completed to Highway 401. It's a must. Eastern Ontario deserves to go, must go, into the 21st century with a highway from the nation's capital to the main artery of transportation in Ontario. Eastern Ontario demands this lifeline.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): A litany of lies and deceit was started two years ago with the introduction of Bill 143 in October 1991. Never before has there been such a deception on the part of a government. Bill 143, evil manifesto that it is of NDP rhetoric and ill remarks, this insidious bill, has ruined lives, destroyed communities and struck dead our belief in the parliamentary system. This bill has steamrollered over basic human rights and ignored municipal rights.

Bill 143 is as two-faced as the party that designed it. Bob Rae on one hand is promising there'll be no more dumps while at the same time sealing the fate of host communities in the GTA. He continues to spit contempt on these communities by refusing their pleas for a review of all the alternatives. A ruthless, spineless minister has never listened to the majority of people in Kirkland Lake.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Cousens: She has orchestrated the demise --

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Markham please take his seat. The member for Markham, an experienced member in this House, knows better. I ask him to withdraw those remarks and continue with his statement.

Mr Cousens: I withdraw that part about her being spineless and ruthless, but the minister never did listen. And what about her henchmen and henchwomen, the backbenchers?

Bill 143 has been rammed through this house. There has been no acceptance of amendments from the opposition. It has removed our constitutional rights. It has cost the government $30 million; it has cost our community as much again. Bill 143 has cost all of us dearly.

Today, we do not celebrate a second anniversary, we lament it.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Take your seat, please.

EMILY HOWARD STOWE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): October is Women's History Month in Ontario.

The Woodstock Public Library recently held a lecture on one of Oxford county's most important historical figures, Emily Howard Stowe. Stowe was Canada's first practising female doctor. Born in 1831 near the village of Norwich, she had a keen interest in learning and gained her teaching certificate from the Toronto Normal School. She eventually became the first female principal in Upper Canada.

When her husband became ill, she decided to leave the education system because she could not earn enough to support her husband and three children. She turned her sights on becoming a doctor, but was refused entry to the University of Toronto's medical school because she was a woman. So in 1860, she left Canada to attend medical school in New York, where she also became involved in the women's rights and anti-slavery movements.

When she returned to Canada in 1867, she again faced discrimination. As a woman, she couldn't practise medicine because she wasn't allowed to take the proper courses. With help, she lobbied the medical society until she and other women were allowed to take the courses.

She set up a successful practice in Toronto catering to female patients shortly after returning to Canada, but it wasn't until 1880, 13 years later, that she received her medical licence to practise in Ontario.

She would go on to start the suffragette movement in Canada and spent the rest of her life lobbying for women's rights.

Emily Howard Stowe epitomizes the spirit and courage that women have shown throughout Ontario's history, and I'm proud that we've set aside the month of October to recognize their contributions to this province.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, I would invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon an experienced member of the House, a former member who was a former minister of the crown, seated in the members' gallery west, Mr John Eakins, the former member for Victoria-Haliburton.

It is now time for oral questions. The honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I was able to identify the honourable member because sitting beside him is, of course, the warden of Victoria county, Ms McCrae, and her husband. It's very nice to have them here as well; good, strong local politicians from that area. John, it's good to see you back.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The honourable member, after some prodding from us, has admitted that there are considerable amounts of welfare fraud going on. I'd like him to tell us today the extent of that and what special steps he's taken to curtail that welfare fraud.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I find it really interesting that the member for Bruce would again ask that question to which he's received an answer, but I'd be very happy to answer him again.

I do want to say that I've had a chance to look in more detail into the report that was given to me yesterday by the leader of his party. I want to say to him and to the House -- and I regret that the Leader of the Opposition isn't here to hear this directly from me -- that I'm appalled at the activities and the actions that were taken by the members opposite with respect to this issue.

That report, which they used to allege serious incidents of fraud, as it turns out is not a report that has any official sanction by any ministry in the federal government, which is something that we have been able to verify this morning and which, upon careful reading, results in verification of about seven cases, seven incidents, of fraud that have been acted upon and are being acted upon. From those seven incidents, the writer of this report, an individual civil servant, draws conclusions which cast aspersions on a particular community and which were added to by the Leader of the Opposition's press release, which I find appalling and abhorrent.

I think that it's incumbent, if we want to deal with issues of fraud, which are serious issues, that we deal with them with the facts in front of us and not by casting aspersions on the Somali community or on any other community, for that matter, by raising allegations which are only allegations and which have no substance in fact.

I'd be very happy to go into great detail in subsequent questions and answers --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- on all of the things that we are doing which show that we are taking the issue of fraud quite seriously. That issue, I think, is an important issue that we need to discuss. But I just want to say to the member opposite, since he's standing today in the stead of his leader, that this is an issue that I hope that she will have the decency to follow up on, with the apology to the community that has been requested of her.

Mr Elston: Let's just revisit what has occurred. It's obvious to me that what has occurred here is that that minister accepted a report offered by the Leader of the Opposition to have him and the Premier look into, to investigate. It is obvious, from what was said this morning at the press conference, that his office leaked it to that dipper John Clarke so that he could do some work.

The allegations which he has just made are totally false. The Leader of the Opposition has given him the work to look into and find out exactly what's going on. What he has done is he has verified that a public servant from the federal government wrote the report, and from there on, the matter remains for him to try to obscure what is happening in his own department.

I again ask the member to tell us exactly what his government has done to curtail the fraud about which we have been speaking. Will he confirm that his government in fact was the one that has prevented local case workers from going to do home visits, which in fact would go a long way to identifying the applicants who are, throughout the province, creating or committing false claims and thereby defrauding our province of thousands of dollars?

1350

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me deal with those comments that were made by the member opposite. First of all, let me be very clear that this report was not leaked to anybody by anyone in my ministry that I am aware of. In fact, I've been very clear in not releasing this report. I said that yesterday to the media and I continue to say that. So where people got a copy of the report, I don't know. It wasn't from me or from anybody who works for me and with me.

So let me be really clear that again, I think what is irresponsible in the actions that were taken -- I have no problem whatsoever with the members opposite raising issues about allegations of fraud. That is perfectly within their rights and responsibilities to do that. It is completely irresponsible, however, to take sections of a report such as that, as they did, and issue them in a press release, which gives veracity to that statement when that statement is based only on one person's allegations and has no connection to any truth that is going on or any basis as we can determine in terms of the very limited number of fraud situations that were discovered and verified in that particular report.

As to what we are doing and specifically to the issue of home visits, let me say to him, yes, it is true that the home visits are no longer a specific requirement -- that is, that we are not requiring that they be done in all instances -- but it is not true that we have removed that possibility from happening.

What we have done is we have said that that is an issue of discretion to be dealt with locally by the income maintenance workers and that is in their determination when a home visit is warranted. That is the difference and we believe that, among the other issues that we have put in place to deal with welfare fraud, the additional staff in place now, the fact that in the last round of expenditure control measures, the largest area of expenditure savings that we've identified is one that we believe will come from an intensive review of files and cases. That is not something that we've decided recently; that was something that we decided last spring --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- and is something upon which we are acting and which we have put some dollars into the system to put the appropriate people in place to help us do that.

The issue of fraud is a very serious issue. It is not an issue that started with the existence of this government.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Silipo: One might ask what actions were taken before we got to this place around this issue, but we are taking the issues seriously; we are dealing with it and we have to deal with it in a way that respects the dignity of the individuals --

The Speaker: Would the minister please take his seat. The question's been answered.

Mr Elston: So far he hasn't answered the question. I've asked him very clearly, what has he done? He hasn't done anything. I will read the entire regulation: "In order to respect the personal privacy, the requirement for home visits is replaced" -- and I underscore that myself -- "by personal contact with the client. The client's preference" -- I underscore, the client's preference -- "will determine the location, eg, home, office or other suitable meeting place, for the personal contact." That is how you are going about it.

You will have to confirm for the public, sir, that the largest volume of personal contacts are done by telephone, that in fact most of the time, the personal contacts and the inquiries made for filling out a lot of the forms are being done by telephone, by the offices in the various municipalities. I agree with you, and I will read the rest of the regulation, which says, "Home visits may be conducted as part of a random sample to ensure that social assistance is not abused or for the assessment of requests for home repairs."

I understand that that will give you your loop, but I'll tell you, nobody is doing the home visits; nobody has the grounds to do those visits; nobody has the staff to do those visits. I want the minister to tell us today, what are you going to do to ensure that fraud is reduced in this province as it relates to the welfare system, over which he has a great deal of control?

Hon Mr Silipo: What we are going to do is to continue doing exactly what we're doing and to look for other steps that we need to add to that, because again, my starting premise and my continuing premise on this is that the issue of welfare fraud is one that has to be taken seriously and we have to continue to take steps to be able to justify to the people of the province the wisdom of spending the dollars that we are spending.

I think we have to be careful and also say to the member that one could take his statement to a conclusion that says if you didn't do home visits, all of a sudden -- that that is what accounts for the large increase in case loads in this province. We know that is not the case, and I think he knows that is not the case, because the reality of why we have so many people who have had to turn to social assistance has not to do with the incidence of fraud. It has to do with the state of the economy of this province, it has to do with the joblessness that exists in this province, and it has to do therefore with a number of those factors --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You don't do home visits; there is no permanent address. That's why --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- that we need to address and that we are trying to address, in part, through the social assistance reform.

Specifically on the measures we need to continue to take on the issue of fraud, it is possible for people to do home visits, where they feel that is warranted. We are continuing our efforts to deal very specifically with allegations of fraud in a very systematic way and to also deal with issues of abuse, not just fraud, and issues of potential overpayment through the case reviews that I've indicated we are in the process of doing now, they are actually under way, and which add to the steps that were taken even under my predecessor in this ministry, when additional staff was added specifically for the purpose of doing those case reviews and which have resulted, as I indicated to the member in the House last week --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- already in identification of some $16 million in savings in money that was found to have been overpaid to a number of clients.

HOME CARE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I'm glad the Minister of Community and Social Services raised the issue of the entirely unacceptable level of job loss in this province.

I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, in her role today as designated Premier of the hour.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): She's going to be Premier some day, she hopes.

Mr Elston: I think only the hour today.

The Ontario Home Health Care Providers' Association today had a press conference which indicated it was going to launch a legal challenge with respect to the activities of the government in dealing with the government's new program to eliminate profit home care providers from the marketplace.

I would like the minister to tell us today if she can confirm what has been told to us earlier, that well beyond 10,000 people will lose their jobs as a result of the implementation of this policy by her government.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm pleased to be able to respond to this question, of course, because I'm one person, having been in the portfolio of Health before, who has spoken often on this issue of the delivery of home care services and our preference for those services to be delivered by the not-for-profit sector.

I would say that the suggestion that over 10,000 people will lose their jobs is in fact an incorrect suggestion. We have, throughout this, approached this issue of the realization of the government's policy preference of delivery of health care services through the not-for-profit sector in a planned approach, in a planned way, one that gives us the ability over a number of years to phase in implementation of this policy, one that allows us to still provide consumers with choice, certainly in terms of the range of not-for-profit agencies, as well as the ability for the for-profit sector to still be a player, although certainly our new funds will be going towards expansion in the not-for-profit sector.

We will also, through the kinds of mechanisms that we have set in place, support conversion where that is the preference of the for-profit, to convert to not-for-profit, to work with them, as well as to work with the issue of worker displacement, if there is any, to make sure that as new jobs are created in the not-for-profit sector, workers who have been involved and who are experienced in the delivery of these services will continue to be involved and be able to certainly contribute those levels of experience in the delivery of services.

Mr Elston: The Minister of Health who currently occupies that chair has been indicating that only about 5,000 of the 10,000 would be picked up. There will be at least, under your own minister's estimates, a net loss of about 5,000 jobs in the sector.

I would like to know from the minister if she can provide us with her estimate of the cost of this program's implementation, the economic impact it is going to have, and most importantly for us, what benefits the patients are going to receive by the implementation of this program. We've seen what the implementation of their program has done to the child care services sector in this province.

Ernst and Young has done a study which has basically said there will no difference whatsoever in terms of quality with respect to the delivery of care as a result of this policy, and in fact they can find no cost-benefits in relation to the implementation of this policy. But I will let the minister tell us exactly what studies she has and then let her share them with us, so we can see exactly what benefit the public will get from the implementation of this program.

1400

Hon Ms Lankin: I will be pleased to also ask the Minister of Health to supplement any information I give you today with the data that are available through the Ministry of Health, which, as you know, has the responsibility for implementation of long-term care in this province.

One of the things that we are very aware of with respect to delivery of in-home services in the long-term care area is that the majority of the for-profit organizations that currently exist, the companies that exist that deliver services, are concentrated in urban areas. One of the goals of long-term care reform is to ensure that we can arrive at a point where we have equitable access to these services across the province.

In the not-for-profit sector, were we to have government funds only fund organizations which deliver on a rural basis, which is a costlier service, as we can all understand, in terms of time, geography, travel etc, than in the urban area, we can see that the cost structures in the not-for-profit sector would be ones that would be disadvantageous to the delivery of effective services.

Also, we believe that there will remain choice within the system, that there will be the opportunity for the consumer, as we move to the establishment of multiservice agencies which will have at their fingertips a range of not-for-profit services available to be delivered to the customer. I believe that all of those things provide benefits to the consumer which are readily apparent.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: The last comment I would make is that with the scarce resources we have for delivery of services these days, it is most important that every penny go into delivery of service to the consumer and not into the making of profit on the delivery of health care.

Mr Elston: The studies which are available to the public right now show that there is not going to be any savings in relation to cost, that there will be in fact probably a reduction of service because the private providers are working 24 hours a day and they're right around the province. You know that; we all know that. We know that the elimination of private child care centres around the province has ended up in the reduction of the number of spots that have been available for occupation because the government hasn't got the money to put into the sector.

We believe that the government will not be able to afford what it has announced either. I want the minister to tell us today exactly what the cost is, what the estimates are, when this is going to be implemented so that the 10% figure of participation by private providers can be achieved and to tell us exactly when the studies upon which her government has acted will be made available to the public so that we all can be participants in what is so far seen to be rather a dream-world exercise that they've gotten themselves into.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): And you do it in under 10 minutes.

Hon Ms Lankin: I'll certainly undertake to do it in under 10 minutes, Mr Sorbara. I will certainly undertake to, again as I said, raise with the Minister of Health the issue with respect to information available in the Ministry of Health. You do know that you're asking a question on which I wouldn't have the immediate answer here in front of me. But let me say certainly in terms of my information with respect to this and my experience during the period of time that I was in that portfolio, the member raises some points that I think need to be responded to.

First of all, he said that we know these services are delivered throughout the whole province. Well, in fact, if you look at the concentration of for-profit services in home care and in homemaking, you will find them concentrated in Metro Toronto, in the Ottawa area and in the London area, in the urban areas where there are economies of scale in which profit can be generated. They are a very, very small part of the delivery of service outside of that. Now, if you're talking about nursing services, in fact 90% of the nursing services in this province are delivered on a not-for-profit basis.

On the issue of 24-hour service and flexibility, of course it is necessary for us to work with the multiservice agencies and the new services coming on stream to ensure that choice and flexibility remains in the system.

Lastly, I want to say I find it odd that the government which enshrined in legislation, in terms of long-term care delivery in nursing homes in particular, a preference for not-for-profit would at this point be opposing this other than the opportunism of the moment or perhaps their political relationship to the lawyer who is carrying the case on behalf of the association.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Two weeks ago I spoke privately with the Premier in a meeting we had to share with him the information that I was receiving, from far too many sources and far too credible sources, of systematic, organized fraud by some members of the Somali community. I did that because I felt the situation was one that could get out of control and that the sources who gave me the information were too credible and too organized to discount.

Following that discussion the Premier and I had, he indicated he would meet with you immediately. The sense from that which I relayed was that this was a serious matter, one that could get out of control; if the few weren't dealt with, with all the resources we could muster, quickly and effectively, it was a situation that could get out of hand.

Clearly, that has now occurred. The situation is out of hand. We have reached the point where the Somali community felt compelled to come forward today to express their embarrassment that the actions of a few have tainted their community reputation.

What I would like to know is, did the Premier two weeks ago relay to you the information I had given him and the concerns I raised? If so, given your obvious lack of knowledge as these issues have become public and your obvious lack of action, can you tell us why you have not treated the matter more seriously, why you have not been getting to the bottom of this so we did not reach the situation today where it is clearly now tainting a whole community, something that I think need not have happened? Can you explain that, Minister?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): Let me, first of all, be really clear with the member that I think it would be very unfortunate if he would draw a conclusion, as I think he is doing, from what happened in the House yesterday and whatever discussions have to happen and haven't happened, or have taken place as a result of his conversation with the Premier. I think it's important that we say that.

He referred to the Somali community representatives coming forward this morning and expressing their embarrassment. I would say that they expressed their anger at the way in which they were being categorized as a community, and I think it's important that we say that.

I haven't spoken directly with the Premier about this issue, and I know people have been trying to set that discussion up. But the issue is an important one, and the way in which the member has raised it with the Premier, I appreciate as an appropriate indication.

I've had a chance this morning to meet with representatives of the Somali community and we are going to be talking further. They, in spite of their anger at the actions that were taken by the Leader of the Opposition, are also concerned that this issue be addressed and be dealt with in a way that targets the problem as it needs to be targeted, which is towards those few individuals, whether they are in the Somali community, in any other ethnic or racial community --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- or anywhere else, who are defrauding the system. That's the way in which the issue needs to be addressed and that's the way I intend to proceed with this issue, with representatives of the Somali community who have expressed an interest to me in meeting with me and pursuing this issue and, as well, with representatives of other communities.

Mr Harris: I'm not sure, but I think I heard the minister say he has not met with the Premier on this. I, in the three years that Bob Rae has been Premier, have maybe raised one other issue with him that I felt strongly about. I don't do these things lightly.

He indicated to me some two weeks ago that he would meet with you and relay those very real concerns, before there was any public information in Ontario, in Canada, in Vancouver.

If you're now telling me that he did not meet with you, quite frankly, I am shocked, and there's really not much point in bringing these matters to your attention. Perhaps they do have to be raised publicly before you'll act.

We have a situation in Ontario where, because of loopholes that exist, welfare fraud by a few or by many, not of any specific community, is easy to work. The system is easy to defraud. For the past eight and a half years of Liberal and NDP governments, on their own or in accord, the rules and the practices for welfare have been loosened to the point where it is much easier to cheat, and it is much more difficult to catch the cheaters. It is much more difficult to police.

1410

In January the member for Burlington South provided you personally with a copy of Quebec legislation that had been passed that gave welfare examiners more far-reaching investigative powers, including, by the way, the power that we used to have in Ontario for home visits, among others; more far-reaching powers to deal with what was becoming an out-of-control problem. We knew that at that time.

Why haven't you brought forward similar legislation of the type that the member for Burlington South shared with you in a cooperative, positive, pre-emptive effort to start bringing in solutions in Ontario to a rampant cheating problem that's going on and becoming more widespread?

Hon Mr Silipo: Really, to some extent I hesitate to get into this, but I think the leader of the third party is probably among the last people who should stand up, given some of his activities during the summer, and preach to me or to anybody else in this House about encouraging or discouraging people to go on welfare. Let's really be careful about this, I would say to the member opposite, because people need to come to these issues with hands clean on some of these questions.

As the minister responsible, I believe we are taking a number of important steps to tighten up the system and to ensure that the benefits are geared and directed towards those who need it. Am I satisfied that we are doing everything we need to do? No, I am not, and I've said that very clearly to my officials, not recently but over the last number of months and weeks, and we are continuing to improve the measures that we've got in place.

But I would also say to the member now, as I said to the previous member who asked this question, that it would be highly unfair --

Mr Harris: Is there something wrong with the Quebec legislation? That is the question.

Hon Mr Silipo: We are looking at the Quebec legislation as we are looking at bringing in new legislation. As he knows, we've made a commitment to bring in new legislation and we are dealing with that. We are dealing through regulations with what measures we need to add to the present system to ensure that the benefits are directed to those people who need them.

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

Hon Mr Silipo: I will conclude by reminding the member, as I reminded earlier the member for Bruce, that we need to be careful that we do not create an atmosphere in which people believe, as a result of statements made by politicians, that the reason we have such an increase in the welfare load of this province is because of an issue of abuse.

The question of abuse and the question of fraud have been in the system long before the NDP formed a government in this province. We're trying to deal with it in what we think is a more effective manner than has ever been done before.

Mr Harris: Minister, you're clearly not doing anything about it. Do you think that if we just sweep it under the rug and don't talk about it, it will go away? We have come forward with recommendation after recommendation. We have offered you a new kind of opposition that would work cooperatively, that would give you solutions. In our pre-budget submission last spring our caucus put forward a nine-point plan for welfare reform.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Durham East.

Mr Harris: We didn't raise it in question period; it wasn't to get headlines. It was a proposal, a plan that we gave to you as part of the pre-budget submission. That plan included steps such as --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You encouraged someone to go on social assistance, to quit her job. That is responsible?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Downsview.

Mr Harris: -- a review of the financial impact of the decision to eliminate home visits as a means of determining eligibility. You didn't act on that.

Mr Perruzza: You encouraged someone to quit her job, and she quit her job.

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

Mr Harris: Review the plan to extend welfare benefits to 16- and 17-year-olds who simply declare they are no longer comfortable living at home with their parents as the only criterion for eligibility.

Instead of direct deposit, implement a mandatory cheque pick-up and review program such as the one in place in New Brunswick and the one in place in Ontario before you rascals took over and loosened it all up.

Minister, we have tried very helpfully to give you constructive proposals.

The Speaker: Will the leader place a question, please.

Mr Harris: We have done so in recommendations. We are at the point today where we have to wonder how many commonsense, obvious solutions have to be staring you in the face before you are going to act. Can you explain why you have not acted on the Quebec legislation or not one of these nine recommendations that we gave you last spring?

Hon Mr Silipo: I would just say briefly that we have acted on some of those issues. We have, to take one example, on the 16- and 17-year-olds made it absolutely clear in the way in which those rules are to be applied that they're not simply to be applied in a situation where a 16- or a 17-year-old simply says that he or she is living away from home and therefore is eligible. There have to be some very real circumstances that warrant that young man or young woman being deemed to be in danger in continuing to be at home, and a whole number of criteria in order for that to happen. We are looking at a number of additional measures and are doing very intensive case reviews.

Again, I want to conclude by saying that I appreciate the way in which the leader of the third party began his question on this issue. I think the approach that he took in raising the issues as he did with the Premier is very appropriate. Those issues are being looked at. The fact that the Premier and I haven't had a chance to speak directly about it does not mean that nothing has been done on those. There are discussions that are going on on those issues, and we will deal with those issues in the way they need to be dealt with, in the way in which he would want us to deal with them, which is by taking the individual allegations and having them examined, having them looked at. That's the way in which we need to deal with these issues, because if we don't, we cast aspersions on entire groups, whether it's an ethnic group, a racial group or a category of people who are eligible for social assistance, and I'm sure that in his heart of hearts he would not want us to do that.

Mr Harris: You may appreciate me raising it that way, but obviously it had no effect. In two weeks, the Premier has not once conveyed to you the information that I conveyed to him. I find that astounding.

HOME CARE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services as well. This morning, the private home care operators announced their intention to initiate legal action. This is legal action contesting the legality of your policy to drive them out of business. A similar policy that the Liberals had in housing, you now want to take to home care operators.

Minister, these operators confirmed what we've been telling you for the past two years. Your policy to force them out of home care, one, will not improve the quality of care; in fact, it will deteriorate. Two, it will not enhance accessibility; in fact, it will lessen accessibility.

Can you then give the home care operators, the seniors and the families of those seniors one reason, other than ideology, why you are driving the private sector out of the provision of home care services?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): This is a question that would normally fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health, and in her absence I refer the question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'll take the question in the absence of the Premier today.

I think, first of all, I would have to say that the assertions that the leader of the third party put forward with respect to his assessment and/or the association's assessment of the effect of this policy are ones to which I would object fundamentally. I think the policy of support for not-for-profit delivery of services in the health care sector is a policy, one, that I feel personally very strongly about, as does this government.

I believe the issue with respect to the concentration of delivery of for-profit services in the urban area speaks to the problem we have had with respect to issues of accessibility. This government is committed to expansion of the services in the not-for-profit sector and in the delivery of home care services so that there is equitable access across this province. We believe the very best way to do that is in the delivery of these services through a not-for-profit basis.

Interjections.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On what evidence? On what basis?

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre is out of order.

Hon Ms Lankin: I think these issues have been talked about quite often from the perspective the member raises, an ideological perspective, whether it be one that supports not-for-profit or one more akin to his government's perspective, his party's perspective.

What I would say is that there is an issue here also with respect to how we go about planning for the enhancement of these services and the delivery of them across the province. Our approach, showing preference for not-for-profit, is one that's being done in a planned way over three years, that will be phased in, and that will ensure that there isn't a disruption of services. It will also ensure a continued choice of services.

1420

Mr Harris: I understand the minister is questioning the reliability, if you like, or the conclusions that have been drawn by all of the studies that I have seen to date on what it is they're planning to do, trying to give those advocates of driving the private sector out of the business an opportunity to demonstrate upon what evidence they had.

One of your senior bureaucrats told the member for Simcoe West during estimates committee, "I'm not aware of any studies that have been developed to show a cost-benefit analysis of profit or not-for-profit centres." So we know you don't have any, Minister. The private care home operators then obviously had to go out and do their own. Any independent study that we've seen demonstrates the conclusions I gave you to be correct: less accessibility, more cost, less choice. Those are the conclusions. They believe it will cost substantially more money.

Minister, as you obviously confirmed during estimates that you have not one shred of evidence other than some ideology that perhaps the Minister of Housing spouts off every week around the cabinet table about non-profit, how can you possibly justify your plans at a time when there is so little money to help with needy seniors?

Hon Ms Lankin: Let me take the three issues that the leader of the third party raises.

First of all, with respect to the issue of accessibility, he asserts that the independent studies commissioned by the association of the for-profit deliverers indicates that there will be less accessibility. I don't know how you can possible say that. We have a plan that has been put in place for expansion of delivery of homemaking and in-home services over the next three years. We have seen that the moneys have been budgeted and protected through the estimates process to ensure that delivery of services take place.

We have initiated the first phase of the enhancement of services in terms of the integrated homemaking program. The issue of equitable access across the province and the issue of increased accessibility in fact is at the very heart of the long-term care reform. So I would just take great issue with that.

With respect to the issue of choice, again, with respect to looking at what is choice to the consumer, the way in which we have proposed for the delivery of services through multiservice agencies in our communities ensures that consumers have choice. It ensures that there is a whole range of agencies which are brought together to deliver these services and that the ultimate person who is in control of this, and that is choice, is the consumer.

Lastly, with respect to the issue of cost, I believe very, very profoundly that with our health care services, those services that are funded from taxpayers' dollars, all of those dollars should go to the provision of service and not to the making of profit.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: That's quite fundamental. I disagree completely that in fact it will be an increase in cost.

The Speaker: Will the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: I will. I assert that the cost structure that is involved in delivering services in the urban centre, where the core profits are, versus the rural centres, where you want to ensure there is access, those different cost structures --

The Speaker: Will the minister please take her seat. Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: The minister says, "We have plans." We saw your plans to spend your way out of the recession. We've seen your plans for the government to build all the housing and eliminate choice in the private sector. We've seen your plans for the government to own and operate all day care. We've seen what a disaster every one of your plans has been, particularly those plans based upon this same ideology.

Seniors and their families will no longer have a choice about their care. Government's going to control and own it all. There will be less access, there will be less quality, there will be less choice, and you have not one whit of a study, any independent study -- no study, even one you cooked up yourselves -- to give us that shows anything the opposite of that.

Now we have a lawsuit which has been launched today which could cost millions of dollars as well in damages and just to fight it, and yet you can't tell the 10,000 home care workers who will lose their jobs why you're doing this.

Minister, let me be positive again and suggest to you that now is the time, instead of waiting for the courts to decide, to immediately announce you will put this disastrous plan completely on hold and you will work cooperatively with the private sector to provide choice and quality home care services for the seniors of this province.

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, we've seen on many occasions where what happens in this House is that because a member of the opposition asserts certain things to be true, it takes on a life in terms of the definition of these issues. I have to say that right at this very point, I want to object fundamentally to the way in which the leader of the third party characterizes this issue and suggests that in fact government policy is faulty in this area.

The delivery of health care services to the seniors of our province can be done through the taxpayer system in a not-for-profit delivery like our hospitals are, like our doctors' offices are -- all of the health care services. As we shift from institutions to community, so should the funding structures that fund those shift in a like-minded way, which is in a not-for-profit way.

The member opposite talks about a lawsuit. At this point in time, we've heard -- Mr Speaker, I have been watching the clock and I will wind up my comments. I have one area that I wish to finish.

The member asserts that the lawsuit in fact might cost the province millions of dollars. Let me say that at this point in time, other than the press conference that was held this morning, we have no information on the basis of the lawsuit. I find it strange to suggest that the government, from a matter of public policy, should be prohibited from directing public support for delivery of services to the not-for-profit sector, where it believes those services can best be delivered. Those issues, I suppose, will be pursued throughout the law case.

CARLTON MASTERS

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): My question is over another lawsuit and is directed to the Attorney General. As the Attorney General will know, Carlton Masters has brought a lawsuit against the government alleging a number of things: primarily, that the investigation conducted with respect to his dismissal, eventually, was biased and unfair.

My concern is that ever since these allegations have been raised, this government has dealt with this issue by way of secret internal investigations, inside deals and, frankly, stonewalling.

As examples of it, I thought it interesting in the affidavit that the deal with Mr Masters contained a non-disclosure clause, that when this issue was first raised, the Premier refused to respond to questions about it, that the government tried to quash this application in the court, and now we find that its lawyers are refusing to allow the public access to these examinations. Mr Masters himself would permit the public access. There is no reason not to allow access. The only conclusion is that there is something to hide, and I want to know what that is.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Mr Speaker, our standing order 23(g)(i) indicates that you are to call a member to order when a member raises an issue that is a matter pending before the court or before a judge for judicial determination, and I am not prepared to answer the question.

Mr Murphy: I think what we're hearing is more stonewalling. It sounds like Roy McMurtry. It's sort of like where sub judice was Latin for stonewalling.

What I would like to get from this Attorney General is whether she is prepared to direct her lawyers to let the public into these examinations. Can I get that undertaking from you to stop the stonewalling and let the public in?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm very honoured to be compared to a predecessor Attorney General who is now the Associate Chief Justice of the General Division in Ontario. My answer remains the same.

BOBLO ISLAND

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. My question revolves around Boblo Island and some of the concerns that are out there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West with his question.

Mr Stockwell: This is a very important question for the government, because the government has given the owners of Boblo Island an $800,000 tax deferment. That $800,000 tax deferment has been extended to the owners of that property. I have in my possession a copy of the mortgage of the land charge, and it says right in there that they've given them an $800,358 tax deferment on land transfer taxes.

There are a couple of concerns. As I understand it, it was bought for somewhere in the neighbourhood of US$3.7 million; $800,000 would assume the purchase of the property would be somewhere around $55 million, and you've given them an $800,000 deferment on land transfer taxes. You're short of money as it is.

They've applied through the municipality for rezoning for condominium development. My question to the minister is, why can the public not know what the terms and conditions are for this $800,000 tax deferment, why have they applied for rezoning, and why did you give them this deferment when you're so tight and strapped for cash today?

1430

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, I can't answer the member's question with regard to the rezoning. I don't know why the owners of the property have applied for rezoning; I think it's a question better put to them. But in terms of the question around the tax deferment, I have no information on that particular issue. I'm prepared to pursue it for the member and get back to him with an answer.

Mr Stockwell: I appreciate that, because there is some concern out there. This is very interesting, that a piece of property can be bought for some US$3.7 million and get a tax deferment for $800,000. The actual land transfer tax portion involved in that kind of purchase would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $73,000. Where does the $800,000 come from, and why have you forgiven this? These are the questions that are being asked by the public in Essex and in western Ontario and these are the kinds of answers that aren't given.

I recall very vividly when this government was talking about the airport deal and the fact the public should have a right to know what that deal was. I think that the minister should go back and check this out too. If you're prepared to go ahead and give away 800,000 hard-earned tax dollars, why can the public not know what terms and conditions and strings are attached to that $800,000, and further, when is this deal supposed to close? What are the conditions that are going to trigger this $800,000 and how come it's so much money? This is really baffling, not only to the people there and to this House but generally the taxpayers in this province.

Hon Mr Charlton: As I've said, I'm prepared to look into the matter. I'm not prepared to comment on something until I have some facts in front of me.

HOMOLKA CASE

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is to the Attorney General. Over the past few days there has been some media speculation about a TV program that may be airing this evening. The program, A Current Affair, will allegedly contain a segment about the trial of Karla Homolka. Given that there is a publication ban relating to this trial, is the Attorney General concerned that a breach of the publication ban may occur?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I certainly am concerned and have expressed that concern consistently. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the Canadian cable outlets, the border TV stations and those commercial establishments with satellite dishes that have said that they will not be broadcasting the information, they will not allow it to be seen because of their concern that it may breach the publication ban or might contain material which could eventually be considered contempt of court. I am still concerned, as the member obviously is, by reports that a few commercial establishments with satellite dishes may be considering airing the program to their patrons tonight.

As I've stated before, the Ministry of the Attorney General is committed to protecting the integrity of the court process and we will continue to review any information that is provided to the police in order to determine whether that information gives evidence of contempt, that there has been a breach of the publication ban. I must say, I'm hopeful that all establishments will show the same consideration as those that have announced it, in ensuring that justice is done.

Mr Abel: There are concerns that the public will never know the details of this specific case and that the public's right to know in such a case is a very important part of just how our judicial system works. Can the Attorney General assure the House and of course all Ontarians that the details of the Karla Homolka trial will be made public?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I think that the member is right, that there is some confusion over the issue of the publication ban and the place of a publication ban in the Canadian justice system. It is not and will never be the crown's position that the public or the media should be prevented from knowing the facts of this case. However, as Attorney General it's my obligation to ensure that the public's right to know is balanced by the need to protect the person's right to a fair trial. The publication bans at the pre-trial stage are a long-standing tradition in our criminal justice system, where in certain circumstances there is a need to delay the release of facts and temporarily give fair trials priority over the right to know. The premature and unsubstantiated and partial release of certain facts, particularly the more salient ones, may create bias.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would like to emphasize that our ministry remains committed to the principle of full public scrutiny of all cases that occur within the courts, but recognizing our role in the justice system, it is important that justice be done, and we would expect no less in this case.

MINOR HOCKEY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Most members of the House will be aware of a dispute between the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and the Ontario Minor Hockey Association which is having an extremely detrimental effect -- this is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation -- on young hockey players in our province.

As a result of the action of the CAHA, we have developmental money not flowing to the OMHA; we have referees, we have managers and coaches being affected as well. As a result, youngsters are being denied access to these partially publicly funded services. The CAHA has also notified other bodies in Ontario and across Canada and in Europe and the United States that OMHA teams should not be allowed to participate in tournaments.

Could the minister bring us up to date on the activities that have taken place in this regard? I know she's been involved in some discussions and meetings. Would she inform the House whether she's been successful in bringing the two sides together to resolve this dispute on behalf of the young players in our province?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I appreciate the member's question because I certainly share the great concern that he has and I know a number of members of this House have, as many parents and people around this province do, about ensuring the accessibility of our youth across Ontario to hockey programs no matter where they live and no matter what league they play in.

I did meet at the end of September, at my request, with the president of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, Jack White, and with the vice-president. Mr White and the vice-president agreed to my request to engage in a system of mediation to try and resolve the dispute.

Over the same period of time, I've been seeking a meeting with the president of the Ontario Hockey Federation, David Watt. Mr Watt has been more difficult to arrange the meeting with. I'm now trying to arrange for a meeting with the vice-president and secretary of the Ontario Hockey Federation in order to try to gain the same kind of assurance.

I know how difficult this situation will be to mediate, and for that reason have sought the services of a very experienced mediator to be willing to provide that help, namely, Bill Kelly, who, as we know, in the past has had success with Canada Post and with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers as well.

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: So that's actually where things stand at this point. I'm still hoping to be able to get the agreement of both sides to go through some mediation to try and resolve those problems through Bill Kelly.

Mr Bradley: The president of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association points out, as well, that many municipalities in our province are missing out on the opportunity to generate much-needed funds, because people come from afar to various tournaments, spend their money in those communities and it results in tax dollars flowing to all levels of government.

Since it appears now that the mediation efforts are not being successful, that people have dug in their heels, and since many parents have had to take their children out of hockey or have them travel from almost one end of the province to the other just for regular weekday and weekend games, would the minister now speak to the new federal minister and to the present federal minister to try to bring about a resolution of this matter at the very earliest opportunity, so that the season isn't over and these people have been denied this opportunity?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I'm not giving up hope at this point on trying to resolve things within this province, but certainly if things remain unresolved at the point when a new federal cabinet is in place, I think that's a very helpful suggestion.

1440

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Oh, there goes question period.

Mr Cousens: The whole problem with the smuggling of tobacco products into Ontario --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Cousens: We'll run out of time for sure.

The concern continues about the smuggling of tobacco products in that it seems to be almost unhindered in the way in which tobacco is being brought into our country and province illegally. The concern we have is that when people are buying tobacco products, it's almost impossible for them to distinguish between tobacco products where taxes have been paid, the legal product, and those that have been smuggled into the province.

A number of actions that could be taken include putting a very clear tax stamp on the package under the cellophane that indicates where the tobacco was manufactured and packaged. You could have a prominent health message on the tobacco product that indicates some of the concerns that all of us have expressed in the Legislature. You could require plain packaging of tobacco products to differentiate from smuggled products. You could license retailers, and by licensing retailers, if any retailer is selling an illegal product, you could withdraw --

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Point of order.

The Speaker: A point of order? I trust this is serious.

Mr Daigeler: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. You have allowed both the questions being asked at great length and the answers. I would appreciate it if you would make sure that I get an opportunity to ask my question.

The Speaker: If the member for Markham would complete his --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Start all over.

Mr Cousens: The question has to do with the smuggling of tobacco products. There are things the government could do having to do with either putting a strong, clear indication of a tax stamp to indicate the product has had a tax paid on it; you could have a prominent health message --

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

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, my rights are being impugned by this House unless I have a chance to at least give the preliminary remarks. I am just repeating it to take it up to the question.

The Speaker: I have asked the honourable member if he would complete his question. Would he now do so.

Mr Cousens: There are things your government could be doing to identify the illegal tobacco products from legal products. Which of these actions, and I haven't even got through all of them, would your government be prepared to act on, if any, to begin to do something concrete to reduce the amount of smuggling of tobacco products?

Mr Sorbara: Okay, the four-minute challenge, Frances. Go.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The question the member asks I think raises a number of important points that I understand were discussed this morning at the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. In particular, I would assume, looking at the list of presenters --

Mr Sorbara: Don't put it in perspective. If you run this, you'll break Bradley's record. Bradley's record is four minutes and 12 seconds.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: Sorry, I lost my train of thought with the interjection there.

The Speaker: Don't start over.

Hon Ms Lankin: I would assume that some of these suggestions were made in fact by Mr Mahood of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, whom we have worked with over the last three years in terms of developing an approach with respect to tobacco.

There are a number of reasons that some of the suggestions you put forward would be helpful. The tax side is one. Another is with respect to curbing the consumption of tobacco. There is some evidence that plain packaging and health warnings and things of that nature can be very helpful in that respect as well.

I'm sure the member knows that the Minister of Health in fact has this issue under active development in that there is an intention to introduce legislation. I think for the details of that legislation we will have to await the introduction of the bill.

Mr Cousens: Well, it would be good if something were to be done, and I'm sure it's the kind of action that if the government were to come forward with more quickly, there would be a strong sense of support, certainly around this House, to see something done without a lot of delay.

One of the things I would like to ask as well of the minister has to do with what is going on in neighbouring states in the United States and also in Washington, where there is a growing interest in the whole subject around tobacco and the kind of subject that we have learned from, that in fact tobacco taxes do reduce consumption. I'd like to know whether or not you and your government are prepared to meet and actively participate in the discussions that are now ongoing in the United States among neighbouring states with ourselves to do something more to, again, reduce the amount of smuggling and to affect a decision in a positive way that reduces the use of tobacco.

Hon Ms Lankin: The member opposite raises another important issue, which is the relativity of taxation with respect to tobacco products here in Ontario and other provinces and of course in border states, where much of the smuggled tobacco in fact comes from.

The member may be aware -- in fact I think he alluded to the fact -- that there are plans being discussed in the United States with respect to an increase in tobacco taxes. That in fact is going on at the same time that there are discussions in the United States with respect to the reform of the health care plan, and there are linkages there, as there are here, with respect to these issues.

We have been involved with a number of groups that have been involved in lobbying in the US around this. If there is a way in which our government can be of assistance, I'm sure we would be pleased to do that. I'm only sorry I can't say to the member that I have specific information on those initiatives, but I will follow up on that for him.

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question is directed to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Madam Minister, as you well know, access to recreation programs encourages lifelong fitness, good health and community spirit. Participation in recreation helps avoid future health and other costs.

Youth in particular must have the opportunity to participate in recreation programs. Yet I am hearing from my constituents that they are very concerned about the future of recreation programs in this difficult fiscal climate. Recreation funding is an investment in the future. What are you doing to ensure that recreation opportunities for Ontarians are not in jeopardy?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): The member for Lambton has made a very convincing case, which I certainly subscribe to, of the value of recreation in this province. That is why, in spite of the fiscal difficulties this government faces, we've protected more than $8 million to help support community recreation programs.

That is, however, a reduction in the number of dollars, which was over $12 million in the past. For that reason, we're tailoring and assigning priorities to try to help make sure we're supporting recreation in small communities and community groups that are particularly gearing themselves to the kinds of priorities that we feel are necessary at this time. I'm pleased to be able to say that we are continuing to support exactly what the member is asking us to do.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I'd ask for your guidance: Section 23(g) of the standing orders has been referred to by the Attorney General in response to a question on two occasions in this House.

The first one was with reference to a question from my friend from St George-St David on the Carlton Masters matter. She relied on section 23(g). You, as Speaker, didn't rise to indicate she was right -- therefore I have to assume that she could not raise that section of the standing orders -- and accordingly she was allowed to use that as a way of not answering the question.

The second question that was asked was with reference to the member for Wentworth North of the New Democratic Party. He asked it of the Attorney General as well, dealing with the Homolka matter, which is really a matter that is pending before the courts. She did not use that argument of section 23(g) to refuse to answer that question.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to give us some interpretation of exactly when section 23(g) is applicable so that we all know when we can ask an appropriate question and not have a minister of the crown hide behind it on one occasion and just breach it on the next occasion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): First, to the member for Brampton South, indeed I understand his concern and I appreciate the point of order which he has brought to my attention.

There are in fact two distinct matters. One is something of which all members are aware; that is, questions are not appropriate if they are related to a particular case where there are criminal charges currently before the courts. I have advised the House on a previous occasion as to what the appropriate response should be.

The second part, however, is that there is no obligation on a minister to respond to a question. The member may ask a question, the minister may decline to answer or, if the minister chooses to reply, then may reply in whatever way he or she feels is most fitting in response to the question which was asked.

The question posed by the member for Wentworth North, I did not take it, was related directly to a particular case, nor did he mention the particular case. In fact I thought perhaps the honourable member was going to suggest that it might more properly have been made as a statement from the minister with respect to the matters which she spoke of, and if that had been raised in the point of order, I certainly would have understood that full well.

To the member, I hope I've been able to clarify for him that a minister does not need to reply. The minister chose to reply to both questions in the manner in which she did and that's perfectly within her right so to do.

1450

Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, just one further point on that, if I might: I accept your ruling and I accept the fact that under the rule of standing orders, a minister does not have to answer the question. I'm suggesting that the difficulty in this House is that if she's not going to answer the question, she should say, "I'm not answering the question," not rely on a standing order and then continue when you, as Speaker, do not rule that she's correct. I suggest that any minister can say, "I'm not going to answer it," but they can't hide behind a rule.

You're the person who makes the rules, you're the person who interprets the rules of order, and accordingly we need some clarification so that will not happen on another occasion.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Just very briefly, I noted today that the deputy Deputy Premier for the day was very long-winded, and with unanimous consent, we could allow the member for Nepean to ask a question. He didn't get on today, and I would so request that unanimous consent for the member for Nepean to get his question on the floor.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent for the member for Nepean to ask a question? No. I heard at least one negative reply.

To the leader of the third party, in fact he raises a concern which I have expressed from time to time. I will continue to urge members who are asking questions to keep them brief and those who are replying to try to keep their answers brief.

The member for Nipissing and the member for Nepean would note that today it was necessary for the Speaker to ask two ministers to take their seats for the extreme length of time which was utilized. I can do no more than to urge members on both sides of the House to try to keep the question time as brief as possible so that as many members as possible can have an opportunity to ask questions, and I understand the concerns of the member for Nepean.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: During question period my colleague the member for Nepean gave clear evidence of his interest in pursuing a question with the Minister of Transportation.

I believe the Attorney General presented to the House information about which we were all looking for a response from her. The information she provided to us was done not in the appropriate form, as a minister's statement, but in fact in response to a question from a member of her own party. I think if the House considers that a circumstance, it may be more generous with respect to the request of my colleague for a question, and once again I ask for unanimous consent for that question.

The Speaker: Two items: First, I will ask if there is unanimous consent for the member for Nepean based on new information provided. I heard at least one negative voice.

On the second point, to the member for Halton Centre, indeed I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of order which she raises. I must say that I do understand the quandary that members are placed in if they believe that the answer to a question being provided by a minister is in fact a statement. If they rise to raise it as a point of order during question period, the clock continues to run and hence you utilize valuable time.

Again, all I can do is to request of ministers that they consider very carefully items which they would wish to bring to the attention of the House and would do so either by way of ministerial statement or by placing information on the order paper. In fact the latter applies also to very detailed replies that ministers may feel are necessary. They can avail themselves of the order paper and make that information known to all members of the House.

PETITIONS

VITAL SERVICES TO TENANTS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas tenants suffer undue hardship when landlords break an obligation to provide vital services such as electricity, gas and hot water; and

"Whereas most municipalities are not fully empowered to compel such landlords to rectify the matter;

"We, the undersigned, hereby request that the government of Ontario enact David Turnbull's private member's bill, An Act to amend the Municipal Act in respect of vital services by-laws, to give Ontario municipalities the authority to quickly restore vital services to occupants of rented premises when landlords fail to do so."

This is signed by many dozens of tenants, some of them in my riding. I must say also, I note here on the very first page somebody here in Downsview who is supporting this and I do affix my signature too.

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): This petition is addressed to the provincial Legislature.

"To the provincial Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the residents of the Oakdale Acres community, who reside in the Yorkview riding, request that a noise barrier be placed to minimize noise pollution along the 401 highway from Jane Street west to Weston Road and along the 400 highway from Highway 401 north to Sheppard Avenue West;

"We, the undersigned, petition the provincial Legislative Assembly to accept this petition and request this noise barrier."

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am herewith presenting a petition signed by 17 people from the interchurch committee on gambling and lotteries who oppose gambling casinos. I am submitting it for your perusal.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I have a petition from the Grand Bend United Church with regard to gambling. There are a number of people, over 200 names, who are opposed to gambling. I here submit it for the House today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Charlton, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved government notice of motion number 10:

That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing November 1, 1993, and ending December 31, 1993, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I believe we have an agreement between myself and the two other House leaders that the Minister of Finance's parliamentary assistant will make a short opening statement, and then the two opposition parties will split the remaining time until 5:55.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments to the interim supply motion. Everyone is familiar with interim supply. It's a very straightforward process to allow us to meet our payroll, contractual and program responsibilities. The impact of not passing interim supply or leaving it until next week would be substantial; some $380 million would not be paid out to different organizations, doctors etc.

At this time, when we're talking about the interim supply, I'd like to provide some economic and fiscal background to the introduction of this motion. I will keep my remarks short, because I'm sure there are many opposition members who want to use this opportunity to talk about interim supply, and maybe a host of other issues.

The economic trends are very well known by now. We are in the deepest recession since the 1930s. This recession has been driven to a considerable extent by the policies of the still current federal government but soon to be the previous federal government due to some of its trade policies, monetary policies, other policies that it has carried out.

It's had a disproportionate impact on Ontario: 70% of all job losses across Canada have occurred in this province and unemployment has more than doubled. Even with that said, our situation is not totally unique. Recession is still affecting other countries and other areas.

1500

Economic recovery is under way in the province. The gross domestic product is up 3.2% in the second quarter of this year. Export performance and business investment are increasing due to our lower dollar and better competitiveness. There is some growth in the employment sector, over 116,000 jobs since the low point of the recession. Profits are up for corporations and the medium-term growth is expected to be good for Canada and also for the province of Ontario.

The province is acting very responsibly. We have attempted to balance fiscal realities with the need to preserve and to create jobs. Ontario has played a very strong role in supporting efforts to get the economy moving again. We're well aware of what we've done on the fiscal side: $4 in spending cuts which reach $1 in taxes; the social contract, getting a handle on public sector compensation costs while preserving jobs and services; and also the revenue measures, which were based on fairness and ability to pay.

We've also done quite an extensive job on job creation in terms of maintaining and creating jobs. As I mentioned, a key element of the social contract was not just the savings component of it but also the job security components and the workplace rights components for employees in the public sector and broader public sector. The alternative to that, of course, would have been the loss of thousands of jobs, which obviously was unacceptable to this government. Given the difficult recession and economic times, it would not have been a good choice to be putting more people out of work.

Our Jobs Ontario strategy has worked very well, including Jobs Ontario Training, which is designed for workplace adjustment and training. This year, $329 million has been spent to support 40,000 new jobs through Jobs Ontario Training -- impressive. Some $1.2 billion has been committed to training and adjustment this year, almost twice the level of four years ago. There have been many notable firms participating in this program, firms of all sizes, as a matter of fact: large firms such as Chrysler and Navistar and Apotex, and other, smaller firms in all of our communities. We've also negotiated sectoral deals worth $22 million to provide training and skills upgrading to 37,000 workers in the electrical, electronics, auto parts and steel sectors.

Regarding direct job creation, the Jobs Ontario Capital program is working very effectively to help support a more productive and knowledge-based economy. Over 8,000 jobs were created last year to maintain buildings, roads and schools, provide clean water, and of course build telecommunications networks. This year we're expecting to create 12,000 full-year jobs.

The other components include Jobs Ontario Homes, with construction on 2,200 units this fall, creating more jobs. The success of our non-profit housing program is extensive too.

We also had the Jobs Ontario Youth program this summer. Over 10,000 summer jobs were created, and that exceeded the target for the second consecutive year.

So you can see that the government has taken extensive efforts to deal with the difficult economic times both on the fiscal side, on the economic side, and on the employment side. This government does have a very strong plan for dealing with the economy, and that plan is in place. It is working in all the communities. I know it's working in my community, I know it's working in my colleagues' communities, and now that maybe we have a federal government that might be willing to cooperate with us, we can do even more to make our very successful Jobs Ontario plan work more effectively.

With that, I will conclude my remarks and just once again repeat for those who may be watching that there is a very clear plan to deal with the fiscal realities, the economic realities, and to get people back to work, which is the number one priority.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Oxford and invite further debate.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm always pleased to participate in interim supply. Because it relates to the spending of the government and the authorization for government spending for this quarter, it means that the debate is usually quite wide-ranging and there are a number of interesting topics.

One of the things I would like to look at today is whether the priority this government gives is to the protection and treatment of our children. I think all members are aware that last week was Week of the Child and in fact the motto was "Cherish the Children." So perhaps this is an appropriate time to talk about this subject.

As with most members, I tend to look at legislation and policies through my own personal experiences, and I find that quite often I look at what's happening as to the effect it's going to have on my two children, Scott and Kathleen, and what affect it's going to have on their future and the future of all our children.

For instance, when there was a government policy to remove and eliminate the $100 bursary for the Ontario scholarship fund, that to me was sending out the wrong message, because surely we want to encourage our children to excel. It's not the monetary amount, although to some young people it might be significant; it's also the message that we value what they're doing and want to encourage them to do so. There are also changes to our educational system, and I think any one of us could probably talk the full afternoon on the impact of those changes on our children, but I'd like to go on to some of the other areas where we don't talk about it all that often.

One of the topics that was discussed yesterday was children's services and the user fees that are going to be imposed. It's a decision basically to generate revenue through user fees for children's services funded under the Child and Family Services Act.

I guess one of the things that concerns me was that it was done without consultation with the parents. It seemed to appear out of the blue, and we're talking significant amounts of dollars. We're talking $4.3 million for this fiscal year, 1993-94, and then an additional $6.7 million thereafter: significant moneys.

I was quite surprised because I thought the NDP government has been quite sensitive in recognizing in the social contract that when you're dealing with the agencies funded under Comsoc -- that's the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- there should be certain exemptions for very valid reasons. We're all aware of the increased demand and the pressures on community and social services, we're aware of the low wages of staff, and we're aware too that the areas in which they provide service, I think, are classified as necessities, and we certainly support the continuation. So it was with surprise that I saw that there was going to be an ad hoc imposition of user fees.

I thought some of the comments Yvonne O'Neill made yesterday were extremely telling. She asked why this government is taking these punitive measures against children: "Why target children's services in the Ministry of Community and Social Services? Why target counselling? Why target services for youth in secure custody? Why target parental support in the care of disabled children?" It is the vulnerable children we're talking about. We're talking about those in the care of the children's aid societies. We're talking about those who use young offenders' services, services for the developmentally handicapped, children's mental health services, so they are really essential services and vital to our special children who have special needs. Since 80% of the parents and families that the government is asking to pay for services are already living below the poverty line, I think it's particularly important that we not target this sector.

1510

There are many other areas in which we have to look at children's services and our policies around children to decide whether we are in fact doing our best to support services for children. One of them that I particularly support is the graduated licence system on which the government has recently brought in draft legislation and has held hearings for. This was on the table during the days of the Liberal government, and I am glad it is finally coming to fruition.

I think it's fair to say, and I certainly can say it as a mother of an 18-year-old son, that there is a sense of the young people that they are invulnerable, that things can't happen to them, so when they go out on our highways and our streets in an automobile or truck, they tend to think they are in command of the situation.

This past spring my son had just gotten his licence and had been driving for only a number of months when he was travelling on Highway 400 with some friends and was in an accident. The car in front of him lost control. They were going around 80 kilometres per hour and there was a multicar crash, and our car was damaged.

I was really quite grateful because my son was not injured, nor any of the passengers in the car with him, the other young people. Yet he came back and he said: "Mom, I never believed it could happen so quickly. The car in front of me just suddenly went out of control." He said, "I always thought I was a good driver until that happened, and I realize I've still got a lot to learn." I think the graduated licence system really gives an opportunity for our young people to have some guidance and to have adult supervision and to continue the learning process before they're on their own.

There are other things we've done in this Legislature to protect our children. Just last December we had a unanimous quick passage of a piece of legislation to protect our young people against the fevers of gambling. This was to ensure that they weren't betting under the Pro Line. We heard stories of young children betting not only their allowance but extravagant sums. That was something we as a Legislature certainly decided we did not want to support.

Some of the protections we've put in for children over the years, long before we came here, are that we restrict the sale of cigarettes -- that's a federal provision -- and we restrict the sale of alcohol to young people; there is definitely a drinking age. Right now we're deciding whether to make bicycle helmets mandatory. Those are all things we're talking about in protecting our children.

But one way in which I don't feel that we as legislators have done our part in protecting children is that we have allowed the escalation of violence in entertainment and perhaps not done all we could have over the years to try to stop this. It's obvious that there is a definite correlation between violence in entertainment and the violence our children act out. We're talking not only television; we're talking movies, we're talking video games, we're talking slasher films, things such as the violent crime cards, which is the newest wave.

There have been a number of members who have spoken out about this in the House in the last year. Lyn McLeod has done it on a number of occasions, and I'm actually extremely delighted that Lyn had taken that initiative, because it seems that when Margaret Marland, the critic for the third party, and myself raise these issues in the Legislature, the media don't seem to pay any attention. They don't seem to think it's an important issue, and they look at censorship and think this is the thin edge of the wedge.

I'd like to just apprise members in the House of some of the studies on the correlation between children's watching of television and films and violence. I'm quoting from a book entitled Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media, published in 1990.

"American mass media are strongly against violence, and, in doublespeak fashion, they strongly encourage it. Every decade the average TV viewer takes in more than 100,000 acts of violence. The acclimation to 'solving' problems with violence starts very early.

"Saturday morning cartoon shows are replete with violence, as role-model characters express anger by clobbering each other. When children watch prime time, it's even worse. The 8:00 to 9:00 pm time period is now the most violent hour of the TV day. Overall the average child sees more than 1,000 dramatized murders on TV every year.

"But does all that televised violence make children more aggressive? TV network executives say no, pointing to a study commissioned by NBC. However, the American Psychological Association... [says] three separate independent examinations of the study each 'concluded that the network-hired researchers misinterpreted their own evidence and that NBC's own data actually showed a causal relationship between television violence and the increased aggression in children.' In fact, according to the Knight-Ridder news service, out of 85 major studies on the subject, the NBC study was the only one that did not find a direct connection.

"'We keep pumping children with the messages that violence is the way to solve their problems -- and some of it takes hold,' commented [the] co-director of the Center for Research on the Influence of Television on Children."

It quotes a reporter, Carl Cannon, as saying that evidence on television violence "comes in studies -- more than 3,000 of them -- almost all of which shows that children who watch television violence are more prone to use physical aggression than those who don't.

"It comes in sombre warnings from child psychologists who can tell after one visit which preschool-age children watch violent television and which do not."

And "It comes in the configurations of the corpses, mutilated by disturbed teenagers to resemble victims in slasher movies that find their way on to television."

It is very clear that the evidence is showing clearly that the impact of television and movies on children is quite formidable.

"According to Brandon Centerwall of the department of psychiatry at the University of Washington, as many as half of all violent crimes, including rape, assault and vandalism, are related to the impact of television violence on American and Canadian society.

"Noted psychiatrist Michael Stone, a specialist...at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, has no doubt that the media play an important role as inciters to violence in people from unstable families. Usually they are themselves victims of family violence. 'It acts as a spur,' he says, 'an endorsement of their own violent impulses, and even teaches them how to go about it.'"

A psychologist at the University of Bergen in Norway says, "'Kids, especially if they're immature, tend to admire and emulate these tough heroes that settle conflicts violently and come out, for the most part, unscathed.' Watching aggressive behaviour that has no negative consequences 'is likely to induce inhibitions or controls against aggressive behaviour,'" he says. And he talks about the blunting that occurs, "reduced sensitivity -- particularly to the suffering of the victims, because often that's not shown."

There is an important point contained in here: Television violence is not going to be the sole cause of violent aggression in children. It comes from many different sources including an impoverished home life, but it certainly is, as was indicated, a spur.

In Toronto they have done a study with young children. They looked at children chosen from grades 4 and 5, randomly, as well as from grades 7 and 8. The findings were quite in keeping with what they were finding in the United States. They said:

"Most of the children, regardless of gender, socioeconomic status or ethnic background, watched as many as four hours of TV or videos a day.

"Viewing logs the children kept showed that material watched, fictional and non-fictional, was often extremely violent."

They name a number of violent TV shows that the children regularly watched, and said, "Only three titles of 32 mentioned could be strictly classed as for children."

The two researchers, Corbeil and Campbell, noted that the children were:

"'Extremely eager' to discuss their viewing habits. For many, talking about TV and videos with adults was a novel experience."

I think that's a message for us as well, that perhaps we don't talk to our children about what they're watching enough, and we don't monitor what they're watching.

1520

There are a number of studies, and I won't go into all of them. As I mentioned, there are over 3,000 studies which point to the same direction, which is that television and movie violence has an extreme impact on our children. What I found very significant was that a friend of mine recently made a presentation at the retreat to the OFRB, the Ontario Film Review Board, about violence and the impact on children, and she was asked by a number of the board members afterwards: Well, could she provide some of these studies, because they really hadn't heard that there were studies showing that there was a direct link between children and the violence that they're watching. I thought this was a very telling comment, because our Ontario Film Review Board is our watchdog over what children and adults should be watching in our province. If they aren't aware that there is a definite problem, then perhaps their sensitivity training isn't as good as it could be.

There was a recent article in Maclean's just a couple of months ago and I found the figures they quoted quite astounding. They quoted George Gerbner, a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who said that prime time dramatic programming in North America features an average of six to eight acts of violence an hour and two murders every evening.

It went on to say that "Gregory Fouts, a psychology professor at the University of Calgary who has studied the effect of television on the behaviour of children, says that there are, on average, 25 to 27 acts of violence an hour in children's programming, which is made up largely of cartoons." This is very disturbing, because it's getting worse and worse and there doesn't seem to be an end to it.

There are some positive things that are happening that the CRTC is involved in. In fact, they recently held a conference in February on TV violence, and at that time, in March, Keith Spicer, who is the chair of the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, wrote a letter to the Globe and Mail. The Globe had written an editorial which seemed to think there was no research on the issue or that the research was inconclusive, and Keith Spicer wrote back, and I'll read you a few excerpts:

"It's fair that you slam Parliament for listening to a petition from 1.3 million concerned Canadians. And it's fine that you knock the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for saying there's plainly a link between a relentless diet of TV violence and disturbed behaviour in children. But you quote just one obscure professor, and claim there is not even one reputable study conclusively establishing a causal link.

"At the February 20-21 conference on TV violence at Toronto's C.M. Hincke Institute, some of the top experts in the US and Canada confirmed that research overwhelmingly proves that excessive TV violence hurts children by contributing to desensitization, aggression, impaired learning abilities, increased bullying and weapons use. University of California Professor Edward Donnerstein quoted from a long list of studies. For example: 'In magnitude, television violence is as strongly correlated with aggressive behaviour as any other behavioral variable that has been measured.'"

He says, "'For the last 20 years, there has been one overriding finding...the mass media are significant contributors to the aggressive behaviour and aggression-related attitudes of many children, adolescents and adults,'" and this comes from the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth.

"If any other product were linked to a major health threat on even much flimsier evidence, you would be screaming for it to be removed from the shelves. Why are you willing to risk children's mental health and more than their physical well-being?"

One of the arguments used against trying to restrict this type of gratuitous violence that we see on television and movies and our video games is the issue of censorship. But I think that there are certain things that the charter tells us. First, it says that there are limits that are acceptable and reasonable in a free and democratic society, and I think the countervailing protection, particularly of children and women, makes a very strong case for banning things such as snuff movies, slasher movies and other kinds of violent entertainment.

One thing I think most people, even the civil libertarians who are the strongest against any type of censorship, will all agree on is that our children, at the very least, deserve to be protected.

There are several issues that Lyn McLeod and I have brought to the attention of the House which relate to the protection of children. One I feel very strongly about is that of slasher films. The Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters has led the fight to have these terrible films, which celebrate the mutilation and death of young women, at the very least restricted for viewing by our children. I personally would like to see them banned. There is absolutely no artistic merit in them; they are vicious films; I can't believe that it is normal, reasonable people who watch these. They are very sick, sick films.

One of the things that disturbed me the most was that they were being used almost as a rite of passage to young males, 13-to-15-year-old males, and one of the ways they could show that they'd become a man was to sit through an evening of these gory slasher films and watch the mutilation and violent death of these young women. I'm saying again, what kind of messages are we sending to our young people?

I did introduce a resolution, which was passed unanimously by this House in April, urging the government to act in terms of completing its review of the Ontario Film Review Board, changing the rating system, putting warning labels on certain of these films so that parents would understand what is out there, and a number of steps which I feel would have gone a long way to help solve the proliferation of slasher films.

A lot of my recommendations I based on the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. In fact, one of the things that they had advocated and recommended was a sticker system that would identify very clearly the content of the particular videos in question, and the Ontario Law Reform Commission has called for the board to implement a sticker system to display classifications on both the box and the cassette itself. The commission sees these stickers as a way to curb children's access to restricted videos and to keep tabs on the way these videos are made and distributed.

One of the things that has happened, of course, is that the technology of videos has just exploded over the last decade, and it's not something that our legislation can cope with. The original Theatres Act was not designed to deal with the proliferation of VCRs in our society and videocassettes; it was designed to deal with the theatres. I am very, very strongly urging the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to revamp the Theatres Act and to act to ensure that these films are not being distributed widely in our province, many of them at our neighbourhood video stores.

One of the things that has distressed me, as I mentioned earlier, is the fact that the media seems unwilling to tackle this particular issue. There have been a few newspapers that have been very good. CITY TV, not too long ago, ran I think it was about a 15-minute exposé, if I could call it that, on this whole business and how sickening it is, but very few have really been willing to speak out.

The Kitchener-Waterloo Record is one that I find has been very outspoken and very willing to go to the wall and say, "We need to do something about this escalating violence." They said in an editorial in January:

"Most Ontarians don't wish to censor or restrict movies merely because of bad language or plain sex, but they do want to curb films with gratuitous violence, especially violence connected with sex. The film review board should offer better and more thorough protection to film and video viewers yet it can't even handle its current load.

1530

The board needs to adopt a new rating approach. It should consider swapping information about easily categorized films like The Little Mermaid with other provinces to eliminate the need for every jurisdiction to review its films.

It should also create a category similar to the American NC17 rating, no customer below age 17, for films where even the restricted designation is too mild. In addition, it should toughen its rating of films featuring gratuitous violence, certainly where it's mixed with sex.

I think that's an important point I wish to make. When you're talking about pornography, I'm not talking about erotica, I'm not talking about sexual explicitness; I'm talking about the pornography of violence. I think it is very, very harmful and that we do have to attempt to curb it.

One of the other issues that has been brought to the House's attention in recent days is the violent crime cards which some of the media have called serial killer cards. These trading cards are sketches of convicted serial killers and mass murderers and organized crime figures, and they have blotches of red ink, which depicts blood, to smear across the front of the cards. Then the backs of the cards give details of murders, the weapons used and the serial killers themselves.

Again, it's the message that these are sending to our children, because they are in a trading card format, a format that has been reserved before for heroes for our children. But we're not talking about a Paul Molitor here or a Doug Gilmour; we're talking about violent killers. Yet right now our children can walk into any trading card store that carries these and take them off the shelf.

The outcry from parents on this has been really quite amazing. Some will believe that this is not an important issue. They're saying, "Well, they're just trading cards, so big deal." But it's part of the desensitization of our children, and are we now saying that our children have a new set of heroes? I don't think so. I don't think that's what we want for them.

Obviously, with any type of legislation where you're talking a ban or a partial ban or a restriction, there are always issues raised such as freedom. Freedom of expression, the old censorship arguments all come to the fore. But as I mentioned earlier in my speech, we as a society have decided there are certain restrictions for our children that are in their benefit. That is why we say they can't drink till a certain age. That's why we say they have to be a certain age before they can smoke. That's why we say they have to be a certain age before they can gamble. It's why we may well be legislating bicycle helmets. There are certain safety mechanisms to protect our children.

I am particularly dismayed that the provincial government does not act, and I recognize that this, as well as the slasher films shown, has implications for the federal government. The slasher films involve amending the Criminal Code, the obscenity provision. That is a federal responsibility. But there are things for the slasher films that we can do as a provincial government, and I've already outlined a few of them, such as revamping our Ontario Film Review Board, which is supposed to be the arbiter of community standards and yet is a closed shop.

People don't know what their guidelines are. People don't know how they rate them. People are not welcome to their board meetings. Everything is an internal matter, and even though people are picked from across the province to sit on this board, in many ways parents and the people of this province do not feel that they reflect our standards.

With the serial killer trading cards or the violent crime cards, again it has been suggested it's a federal jurisdiction because the federal government can stop them coming across the border, and also the federal legislation has a provision about crime comics and publication. Well, this isn't included in the crime comics and publication section. These trading cards didn't exist until the past year, so there's a void and the provincial government can go in and say these are restricted in the province of Ontario, at a minimum, to be sold to our children.

I don't see any artistic merit in these cards. I don't see any value whatsoever in them. For people who say they're a source of information, it's a sad commentary if this is the type of information you're going to these trading cards for. I think our provincial government can go in to restrict the sale of these cards and to protect our children.

These issues aren't always easy. They are also issues which we don't have a unanimous opinion on or unanimous consent that this is the way to deal with them. But I think one thing we do share is our willingness to protect our young people. The violence that has been in television and in movies and with video games is reaching an alarming proportion. If we, as legislators, aren't willing to draw that line in the sand and to say, "It's time for us to act," then we are as guilty as those who are selling all this violent pornography and these violent movies and these violent television shows, because we will have stood back and done nothing.

I certainly intend to lobby our federal counterparts to do their share. Federal action could help curb these problems, not only in Ontario but across our nation. In the meantime, because it may be several months before the new government has an opportunity to look at these issues and to initiate action, our government has been aware of these issues for many months in Ontario and we could take action. All it requires is the political will.

I say to you in the government, if you believe, as I believe, that one of our moral imperatives in this Legislature is to act to protect our children, then we do have to draw that line in the sand and we have to act. We have to show leadership. We have to show people that politicians are not just hot air, that we are willing to take a leadership position; we're willing to take what might be an unpopular action in some circles. If we have the courage to do it, I think years down the line our children will thank us, because at least we will have had the courage to do something.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate dealing with interim supply for the government. I want to take some time to talk about issues related to the finances of the province and where we're going, which is not a prospect in terms of down the road that many of us should feel very pleased about.

I want to make some reference to a number of articles that have been written in the past month or so, some dealing with the federal election, commenting on the provincial scene, and some going back prior to the provincial election but as well dealing with the Ontario government's budget and with some of the programs instituted under Liberal and NDP governments that have put us in severe difficulties at this time.

The first I want to mention is an article in the Globe and Mail on Monday, October 18, written by Peter Cook, who's a columnist in the Report on Business section. It was quite alarming to me and a shock, as a member of this Legislature not to mention as a resident and taxpayer of this province, to read some of the things Mr Cook brought forward.

He was talking about the greatest borrowers in the world in terms of governments, and "among the great borrowers of the world," I'm quoting Mr Cook, "the province of Ontario is in fourth place overall."

Think of that, Mr Speaker: The province of Ontario is the fourth-largest borrower in the world. "In fiscal 1992-93, Ontario went to global bond markets for US$8.6 billion." That's over, what, C$11 billion, that the province of Ontario, with a population of 10 million people -- the fourth-largest borrower in the world. If that doesn't frighten you and an awful lot of people out there, it certainly should.

1540

One of the things that constantly amazes me -- and certainly we witnessed this in the federal election -- there was some effort by at least a couple of parties to talk about the deficit, the federal deficit and the national deficit. If you take a look at not just the federal situation but also the combined debts and deficits of provincial regimes, Canada is in a pretty significant problem.

Ontario, since the NDP assumed power, is consistently running $10-billion, $12-billion deficits. That's what we know about, despite the juggling of the books that has occurred, and for part of which the Provincial Auditor has criticized the current government. This seems to be an acceptable practice.

I think in many respects governments of whatever political stripe have been allowed to do this, in fact even encouraged to some degree by the electorate at large. We saw this in the federal election, where we have more people calling for more spending and supporting parties that are saying we can go slow on the deficit, we can incur more debt and it's not going to have any long-term, harmful impact. We're just kidding ourselves.

At some point in time we're going to hit the brick wall, and I don't think it's too far down the road. But of course the current government doesn't seem to have any significant concern about that. They're looking at getting over their mandate and trying to institute their radical reforms prior to their leaving office in a year and a half or a few months thereafter and, in my view, doing irreparable harm to this province in that period of time, not to mention what they've already done up to this point.

Mr Cook, whom I quoted, also talks about this situation and he concludes with the fact that Canadians have not been told how serious this situation is and will for the most part be surprised by a crisis. I'm not sure that I quite agree with Mr Cook in that respect. I think there have been efforts made to educate the people of this country and this province in respect to the debt and deficit crisis, but I don't think they want to listen.

As legislators, we all have people knocking on our doors on a pretty regular basis asking for more funds for their particular interest or for more funds for their particular kind of project. Sure, they agree on cutbacks, as long as they don't land on their doorstep, as long as they don't impact on them or their families or their businesses or their particular own interests.

There hasn't been this effort to all understand the critical situation that we're in and to get into the boat and row together. In fact, it's quite the opposite. So I think we can't blame it all on politicians and political parties. I don't think there's a willingness out there on the part of the vast majority of Canadians up to this point, and Ontarians, to accept the reality of the forthcoming debt crisis.

Mr Cook, and I want to quote him again, is talking about the impact of the debt and deficits and I'll quote:

"It is constraining economic growth and harming job creation. It is purloining funds that could otherwise go into productive investment. It is putting a permanent floor under the cost of money that makes us less competitive in the world. It is making us one of the highest-taxed nations on Earth. It is building up an enormous external debt that is in reality a future charge against our incomes and our children's incomes. And, last but not least, it is threatening our social programs," which again is an irony of the last federal election.

When we talk about all of the platitudes in respect to concern for preservation of universality in all of our social programs, the reality is we're putting all of those things that Canadians hold precious in jeopardy by this increasing spending binge and not being prepared to come to grips with the financial reality facing us all. I mean, how can any of us who sit back and just contemplate it continually spend in the neighbourhood of $10 billion to $12 billion annually more than we're taking in? You sit back and look at that and say, "Well, that's okay. That's fine. I have my home, I have my car. I have a job," -- for those 80% or 90% who are working. "Don't you cut my services. Don't you impact on me negatively in any way, shape or form."

We have to stop and take a look at the situation. I suggest, as Mr Cook has, let's take a minute, step back and consider our children. Let's consider our grandchildren. These are taxes, these are debts, that will have to be repaid. What's going to happen? We're going to be in such a significant problem, such dire straits, effectively -- we're broaching that now, in my view. These kinds of services we've come to be used to and that we can afford -- if we handled our finances in a much more respectable and responsible way, we could afford the kinds of programs we have in Canada. The only reason we're in problems now is because of spending binges and the significant debt we've incurred and the interest costs based on that debt. We continue to build and increase the debt. The NDP is going to double the debt. In four years in office they're going to double the provincial debt. If that doesn't concern anyone, it certainly should. What should concern people even more --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Come on, wake up, wake up. It's happening in the western world, it's happening in the eastern world and it's happening in the other world as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: What should concern people even more is the quality of members, like the member for Downsview, supposedly representing the government. That should certainly not give any of us hope for the future when we have individuals like that, the member for Downsview scoffing at a $10-billion or $12-billion annual deficit and the impact it's going to have on provincial programs.

Mr Perruzza: That's what you have been saying for the last nine years: The voters don't count. Well, the voters have spoken, okay? It's registered. You guys are wiped out. In fact, read the quote of the day on the front page of the Globe and Mail.

The Acting Speaker: To the member for Downsview: Please, the member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll just consider where that came from, the individual wearing jeans, and his colleagues who come in here in bare feet and have no respect for this chamber and no respect for other members who are trying to participate in a debate, but that's pretty indicative of the quality of people who occupy those benches.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I resent that last remark. I don't class myself like that at all. I absolutely resent it. I wish he would withdraw.

Mr Runciman: I'm sorry the member resembles that remark.

I want to carry on in respect to a number of issues that we should all be concerned about. Health care fraud is certainly one that's been raised on a number of occasions, and this government seems to be slow to move in respect to dealing with it.

The Provincial Auditor, I think in a report last year, indicated that health care fraud represented somewhere in the neighbourhood of $691 million annually. I want to go through a number of these points that were raised by the Provincial Auditor in respect just to health care fraud, put them on the record, and raise the spectre of federal programs and also provincial programs related to, in some respects, immigration and refugee programs.

I found it quite interesting to read an article reporting on a speech by Supreme Court Justice John Sopinka this morning, where Justice Sopinka said, "Political correctness is called a threat to freedom of speech." I certainly have to agree in respect with Justice Sopinka's views. He said that some groups -- feminists, gays, visible minorities -- "are no longer content to express their ideas, but demand that the contrary views be suppressed. What may be thought to be correct today may be thought to be incorrect tomorrow."

These are the kinds of issues where even if you make a reference to some problems that may be created in the provincial domain or the federal domain in respect to immigration or refugee programs, there are those out there -- and we saw this, certainly, in the federal election -- who are going to immediately castigate you and try to label you as someone other than who you are and try to cast aspersions on your motivations.

1550

I want to talk about this issue and I'm going to put the concerns of the Provincial Auditor on the record. Among some of his reported findings in respect to OHIP fraud:

"Twenty-six per cent of all addresses used by OHIP cardholders are incorrect.

"About 60,000 OHIP registrants over the age of 16 may be non-residents.

"The eligibility of more than 44,000 landed immigrants and almost 5,000 refugees is questionable, because of improper documentation.

"An estimated 30,000 individuals are registered for health coverage who are facing deportation....

"There is extensive use of the health care system by foreign workers, including some who incur substantial medical claims soon after registering for coverage.

"Accompanying family members of foreign workers and students also make substantial use of the Ontario health care system....

"There are many cases of someone arriving in Ontario, applying for a health number and then immediately incurring major medical claims."

Those are the kinds of concerns that were brought to the attention of this government some time ago by the Provincial Auditor. We've heard allegations in respect to some members of the Somalian community having a fraud scam. That happens to be related to welfare, but I think we saw something in the media today where some of our officials in the federal government have come across health cards being produced in Somalia and shipped to Canada: Ontario OHIP cards being manufactured in Somalia and being transported to Canada.

I think Canada has a reputation, and I think in some respects we can be proud of it, but I think we've gone overboard in respect to this open-door policy, in effect opening the vault and telling the world: "Come on in, boys. It's there for the taking." We have to tighten it up and we have to do significant things in the area of health care fraud to make sure that we don't continue with a policy and programs that are so prone to abuse that it could be costing us as Canadian taxpayers. People have contributed to this system over their lifetimes, their parents have contributed, their grandparents have contributed, and now we're seeing that system ripped off to the tune of close to, we're told, $1 billion a year.

It's simply unbelievable, and this government seems totally baffled in terms of how to deal with it. Our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, has I think made some very constructive proposals and suggestions but, for whatever reasons, the government, as it does in so many other areas when we try to make constructive proposals and suggestions, seems frozen in time, completely unable to take action.

I've seen that in my own area, in the law and order field, when I raise issues where it seems to me it could be so simple for the government to deal with these in a matter-of-fact, quick-response way of doing it. They get up with this political doublespeak, simply do not provide answers and do nothing. It's amazing for someone who has sat in this House for 12 1/2 years to watch this crowd, the gang that can't shoot straight, simply not able to come to grips with the significant problems facing this province, let alone some that aren't so significant.

I talked about the welfare system briefly and the problems we're having in welfare. My leader mentioned this today and was the subject of some abuse because of a situation that occurred during the summer when he tried to make a point with a lady who was leaving a job where she received in excess of $40,000 a year, who had made a decision to leave that job and move on to the welfare system, on to the social assistance program in the province of Ontario.

The point my leader was trying to make, and has been trying to make for some time, is that the system is simply too rich. The rationale for that, of course, is what's taken place during the Liberal and NDP years in power. I did have some figures here, but I've got too many papers around the place. But if you take a look at what's happened in respect to the welfare benefits, they have significantly increased over the period of time the Liberals and NDP have been in office. Even during the good times when the Liberals were enjoying a booming economy, the social assistance case load was increasing, because they had increased the level of benefits to the extent that it was not very attractive, to say the least, for certain people to go to work. When you're making a minimum wage of $6 an hour in this province and you compare that with individuals on social assistance, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to go out and work your tail off for 40 hours while your neighbour is on social assistance making a comparable income.

How did the NDP respond to that? They brought in these supplements for the working poor to bring them up to the welfare level.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am going to Mills's press conference tomorrow.

Mr Runciman: Yes. Supplements to bring the working poor up to the welfare level. Believe it or not, that's the socialist answer, and the fact that instead of taking a look at the real problems in the welfare system, we've made this system too easy to access, too expensive, and provided disincentives to people for getting off social assistance. Those are major problems.

Others will talk about the housing programs. The Minister of Housing is perhaps the worst ideologue sitting on that side of the House. You can stand here and shout yourself blue, hit yourself on the head with a hammer, I don't care: You can't make that woman understand a commonsense message. You can hold up all the charts and graphs, all the statistics you want that she's pouring billions of our money down a hole, down a sewer, effectively, with her public housing policies, but it doesn't make a dent on that lady.

I've gotten to the point where I'm not going to let my blood pressure get out of hand any more. After two and a half to three years with these characters, I'm simply not going to do it. I've accepted that they can't understand. They're not willing to understand. The people who are controlling the show over there are strict ideologues, socialists, and they simply see everything being in the public domain. If it's private sector, forget it, it isn't any good. It's Big Brother. Big Brother is the answer to all of our problems.

On the housing thing, I don't have the stats on this again, but I've been told that in Metro Toronto the bulk of public housing now is going to immigrants and refugee claimants. All the new units coming on the market are going to non-Canadians, non-residents. Certainly we have to devote a share of that, but virtually everyone? And why is that? Because David Cooke, the NDP Minister of Housing at the time, removed the residency requirement. So again, we're opening the gates to the world, we're importing poverty with no rationale and no question as to whether or not we can afford it. That's out of the question. They don't care.

Mr Sutherland: I can't believe how simplistic this is; simplistic and stereotyping.

Mr Runciman: This is something, Mr Speaker. I could say something about the individual interjecting and his economic background, but I will not.

Mr Bradley: Go ahead. I want to hear it.

Mr Runciman: No, I don't want to.

Mr Bradley: He was a king once.

Mr Runciman: That's another good point on his résumé, yes.

I wanted to talk about those and I wanted to put a few other quotes on the record that I think are relevant with respect to the economy.

We've talked about the budget tricks of the Treasurer, and I'm sure my colleague from Etobicoke West is going to get into this. We're having an opposition day next week from the Liberals dealing with this, although I'm not sure how much credibility they have on this issue. We just have to go back to 1990. I recall -- what was that guy's name? -- Nixon saying we were going to have a $25-million or $30-million surplus. Of course, once the books were opened, we had a $2.5-billion deficit. Clearly, that had to be a significant part of the rationale in terms of calling that provincial election at the three-year period rather than waiting for a four- to five-year mandate. In any event, I'm sure that particular point will be raised again next Tuesday at some point during the debate.

1600

I wanted to just make a comment and quote from Ron Corbett, who's the business editor of the Ottawa Sun, talking about this book juggling by the NDP government. "The entire process of drafting a budget in Ontario now consists of little more than making sure it comes in under $10 billion." Dead on, and we saw that. The Provincial Auditor has criticized the Treasurer and the government for the juggling that took place in the last budget to try to point to the public and say, "Look, our deficit came in under $10 billion."

We've talked about the crown corporations act and what they're attempting to do there. They've made contributions to the civil service pension plan but not entered the money on their books. It's going to sell its computer system and then lease it back, which is supposedly going to save it $500 million, but of course that's the equivalent of going to the pawn shop. It will sell anything it owns for whatever price, as long as the cheque clears before budget day. I quote Mr Corbett:

"The accounting tricks are rampant now. The Ontario government is behaving -- there's no discernable difference -- like a near-bankrupt trying to doctor its books before a crucial meeting with its banker.

"You can play tricks until the cows come home, but if you're serious about bringing down Ontario's deficit, there is only one honest and reliable way of doing it: Throw this government out."

I wanted to make some references quickly to another element and, again, my colleague the member for Etobicoke West may want to address this. We've heard some rumours in respect to the privatization of elements of Ontario Hydro. We've seen reports in the press this morning where the Premier's considering amendments to the Power Corporation Act. In fact, those amendments would allow the selling off of certain elements, certain arms of the utility. We've heard of course that the hydraulic arm is one of them that is going to be sold off, and perhaps something to deal with the American sales portion of Ontario Hydro.

What's the bottom line here in respect to this privatization by a socialist government of Ontario Hydro? I don't think, if we take a close look at this, that it's probably going to be in the best interests of Ontarians. We understand that if this happens, it's simply to ensure that the government can maintain its bond rating and continue its borrowing levels. What it does is allow this government to avoid coming to grips with the reality of its desperate fiscal situation. It's going to allow it to continue to borrow at profligate levels and in fact bankrupt this province for future generations.

There's one final quick one that I always like to get in when we're talking about finances. I have a list of examples here -- and one of my colleagues will run down these -- of government waste. One of my pet peeves is TVO and La Chaîne. I raised this during the Bernie Ostry hearings a year and a half ago. It's costing us, as taxpayers, something like $35 million a year for the operation of La Chaîne. Virtually no one watches it. We saw the viewing statistics. It's an infinitesimal amount of people watching it in the Franco-Ontarian community.

We can provide the service for both language groups in this province on one network. It'll be financially responsible. We can free up that $35 million to improve the English arm -- the English and French arm, if you will -- and use those other millions of dollars for needed services; for example, in policing, where they're looking at closing down small detachments in rural areas of this province. That kind of money could keep those operations going. But what are we doing? Again, we're pouring it down the hole.

I asked the then minister, Karen whatever-her-last-name-is; I forget it --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Haslam.

Mr Runciman: -- Haslam, "Why are you doing this?" and she said, "We have to send out the right message to Franco-Ontarians." Well, Franco-Ontarians are taxpayers, and I think they're going to be reasonable. If we say, "We will provide a level of broadcasting on the one network that will meet your needs," I think they're going to go along with it. These are tough times. Why do they need that symbolic gesture out there which is costing millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars and accomplishing virtually nothing? Those are the kinds of political sacred cows that we have to come to grips with, and the time is long overdue.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bradley: I welcome the opportunity to raise some issues of particularly local interest but with ramifications across the province at this time when we're considering interim supply. One of the benefits of interim supply, of course, is that it allows us to deal with a wide range of issues, and the debate certainly has taken on that air this afternoon.

In my own community, quite obviously the issue which is most important is that of unemployment. In the last survey of the major metropolitan centres of Canada, and that includes St Catharines -- I suppose they're looking at places that are in excess of 100,000, or perhaps 50,000 even -- we have a 16.6% unemployment rate in the St Catharines-Niagara area. When you take into consideration that this comes before the implementation of the announced closings at General Motors, you begin to recognize the dire straits in which we find ourselves in the Niagara Peninsula in October 1993.

It didn't surprise me that during the recent federal election, the issue which was most important in the minds of the residents of Ontario was obviously that of jobs and the fact that the economy was not moving along quickly, and some people had made the choice to support the party which was going to address that particular problem above other problems. I really believe that is the case. If I were talking about what my residents are most concerned about on a wide basis, it would be unemployment.

Members of the House will recall that we have had an announcement by General Motors, about two years ago now, or close to two years ago, that the foundry would be closing in St Catharines, with about 2,000 jobs lost, and that there would be some additional jobs lost as one of the lines in the engine plant would be discontinued. In addition to this, there were 750 indefinite layoffs that had been announced, and anyone who knows how plants work and how layoffs work, when you use the word "indefinite," it usually means it's unlikely those jobs are going to come back. People being laid off never like the news, but when it's a layoff for a specific period of time and the announcement of a recall would be forthcoming, it is easier to accept than when it is labelled an indefinite layoff. In addition to this, subsequent to those announcements it was announced that General Motors would be selling its axle plant on Ontario Street in St Catharines and there was a potential loss of some 800 jobs.

One of the interesting parts of collective bargaining in our province involves the preservation of jobs. The Canadian Auto Workers union obviously saw one of its goals as preserving jobs in this province or perhaps even helping to create new jobs. I was delighted to see that there was a focus of attention in the most recent negotiations on preserving jobs in St Catharines, even though it may be for a three-year period of time. It was announced as a result of the negotiations that over the next three years, the duration of the contract between the Canadian Auto Workers and General Motors, the 800 jobs would be maintained on Ontario Street at the axle plant, that this operation would continue.

That indeed is good news and I think those who are in the leadership of the CAW deserve credit for focusing on that specific issue. Certainly if you were to talk to workers at General Motors, they are very interested in job security. They're very interested in making sure there are as many employment opportunities as possible, not only for themselves but for others in the community and others in their family. So where governments have not been necessarily successful, the Canadian Auto Workers union was successful in maintaining those jobs for some three years.

It will now be our responsibility as members of the Legislature to continue to raise these issues, to persuade the Premier and other senior members of the government and the cabinet to do everything possible to maintain those jobs after that three-year period of time and to replace the jobs that would be lost as a result of the closing of the foundry, if indeed that closing does take place, and certainly all indications are that that would be the case.

1610

There's a good opportunity for General Motors to make further investments in St Catharines. With the area that's available within the foundry building, with other areas that are available within our community, I think General Motors would find it very viable and very desirable to reinvest in the St Catharines area, because we have a very well-trained, well-motivated workforce in our part of the province, people who are expert in the field.

The company has probably found that some of the other options it has chosen to exercise haven't worked out as well as it would like. In my view, albeit I'm certainly biased in favour of St Catharines and the people who reside there, they would be very wise to make new investments in St Catharines, where we have that well-motivated, well-trained and dedicated workforce, where we have some significant plant operations that are quite modern, and where we have the Canadian Auto Workers recognizing, through the negotiation process, that jobs are very important to the people in our community. All my goods friends in the CAW, from president Ron Davis down through the line, are to be congratulated as taking part in these negotiations and being successful, but I call upon the Ontario government to create that kind of atmosphere, that kind of situation in Ontario where those who have money to invest will in fact put the money in Ontario.

This is going to mean in some cases sacrificing some of the ideology of the party perhaps, and I understand that's difficult. I know there's a press conference that's going to be held tomorrow. I saw a notice of a press conference where my good friend Mel Swart -- who, by the way, on Friday will be celebrating his 55th wedding anniversary. Thelma and Mel will be celebrating that, and I offer my congratulations. I see a notice here that says that tomorrow, Friday, October 29, Mel Swart is holding a press conference in the Legislature's media studio at 10 am. He is stating his views on Bob Rae's continuing leadership in the Ontario NDP, and it mentions what his background is.

I'll be very interested in seeing what my good friend Mel Swart has to say about the leadership options for the New Democratic Party, because I know Mel understands extremely well the needs of the Niagara region. He's always had interesting and exciting things to say, even though, as I say, he's been out of the Legislature for some period of time. I've often found myself in agreement with what he's had to say. Not always, but often I've found myself in agreement, so I'll be very interested, as I know everybody in this House will be, in what he has to say.

There are other issues that are confronting us that are extremely important, but unemployment is the most compelling issue. The need to facilitate the creation of jobs in the Niagara region and in Ontario is exceedingly important, and I don't think any of us in this House should ever forget that as we deal with the various issues that come before us.

We have some special needs in the Niagara region as a result of the economic difficulties. One of them has to do with the local office of the Ministry of Labour. Within the allocation which is provided to the Minister of Labour, because I'm not asking him to go out and seek new funds, I would like to see him have additional staff in St Catharines to deal with the special problems that exist there as a result of the high unemployment rate.

We have people who have to wait several months now before their needs are serviced. That's not because the people in the local office don't want to service them; it's just that their case load is extremely large and, as a result, it can be three, four and five months before someone can have a case dealt with by Ministry of Labour officials. I think they're deserving of more expeditious service, because many of them require that in terms of trying to recoup lost wages as a result of shutdowns and dealing with other problems that they have to deal with.

Actually, both labour and management would be pleased to be able to see those matters settled in a more expeditious matter. That's why I think it's important that we have the additional staff there to carry out those responsibilities.

I want to say as well that there are a number of institutions which, within the envelope of money that is provided to the government, could use the funds in the Niagara region. I know my colleagues from the Niagara region would be very much in agreement with that.

We toured the Niagara Peninsula Children's Centre, a few of us who are the MPPs in the area and representatives of those MPPs, and saw once again the genuine need, as they serve now well over 1,000 young people. It's actually marvellous what they do in that particular centre, the education that takes place, the special training that's there, the special services that are provided. In order to carry out that responsibility in the best possible way, they require a redevelopment project to be approved to move forward and they require an expansion of space and perhaps some additional staff.

These are young people, most of them actually preschool although many of them are going to school at the present time, and what happens is that it allows them to integrate back into the so-called regular school system as quickly as possible. It addresses some of their concerns in the very early stages. I certainly urge the government to move very quickly to give the final approvals to the move ahead with this project. The side benefit, which is not inconsiderable in our area, of course is providing jobs through the construction that would take place in that particular initiative.

I notice as well that I have received a letter from the Niagara District Health Council, a copy of a letter to Ms Jean Simpson, the mental health facilities branch, Ministry of Health, and this is concerning funding for the CMHA, St Catharines and district. That's the Canadian Mental Health Association, which is the only community-based mental health day program serving the six northern municipalities in the region of Niagara.

These municipalities have a total referral population of 200,000. What they are in essence saying in here is that there's a need for funding. This is one of the few Canadian Mental Health Association district branches or local branches which is not funded by the provincial government. Recently, the United Way has found that it is unable to provide the kind of funding it would like to this association.

I met with Dr Megan Ward, the medical officer of health in the Niagara region, as I know all members will have the opportunity to, to discuss what the concerns of her organization might be, and I have met, along with my colleagues in the Niagara region, with the Niagara District Health Council.

One of the areas where we see a genuine problem existing, a need existing, is in services in terms of mental health. I could go into some considerable detail on that, but I'm sure the ministry officials, and the minister ultimately, would be aware of the problems that exist. I hope that they will give favourable consideration to the representations made by the Niagara District Health Council in this regard.

I notice as well that some people are being hit by the new government policy of not covering certain drugs. Everyone recognizes that the drug benefit program is extremely costly. I think everybody recognizes that. There's a study that took place that identified some of the problems and hopefully some of the solutions. What has happened is that some of the drugs which have been delisted, not all, are exceedingly important to those who used to receive them. It's unbelievable what some people have to pay for drugs on an ongoing basis.

I notice that I had some calls from people who were worried about cystic fibrosis and certain prescription drugs which were available to those people that either are going to be withdrawn or have been withdrawn from the list, and that can be a problem.

There's another service that's withdrawn. I think it's for people with birthmarks, that they could have those removed.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Port wine stains.

Mr Bradley: It is called "port wine stains," I am told. That's being withdrawn. I think most people would say, in this day and age with the way that money is, that non-essential cosmetic surgery perhaps shouldn't be covered. But I don't think most people would consider this to be non-essential cosmetic surgery or a cosmetic process. I think in this case it's important that the government reconsider that kind of decision.

I hope they will look at all the drugs that have been withdrawn. Many seniors now find it very difficult to meet those costs. I'm hopeful that the government will review that matter and determine what is essential, what is needed, and if it's going to be eliminating those services, only those which are not absolutely necessary should be removed from that particular list.

1620

Family and Children's Services Niagara wrote a letter, I presume to all of the members in the area. The letter was written to me in this case and it's from Ms E. Mae Denby, president of the board of directors of the Family and Children's Services Niagara. She says as follows on behalf of the board:

"On July 30, 1993, we forwarded to you a copy of correspondence to the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the proposed expenditure control plan. The belief that special allowances and parental contributions would be new revenue, recoverable with little consequence from children's aid societies, is seriously flawed and reflects a lack of understanding of the realities of these agencies and how we function.

"As we attempt to fulfil our responsibilities in the region for providing protection of children and caring for those who require our care, we are facing large increases in the number of people requiring our service and children requiring our care. Special allowances, which have traditionally flowed to the agency when the children come into care, have enabled us to provide an appropriate level of service to our clientele. The proposed clawback of this funding and the resultant reduction in our resources while the numbers of children requiring our services is rising dramatically would prove disastrous.

"We ask for your support and action in this matter. Any opportunities you may have to share these concerns with the minister's office on our behalf and on behalf of all children's aid societies would be appreciated. We must not allow this province's responsibility for its children to be set aside in this manner."

I agree with this. I notice that my colleague Charles Beer, who used to be the Minister of Community and Social Services in the previous government, now a critic in the field of Education, and Yvonne O'Neill, the member for Ottawa-Rideau, who is our critic in the field of Community and Social Services, spokesperson for the Liberal Party, have both certainly made representations in regard to the children's aid societies. I hope there will be a consideration on the part of the government of this matter.

I hope that renovations to the renal dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital can take place in the fastest possible fashion so the dialysis unit which services so many people throughout the Niagara region will be able to provide a much more appropriate and superior service to that which is available because of the crowded facilities which exist at the present time.

I also raised in the House this afternoon, and this affects many, many ridings -- the member for Wellington also made a statement in the House on this matter -- the dispute going on between the Ontario Minor Hockey Association and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. It's just disconcerting to watch that the children are the ones who are most affected by this.

In fact it is extremely difficult for those children to function as they have in the past. What we have is a situation where they're not allowed to go to various tournaments because they have been labelled as not being part of the CAHA. I know some members of this House are in this circumstance, where they've either had to take their children out of hockey or they've had to travel with them at all hours into the evening. I've heard of people travelling from Windsor to St Catharines, for instance, to play games. This is in regular season. This isn't playoffs. This is as a result of a dispute that's taking place.

Jack White, the president of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, on behalf of his organization has expressed a willingness to submit to conciliation and arbitration, and the offices of the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation have been offered in this regard. It is my understanding, however, that Judge Watt, representing an opposing organization within Ontario, has not yet met with the minister.

Judges perhaps see themselves as above cabinet ministers in terms of rank and perhaps it's moving down a step to meet with a cabinet minister. I don't know what the problem is. Certainly the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, as I know her, is a very pleasant person to deal with, a person of conciliation, and I think he would be wise to sit down with her and her officials.

I hope this can be resolved soon, because money for development of hockey players is being taken away and the opportunity to hold tournaments within our various communities is limited as well by the action of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. I know many people in our area, in the Niagara region, are concerned about this.

I look at several other issues that I could deal with. The critic in the field of Finance, Mr Phillips from Scarborough-Agincourt, is going to deal with a number of matters on a more general basis, but I know there are many issues that are affecting our region in terms of cuts that have taken place.

I know that Niagara College, for instance, says: "If you want to create some jobs, we've got a way of creating them. We need a new facility." I think the province agrees, I think the Council of Regents agrees, that it would be desirable to have a new facility for Niagara College, and they're all set to go.

I'm sure the president, John Saso, and others at the college would like to have the green light from the province. That would not only provide a good college for people to attend, and that's necessary, but it would create jobs at the very time we most need to create jobs in this province, so I make that recommendation to those who are responsible in this area.

I also want to discuss very briefly, although I would like to go on at some length if I had the time, the situation with the Niagara River. The Niagara River at one time was a high-profile issue, but as with all environmental issues, it has been shoved into the background today. The toxins continue to flow into the river --

Mr Sutherland: I thought that was because you did a good job.

Mr Bradley: Well, I know Radio Noon doesn't do its stories on the environment any more. I was talking to an environmentalist a couple of days ago who said, "You know, the problems are as acute as ever and as chronic as ever." So they're both acute and chronic along the Niagara River, but we don't seem to be able to get any attention directed to that issue.

The recent meeting of the IJC, International Joint Commission, has been helpful in refocusing on the Great Lakes, but my fear is in fact that people have forgotten about the Niagara River, where we have toxins still escaping, albeit slowly, into the Niagara River, contaminating that waterway and ultimately contaminating Lake Ontario.

I think it's our responsibility as legislators and the responsibility of the Ontario government to ensure that the provisions of the agreement signed in 1987 are provisions which are implemented to the letter and that we don't simply have a document that looks nice, that has my signature on it and Tom McMillan's signature on it and the people responsible for New York state and the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. It's important that besides the document we have implementation of the provisions of that particular document to ensure that we have a cleanup of the Niagara River.

I notice as well that there are other areas in the Niagara region that could use some help. One of the attractions I found with Mr Chrétien's campaign was his emphasis on infrastructure renewal. I guess the reason is that I've always been a proponent of infrastructure renewal. I've urged our provincial government to proceed with that, and they have simply hid behind the fact that, "There's no federal money, so we're not going to be moving forward."

Mr Sutherland: Oh, come on, Jim. You know we've been doing lots that way.

Mr Bradley: The king of Oxford speaks on the far side, and I listen to him making representations. I'm glad he's on board now, but I'm encouraged by the fact, as I know members of the government are encouraged by the fact, that the new federal government at least has given a commitment to proceed with infrastructure renewal projects, because in the Niagara region, the member for Welland-Thorold and I would like to be able to cut the ribbon again at some expansion of sewage treatment plants or water treatment plants, the enhancement of those kinds of facilities. They do wonders for an area.

They do three things: First of all, they meet an environmental need; second, they create much-needed jobs; third, they provide the Niagara region or Ontario with a basis to go to companies to say: "Here's the infrastructure we have. We have all the facilities you need to invest in this province and we're going to now advise that you invest in this province."

By utilizing that money, we meet those three different goals, and I can't for the life of me figure out why this has not happened in the past, that people wouldn't see the wisdom of that. It's not simply getting a shovel and shovelling coins into a hole. That's symbolic. That's not what was happening at all.

The member who sits in the chair, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, as he always points out to me, is a person who has a lot of those projects that are in need of funding. When I was Environment minister it seemed we were doing a lot of work in that area at all times, and he was supportive of those, so I know he would be eager to see the province move forward on those projects, with federal help and with municipal input.

1630

I promised the Liberal critic, the spokesperson in the field of Finance, that I would yield some considerable time to him for the purpose of dealing with interim supply, so I shouldn't go on too much longer except to say in a general sense, and perhaps a parochial sense but certainly a general sense, that I hope the province will focus its attention on the Niagara Peninsula and the need for jobs in the Niagara Peninsula.

We have been part of the Golden Horseshoe, or labelled part of it, but our end of the horseshoe has been tarnished many years by chronic unemployment. That's accelerated in recent years and it's going to accelerate again unless senior levels of government, federal and provincial, are prepared to provide the necessary assistance and the necessary climate for investment. I urge this government to join with others in providing that particular opportunity for those of us in the Niagara region.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House today, albeit rather briefly, and I look forward to the comments of my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

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

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): In rising today, I would just comment on the fact that I had spoken on interim supply on June 24, 1993, and I just reiterate some of the things that I said then, and will say that was then and this is now.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It was a good speech in June, but try a new one today.

Mr Turnbull: It's not shop-soiled, I assure you.

At that time, I spoke in some detail about the fact that this provincial government was hiding debt and was trying to suggest in its budget of 1993 that the deficit was $9.2 billion. I suggested that this number was completely erroneous and pointed to the fact that in the very tiny print at the bottom of the page, with a double asterisk, it mentioned, "Capital expenditure and debt adjusted to reflect new capital financing arrangements by $0.8 billion in 1993-94, $1.2 billion in 1994-95."

It's interesting that the Treasurer, though he's now called the Minister of Finance, kept on speaking in this budget document about a deficit of $9.2 billion. We kept on saying that is not the true deficit. It is just simply not true.

We only had two days of debate on the budget, which is quite extraordinary because the tradition in this House is to have approximately 10 to 15 days of debate on the budget, and it is the tradition to have at least five or six days of debate contiguous with the dropping of the budget. But, instead, we had one day of debate in which the two opposition leaders spoke to the budget. They brought it in on a Wednesday. The opposition leaders -- the leader of the official opposition and Mr Harris, the leader of our party -- spoke briefly on the Thursday, and then the next week was constituency week. I don't think that was a coincidence, that the government brought it in with that kind of timing.

When we got back after constituency week, we had spoken in great detail to many of the affected groups such as unions, chambers of commerce, business people and those people on the street who were affected by the largest tax grab in provincial history. I'll repeat that just so that message sinks in: We had the largest tax grab in provincial history. Notwithstanding that, we had two days of debate which were separated by one week. It threw out all the tradition this House has of having several days of contiguous debate. Bear in mind that the only two types of debate which are considered to be a motion of non-confidence, unless the government sees fit, are the budget and the throne speech. So I would suggest that the democratic tradition of this province is being rapidly eroded by this government bringing in the largest tax grab in provincial history and then proceeding to cut off debate, and we haven't had a chance to vote on the budget.

That's a very serious accusation which is quite separate from the seriousness of the financial mess that this government has got us in or the fact that it was the largest tax grab in history. It is an attack on our democratic rights as opposition members to be able to express a contrary view to that which the government has expressed.

Also in that same debate -- when I'm referring to debate, I'm talking about the debate on interim supply in June -- I pointed out that the Conservatives had brought forward a 15-point set of recommendations in our pre-budget consultation with the government. None of those recommendations were acknowledged by the government or acted upon, and although I will admit that we have a certain view of the world which is not shared by my friends across the floor, we believe the government would be in better shape if they had taken notice of those. They ignored those 15 points, and they also denied the opposition members the ability to put on the record those comments that had been made by citizens across the province, as expressed after the budget, by cutting off debate. That is a very serious accusation and could be the subject of a debate for many hours in this House.

But I want to get some other points on the record. The borrowing by this government is getting us into a position where we're losing any options which any future government will be able to exercise because we will be in such a serious debt hole. Returning to the budget document itself, I will remind the members across the floor and anybody who might be watching this program, reading from the government's own budget document from May of this year, that there's the statement, "Excluding sovereign countries, Ontario has become the largest borrower in the world. On average we borrow more than $1 billion a month. We spend more on interest costs than we spend on our schools." About one third of our new borrowing comes from outside Canada.

Turning to that borrowing outside Canada, there was an article in the newspaper recently which put Ontario in fourth position in the world in ranking of borrowers. In other words, by total amounts of money borrowed, we were the fourth-largest borrower in the world. The only entities in the world that borrowed more than Ontario were the European Investment Bank, and we know how badly managed that was by Mr Attali; the kingdom of Sweden, which had squandered its wealth through years of socialist rule; and the World Bank, which lends money to all countries of the world that are in need of money.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The microphone wasn't coming through, and I just wanted to know if the member for York Mills had reported the theft that took place this morning in the private members' hour involving his bill that he had put before the House.

The Acting Speaker: It's not a point of order.

Mr Turnbull: It's certainly a very interesting point where the government had managed to engineer taking over one of my private member's bills as one of its own private member's bills. I don't think that will be forgotten in the history of the infamy of this province, but let's put that aside.

1640

I want to turn to the comments which were made by the Provincial Auditor. When I rose to speak to interim supply in June, I quoted the fact that all this money borrowing was being hidden, the borrowing on the capital corporations and the borrowing for schools: some $600 million which was going to be raised by way of loans that the school boards would raise and the government would then give them money to service that debt. A very unusual turn of events because we have always, in this province and, to the best of my knowledge, in Canada in the other provinces, operated on the basis that grants would be handed down from the provincial level to school boards in order that they could pay their bills. But the government has come so precipitously close to the edge of the debt abyss that it has now recognized that it may not be able to borrow any more, so what it's doing is getting the school boards to borrow the money and it's saying, "We will give you the money to service it" -- $600 million this year.

As well as that, they are taking off-book some $805 million into the capital corporations. I commented on this in interim supply, and it seemed to me that there was a lot of abuse hurled across the floor from the government benches at that time suggesting there was nothing wrong with that. Well, this is what the auditor has subsequently said about that particular effort, and I read from a report of the standing committee on general government, the Hansard of August 17 of this year. The Provincial Auditor, appearing before that committee, said:

"My office was not invited to advise on this legislation and we followed the process of drafting Bill 17" -- which, for your benefit, you will recall, Mr Speaker, is the legislation which sets up the capital corporations -- "through snippets of information which the ministry staff were willing to share with us. We are grateful for that. Through that occasional glimpse, we saw accountability clauses appearing and disappearing in the draft legislation without being able to provide input or without finding out why these clauses were disappearing. This kind of spectatorship became somewhat uncomfortable when memoranda of understanding were offered as the main accountability mechanism to govern these corporations without finding the necessary support in the legislation for those memoranda of understanding."

He goes on at a later stage to say, "I'm mindful that ministry staff have expressed similar concerns about the need for embedding accountability in legislation rather than using only memoranda of understanding." He further goes on to quote from a study, "'A legislative mechanism is needed, establishing the requirements to submit annual corporate operating and capital budgets, an annual corporate plan and payment of surpluses, if any, to the government.'

"The accountability rules should be strengthened to provide a financial position statement which combines the consolidated revenue funds and these corporations, and indeed all other government-owned corporations, so that the public has a picture of the overall financial position of the province."

That is key to this: "the overall financial position of the province."

We now have a situation that this government, by its own admission, is some $1 billion in expenditures over its plan for this year. As well as that, the Workers' Compensation Board is spinning out of control: The debt is probably in excess of $12 billion worth of unfunded liability, which is not reflected in the books. The government is removing some $805 million to take off-book to the capital corporations and it is not adequately accounting for it. The auditor says that very clearly.

I will go on from the auditor's comments: "A second and most important feature is that there should be a provision that loans are only set up as assets if they are repaid from revenues and not from future grants, because if it is the grant route, it is just sticking money from one pocket into the other, and that does not represent an asset of the government."

That is, in accountant's terms, a very stinging attack on the credibility of the accounts of this government.

The newspapers weren't quite as measured as the auditor was. I'm quoting from a newspaper article of October 15, "The Ontario auditor has slammed Finance minister Floyd Laughren's accounting and for the first time in Ontario's history refused to approve the government's financial books." That is one of the most serious issues that you could possibly have. We have a government that is fiddling the books. The international lenders are recognizing that, but the electorate is not seeing the true information. There never was any chance of a $9.2-billion deficit this year. It was already over $10 billion before we started the fiscal year because they had taken the combined $600 million and $805 million off-book and thereby tried to fool some of the people, which they say you can do some of the time.

The combination of that money which was taken off- book, the admitted $1 billion that we're over in the deficit this year, the $10 billion of unfunded liability at the Workers' Compensation Board, the some $36 billion of liability that Ontario Hydro has, combined with the province's own admitted debt, takes us well over $100 billion, which is a sobering thought for anybody who wants to get their calculator out and see how much we as citizens owe, and I think everybody who does that little exercise will have a shock.

Mr Peter Cook, writing in the Globe and Mail on October 18, was talking about debt and deficits, and I'll just read a small extract. The title of his article is "Whistling in the Dark on Deficits." It reads:

"From the latest issue of Euromoney we learn a lot about where Canadian governance stands relative to that of other lands. The magazine has a list of what it calls 'the world's best credits' of the past year, which is finance-speak for the guys that are mortgaging the future fastest.

"Among the great borrowers of the world, the province of Ontario is in fourth place overall. Ahead of it are the European Investment Bank, the kingdom of Sweden and the World Bank. Behind it, the governments of Finland, Britain and Italy. In fiscal 1992-93, Ontario went to global bond markets for $8.6 billion (US)."

I don't believe for one minute that some of the things that this government has done it likes doing and I don't believe it would have done them if it had any choice. I think the fact that the civil service or the broader public sector was cut back, including MPPs' pay, by on average 5% was probably the right thing to do. I don't think the way the government went about it was the right way. It has caused an awful lot of strife, but that's strife that your party has to worry about.

The fact is, the government is being told, but is not bringing to this House the information, that you've run out of options. We have not got a revenue problem in this province, and I've said this over and over again; we have a spending problem, because last year the revenues of this province were the second-highest in history.

1650

The only other time the province has enjoyed revenue as high as last year and slightly higher was in the last year that the last government was in power. They'd shoved all kinds of little tricks, like preflow and things like that, underneath the carpet to make their books look good. Your government, the government of today, the NDP, inherited those problems because when it got there -- we'd been told in the election that we had a surplus and when you got there the cupboard was bare; there was a significant deficit.

I offered, during debate to interim supply in June, some suggestions as to how we should all come together and address this, that we should never allow any government of any political stripe this amount of latitude. I suggested that we should in fact have a controller general who would consider expenditures of the government before they were made and cost them out so that at least there would be some public accountability.

If I could express an opinion, it would be that the controller general should enjoy a great deal of freedom and should be jointly appointed by the advice of the three leaders of this province: the Premier, the leader of the official opposition party and the leader of the third party. If you did that, you would take politics out of the appointment and not weight it towards one person or the other.

The various political parties really shouldn't have a difficulty with it, because they are going to have to live with that person afterwards, so you don't get anybody who is leaning towards any party. But we have to get accountability into the system. We need to change the way all governments in Canada account for expenditures. That has been said many times but we haven't got there. The first step would be to get a controller general.

We should, as I mentioned at the time of interim supply, have an econometric model of the Ontario economy, because that would allow both the government and the opposition parties to model any fiscal changes they were going to make before they were made, so we wouldn't get in the mess we're in now.

I suspect that if the present government could quietly unwind some of the issues it inherited from the last government it would. Some of their actions bore down on this government very negatively and didn't give you the flexibility you thought you would have. I suspect, judging by the way you have spent, that it's probably just as well. Nevertheless, we would have the opportunity for people who were not involved in politics to be able to get an objective judgement as to what the impact of any move by a government would be in real terms, in terms of what extra taxes would have to be raised. Then I think you would have an outcry from the public.

Because the government has the numbers, it undoubtedly will be able to pass interim supply, which allows the government to keep on paying its employees, but it will also allow it to borrow and continue to borrow, and that is the most serious aspect of it. That is what I've tried to bring to bear in this debate.

I may have touched on the parties and told you what you were doing wrong. Nevertheless, I have brought constructive ways in which you could start to improve the system in a non-partisan way and I think that is what the public are asking for. I hope the government will take some notice of what I'm saying, because it's urgently overdue. We have lost our ability to do anything else.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Are there other participants in this debate?

Mr Stockwell: I'm here to discuss Mr Laughren's resolution "That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing November 1, 1993, and ending December 31, 1993, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply."

It's rather interesting that today the Treasurer of Ontario or the Finance minister, whatever they call him these days, would ask this House to vote on a supply motion to go out and pay bills, borrow money etc. Why is that interesting? Well, you're asking me to support a motion that allows you to go and borrow and spend money. But at the same time --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Same speech.

Mr Stockwell: No, it's a different speech, I say to the member for Yorkview. It's different because --

Mr Elston: I think he wants to borrow it.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, he wants to borrow it. It's different because the auditor won't sign off on your books. You're asking me to go ahead and approve spending money, approve you to spend money, borrow money, and you can't get the auditor to sign off on your books. You also can't tell us what your deficit is. You've no idea what the spending levels are going to be. Your revenue statements in the budget are farcical. Yet you're asking me and this Legislature to go ahead and allow you to go out and borrow and spend more money.

You can't even answer the most basic, fundamental questions that I and the taxpayers have, such as: What is the situation as far as the books are concerned now? What are your spending levels? What are your revenue levels? Certainly you can understand, when asking me to support a revenue motion, a supply motion, that those are rather simple questions that people would ask.

If you were a private corporation and you were going before them for an annual report, and the shareholders were sitting in public out there before you, they'd be asking questions like consolidated debt, revenues, profitability. You can't answer the most simple questions, and the simplest question you can't answer is, why will the auditor not sign off on your books?

Mr Bradley: Did Radio Noon call you on this?

Mr Stockwell: No, I never got a call from any of the CBC affiliates on this question, and it's too bad, because of all the things we debate in this House, this is really important.

This is a lot of money that's being spent and a lot of questions that need to be answered, and you can't even answer the simplest one, which is why the Provincial Auditor, a bureaucrat, will not sign off on your books. The taxpayers have got a lot of questions that should be asked that you can't answer.

That concerns me and it concerns a lot of people. It concerns the lenders, but they're far more sophisticated than your typical taxpayers, because they've got a raft of people who go through your budgets and measure your expenditures and your off-book debt reductions and your movements of money here and there. They understand where you are, and that's why you're on credit alert. That's why your deficit's ballooning and so on.

The average taxpayer doesn't have that raft of people to go through the books and find out you're fudging them. That really bothers me. We have a gaggle of 70 over there who are fudging the books and coming before the public today and saying: "Yes, we're fudging the books. The auditor won't sign off on them. But come on, give us some more money, because we've got to spend some more." That really bugs me, and it should bug the taxpayer. I think it does.

We're into a situation now where we get a lot of deficit speeches and debt speeches and so on and so forth. The curious thing about this is, we talk about deficits and the taxpayer out there says, "Okay, the deficit this year is $10 billion, $12 billion, $13 billion, $14 billion," whatever number you made up, but nobody has addressed the debt issue.

We talk about deficits and how we're going to retire the deficits. Even on that glorious, wonderful day when another government is in there and it is retiring the deficits, we still won't have dealt with one penny of the debt. Even if we get to the situation of balancing our budgets, we still have $100 billion in debt we've got to pay off. You're going to have to create surpluses over the years to start retiring the debt that you've accumulated, which you've doubled in four short years, astounding as that may seem.

So what does that mean? That means that governments such as this -- what do they call themselves, democratic socialists or social democrats? I forget.

Mr Turnbull: Just socialists.

Mr Stockwell: Socialists. This means that governments like you end up having to put bone marrow transplants on hold. This means that you've got to apply user fees for children in certain programs and so on, where they can't afford it. This means that you end up not being able to open police stations. This means that you have to talk about user fees in the health care system. This means that you've got to do a bunch of things that you don't like doing because you were so completely irresponsible in the budgeting process in this province in the first year or two that you took power.

1700

So we have a bunch of people standing up and debating what kind of trouble we are in: what kind of deficit trouble we are in and what kind of debt trouble we are in. We're in such debt trouble that we have the Minister of Community and Social Services standing up and talking about parental contributions. Have you ever heard anything so silly in your life? It's the most absurd thing I've ever seen, a grown man standing before the public talking about parental contributions. He simply changed the name from a user fee and says it's legitimate. It's embarrassing to watch, for heaven's sake. It's embarrassing to watch a man say "parental contributions" when he really means user fees for the most disadvantaged group of people in our communities, children, and a socialist standing talking about parental contributions. It's enough to make you cry to watch that take place.

Interjection: It's enough to make you sick.

Mr Stockwell: It's enough to make you sick. It's beyond sick, though.

One day the Premier stands up and guarantees absolute access to bone marrow transplants, case closed, without debate, and we have the embarrassment of the Health minister walking out the same day in that hall and telling the press the Premier couldn't possibly know what he's talking about because that's not the case. That's embarrassing. That's just bloody embarrassing. These people are singing from two different song sheets. As I said before, the left hand doesn't know what the other left hand is doing. It's just embarrassing.

We have a government that takes responsibility for nothing, absolutely nothing. We talk about any issue and they're going to process it to death. Everything's a process. "A bone marrow transplant is now in the hospital's responsibility -- I wash my hands of it -- as part of the social contract." Unbelievable a minister could do that.

On landfill sites, the superdumps surrounding Metropolitan Toronto, they formed the IWA. "I wash my hands of it. I want nothing to do it. The IWA is separate from the state."

I've got a Solicitor General, where someone got put out on parole with 16 or 17 warrants outstanding in Alberta: "Oh, we're processing it and I can't talk about it. I wash my hands of it. I want nothing to do with it."

What the hell did these people get elected for? If they didn't want anything to do with these types of issues, why did they get elected?

The Acting Speaker: I find that offensive. I would ask the member to control the type of language he is using because I would like to be able to listen. Thank you.

Mr Turnbull: You're offensive as a government.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Oh, get away. You are the ones who are offensive. Don't tell me I'm offensive.

Mr Stockwell: I apologize for saying, "What the hell did they get elected for?"

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East, please come to order.

Mr Mills: Madam Speaker, I don't think I like to be told that I'm offensive.

The Acting Speaker: Please take your seats.

Mr Stockwell: I apologize, Madam Speaker. I said "What the hell did they get elected for?" I'll rephrase that. What the heck did they get elected for?

I say that because they don't want to take responsibility for anything. They absolutely do not want to take responsibility for absolutely anything. If there's any contentious issue that is being dealt with in this Legislature, they simply form a committee, and it's just nauseating listening to them. They form subtable, bipartite, round table, discussionary tables on anything, absolutely anything. Everybody's got a round table or a square table or a subtable or a hexagonal table. "You can't get an answer about it? Well, do you want to eat lunch? Let's form a subcommittee of the round table to decide." It's just making me so upset. They won't make a decision on anything.

They've got landfill sites. People's lives have been put on hold, for heaven's sake, because of landfill sites, and you ask them a question in the House and they stand up and say: "We formed the IWA committee, made up of responsible citizens. They're responsible and they make the decisions, and we don't do anything about it. Whatever they decide is going to decide, and don't ask me because I have nothing to do with it."

Mr Perruzza: What would you do?

Mr Stockwell: What would I do, the member for Downsview said. I would have made a decision. I would have taken these people and I would have sat them down and I would have said to them, "We've got a decision to make, and it's an important decision." I would have measured the options and would have looked at all the agreements in place and I would have made a decision. Instead, you've put people's lives on hold for three years.

Mr Mammoliti: Calm down.

Mr Stockwell: The member says, "Calm down." I can't. It's getting so frustrating, I can't. People phone me and say, "When are they going to decide on this dump?" I tell them: "I don't know. They won't answer any questions." They say, "Who's going to decide on the dump?" I say, "When we ask them, they say, 'Somebody will decide on it, but not us.'" They talk about waiting lists at cancer treatment places: "Can you ask the government what they're going to do about it?" "No, I can't. They said it's up to the hospitals now. They have nothing to do with it."

Mr Sutherland: That's not the case.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Oxford said it's not the case. I sat here and heard the Premier say one thing and I heard the Minister of Health say something completely contradictory in the hall not 20 minutes later.

You talk to the Solicitor General about somebody who's got 16 outstanding warrants who was released on parole: "I'm studying it. We've got a committee." That's just not acceptable, because in the meantime, while he's studying it, 300 more cases are being heard by the same parole board. You can't get a decision.

You know why you can't get a decision? In the first few months, maybe a year, of this government, it made some decisions and they were awful: unbelievably backward, silly, incredibly dumb decisions. What it's come to today, and we talk about interim supply, is that they don't want to make any more decisions, so they form the subtable on the round table of the external table of forces unbeknownst to us in committee. That's what this government has come to: a complete state of neutral. These people would have to speed up to stop when it comes to most issues. That's how bad it's gotten.

And you know what's happening while it's this bad? The only thing they're prepared to do, the only thing they're capable of doing or making a decision on, is that they will decide to go out and borrow more money to maintain this level of mayhem, of bedlam. That's all they'll do.

Yesterday, listening to the news, there's more layoffs: UPS is laying off and Dofasco is laying off. You've got the Premier standing up this week or last, saying, "Now that we're a year into the recovery...." Now that we're a year into the recovery? What world is this man living in? Unemployment rates never higher, layoff announcements every week, decisions that can't be made, money being borrowed, parental contributions by the Community and Social Services minister, and we're a year into the recovery? If it gets any better, I'm going to kill myself. That's what the people are saying out there: "I can't stand the prosperity."

And you sit here and you talk about a supply bill they're asking us to approve, and they can't get the auditor to admit that their books are truthful and upfront.

Why am I frustrated, sitting here day after day after day? I look at the health care system. The health care system is crumbling before our very eyes. You know why? I blame the Liberals, who did a great deal about this. There was one decision that has created the mayhem and havoc in the health care system. That was the employer health tax. Under the old OHIP plan, everybody had to pay a premium and it controlled itself, because when people have to pay a premium, you can keep track of them. Under this system, nobody knows who the employer is paying for. You don't know. You know an employer is paying x amount of money, but you don't know who he's paying it for. So it's absolutely ripe to be ripped off, and it is being ripped off. You can blame the Tories for a lot of things in their 43 years, but you can't blame them for this OHIP mess. This mess can be directly related back to the removal of premiums and to the employer health tax.

Social services: This social service system is rivalling WCB as far as the black hole is concerned. This system absolutely stinks; it reeks; it is built to be ripped off. They don't get it, they don't understand; they start talking about the programs and policies and committees they're putting in place to fix the system. The system's broken, and I'll tell you why the system's broken; anyone could tell you why the system's broken.

1710

Go to any site office, I say to the few members across the floor, any site office of the social service system to collect welfare. You want to know why the system's broken? Because you don't need some things to collect welfare.

First, you don't need a permanent address. What does that mean? I live under the bridge on Bloor Street; I can collect in Metro. I live over here in Peel; I can collect in Peel. I live in the park in Durham; I can collect in Durham. That's it, it's that simple: You don't need a permanent address.

Well, if you don't need a permanent address, what's the next one to go? No home visits. Even if you wanted to go visit these people, you wouldn't know where to go. They have no permanent address.

Then the next one is, just to finish off this beautiful idea concocted by the NDP and Liberals, what was the next thing you decided to do? Direct deposit. There's the beauty of all time. You don't need a permanent address, you won't get any home visits, and you know something? Don't even bother coming down once a month to pick up your cheque. We'll put it right in your bank account.

Figure it out. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how you're going to rip this system off. You go to many regions within Toronto -- and there's a lot of them within driving distance -- and you file in every one of them. You use your same name, or even a different name, for heaven's sake; IDs are not hard to get. You don't have to tell them where you live. They're never going to come up and check on you and you never have to see them again, because you just give them your bank account number and they put the money right in.

This is nuts; this is just nuts. We're all sitting around here saying to each other: "How are we going to fix this problem? Boy, this is a big problem." How you're going to fix it, number one, is figure out who you're giving the money to. If they claim to be citizens of Ontario, here's a real good idea: Get their address. Pretty good, eh? You've got to be a real snoop to do that; you've got to be a private investigator to figure that one out. Then, when you've got their address and their name, you go visit them. We figured this one out. I don't think anyone could have thought of that, of the 90,000 bureaucrats who work for the NDP, but that seems pretty simple.

How are you going to fix the health care system? It astounds me that we talk about photo identification. I don't know how many people are in the health care system in Ontario, but they all get a card, and you're telling me that we've got to put your picture on the card to keep track of the system. It amazes me. There are companies out there that -- let me give you an example of one. How about Visa? Visa gives you a card and you sign it and they let you spend as much money as you're capped to, as much as you want. If you want to spend $5,000 in a week you can do it, and you don't have your picture on that. And they do it right around the world; we're just in Ontario, but we've got to put somebody's picture on it and then it still won't work.

So we sit around here today and we talk about interim supply for my friend, and I say "my friend." I like the Treasurer of Ontario or the Minister of Finance, whatever they're calling him today. He wants more money to go out and spend on crazy, harebrained programs that pop up every couple of weeks across the floor. But God forbid you'd ever ask them to make a decision, because the simple fact of government today with this government is that if you ever asked them to make a decision, you would be bombarded with paperwork and committees that would boggle your mind.

But that's not it. I know this is somewhat unfair, but you can go through the list, the "What's a Billion?" list we put out a little while ago, and look at all the goofy programs they did and the way they spent money, and this is what they're asking us to borrow for. It is unfair, because there are a lot of bureaucrats out there and there are a lot of programs and I'm sure you can't have your hand on every one of them, but going through this list is the scariest thing you can imagine.

Here's another program. The landfill issue: $25 million to find out if there's a landfill site in Metropolitan Toronto when the people in Kirkland Lake are begging for your garbage.

What's going on? Let's get this straight. The people in Kirkland Lake want the garbage, to produce the jobs to recycle with. The people in Peel, York and Durham don't want the garbage; they'd like to send it to Kirkland Lake. So what does this government do? It strikes a committee that's going to spend $25 million, $30 million or $40 million to convince the people in Peel and Durham and York that they really do want the garbage, and they'll convince the people of Kirkland Lake that they really don't want the garbage. Have you heard anything sillier in your life?

Settlement packages: Remember those decisions I told you they made in the first few years: 6% increases in salaries, 11% to senior managers? The other one that really gets to me is this Jobs Ontario fund. I don't care; they can stand there all they want and claim that this is a success. Of the people I've heard from about Jobs Ontario, it's been nothing but a colossal failure, and it has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars to implement this program. But we've got to go borrow some more money to keep it going to educate people for jobs that don't exist. That's just so silly.

One thing this government did do when it came into power, which I thought was really silly, was it decided to spend $700 million in capital works programs to jump-start the economy. Well, even the hardiest socialists today would have to admit that your $700 million jump-start of the economy was not a roaring success, because the economy just wasn't jump-started.

I read in the paper yesterday where Floyd Laughren and Bob Rae are salivating for Jean Chrétien to get in so he can start his jump-start of the economy, and they want to go out and borrow a couple of billion more dollars to put together with the federal money and jump-start the economy. You'd think they would have learned the first time, but they didn't. They want to go borrow some more money to put with the Liberals so we can jump-start this economy again.

Eventually, you're going to have to figure out your battery's dead and you're going to have to go out and buy yourself a new one.

Mr Mills: What happened to Kim and her plan?

Mr Stockwell: What happened to Kim and her plan? What happened to Kim and her plan is they got absolutely thumped, much like the NDP. They got absolutely thumped.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We would like to hear the remarks from the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Last time I checked the province of Ontario, I didn't see any NDP elected, and as I was checking through the election results, I will say this, I say to the member for Chatham-Kent, Randy Hope -- and I'm not defending the Tories, but they did a heck of a lot better than the NDP -- in fact, when I checked most of the ridings, you people finished fourth.

As I just checked the Environics poll that came out again today, I can't understand how they can stand up and heckle anybody on the success or capacity to offer up solutions that are publicly acceptable when they're sitting in the polls so low they're near single digits. So I don't know if we should be going around --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Chatham-Kent, please come to order.

Mr Stockwell: -- particularly the government, comparing notes on who's more popular at this time, because, as far as I can tell, if a popularity context were held today, I don't know if there's a negative vote, but I'm certain they could apply for it.

So we have this new plan. You want to know what really gets to me? This new plan, cooked up by the Liberals, which I think the most success it will have will be as much success as the NDP has with theirs.

Metropolitan Toronto chairman Alan Tonks is talking about a 1% tax levy for this plan. This is how out of touch these people are. Let alone talking about a jump-start of the economy, who's got the 1% on your municipal taxes? Who's got it? I mean, mine's around $4,000. So you've got to pony up another $40. That's not much. But what about a business, where its taxes could be millions of dollars? That's a lot of money to them that they don't have. We're going to spend it on another jump-start of the economy.

These people, who should have learned from their first mistake, their $700-million Jobs Ontario plan, can't wait to borrow more money to do it again. Eventually, when they stop hitting their heads against the wall, they're going to feel better. But I can't believe they're going to do it again, after the complete disaster of their first plan.

1720

In the closing minutes, I want to talk about what's at stake now. The first thing that's gone by the books is universality; dead, gone, out of business. I don't think this government could make a claim now that there is one universal program alive and kicking in this province today. I say that guardedly, but I've done the research.

Can they give me one example of any universal program that's alive and kicking today? They can't, because they don't exist. That's the first one. But that's gone. You know how they get rid of it? They don't call it "user fees"; they call it "parental contributions." That's hilarious. I talked about that. They want to say that there are still universal programs, but they refuse to accept the fact that they have parental contributions.

You know what it has come down to with this government? This is how sad it is to be a socialist today. I was up the other day talking about eating crow and the crow population declining, and it was a little tongue-in-cheek, but it is really true. These people have children that are wards of the state in effect, and they get a payment from the federal government called the baby bonus. They get that money from the federal government because there are wards of the state.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Child tax credit.

Mr Stockwell: Child tax credit. Everyone knows it as the baby bonus. Do you realize, Madam Minister, that they're skimming that money, not getting it down to the children who need it, and putting it into the general revenue? That's unbelievable.

I look to my friend Peter Kormos. I can't understand how he can sit in this Legislature. I look to the member from Oxford or St Catharines or Chatham or the Views, any of them. I look to them and I ask them, how can you do this? How can you allow the provincial government to skim the baby bonus for children that are wards of the state?

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to ask the member to consider the tone of his remarks. I would like for him to consider language which would not disrupt the House. Please continue.

Mr Stockwell: Most of the time when I'm brought to order by the Speaker, I'm generally agreeable that sometimes I've gone over the edge. But this time I don't know what I said.

The Acting Speaker: I am just asking the member to consider the general tone of his remarks. I would like to be able to listen.

Mr Stockwell: Okay. I apologize, Madam Speaker. So anyway, we've reduced this socialist government to skimming baby bonuses for children who are wards of the state.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It is not a socialist government.

Mr Stockwell: The member from Welland points back at me and in clear tones said this is not a socialist government. Some would probably buy into that. In my book it's still a socialist government, because they still do things that socialists do. They just don't do it all the time, so that usually makes them Liberals.

But it is really hard to believe. Another thing that took place was the Minister of Education introducing strikebreaking legislation. We're out to borrow money. They're asking for parental contributions, they're skimming baby bonus money, they can't maintain a universal health care program, cancer patients are lining up, Americans are coming in and getting treatment in one week that's taking Canadian citizens three months, we've got the Solicitor General telling us he's going to investigate.

Maybe it'll take him a month to determine why somebody got a parole who had 18 outstanding counts against him and in the meantime killed a cop. We have all this kind of stuff, and then we have the Minister of Education, who claims to be a socialist, standing --

Mr Perruzza: Do you know what I say? I say let's turn it over to our good friend Chris right now. Chris, come over, take over, and all of the problems will be solved tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: They've finally seen the light. They've suggested to me that if they simply moved out and allowed another party, such as ours, in to govern, the problems would be solved.

You know what? The fact of the matter is this: If anyone were to be honest in this House and tell this House, when you speak to the average citizen in this province what's the first question they ask you, the first question every citizen I've run into in the last year and a half has asked me is, how do we get rid of you guys? The first question they ask is how we get rid of these guys.

I'm sure those teachers in Sarnia are wondering what a social democratic government is doing introducing strikebreaking legislation. You've got to wonder about that. You look at Randy Hope up there from Chatham, who's a union man through and through. I've heard them call each other brothers and sisters. He's got blister marks still to this day from carrying the picket signs, the worn-out soles in his shoes. Yet he stands in his place and introduces strikebreaking legislation. You've got to wonder. I mean, have they looked in the mirror lately? Have the perks of power caught up to them to that degree?

The social contract was one thing, but they kind of argued, "Well, gosh, we're in tough times. We've really messed up, we've spent way too much money, we've borrowed like crazy and we'd better pretend to do something about it," and not really do anything. But to introduce strikebreaking legislation and have members like the member from Hamilton, Mr Mackenzie, the Labour minister, and a guy from Chatham like Randy Hope, the union man himself, an organizer, a representative, a steward, standing in his place saying, "If there's one thing we need today in this province, it's a good piece of strikebreaking legislation," it makes your head spin. I can't keep them straight. You need a program to keep their policies straight. They've got to start numbering them.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): You should have been a caricaturist.

Mr Stockwell: Well, if I were a caricaturist, I could certainly do you. I'd just have to shut my eyes.

So we come down to this debate on Mr Laughren's resolution. They're asking us to go out and authorize expenditures of billions of dollars, and if I don't in the end wrap up with at least some kind of lighthearted statement about the member from Chatham, I'd end up being like I am at the beginning of this: absolutely frustrated, demoralized and depressed.

Like the member from Brockville suggested, there comes a point when you can't even get mad any more, because you're wasting your time. You're absolutely wasting your time, because sensible, responsible positions that are put forward are dismissed, decisions will not be made, round tables are established, people are ripping off systems in this province with reckless abandon, and we're not dealing with those issues, as well as continuing to sink in this quagmire of a recession. So sometimes maybe you're a little lighthearted in here, but if you're not, I end up being so, as I said, frustrated and terminally depressed.

Mr Perruzza: Like your Conservative friends caused the --

Mr Stockwell: In the end, I knew you couldn't make it through one speech without the member over there trying to blame somebody else for their disgraceful ineptitudes. It always comes down to one member across the floor blaming another level of government, but blaming somebody else, because they don't make decisions because they don't want the responsibility. When you have a government that doesn't want responsibility and won't make decisions, you end up with an ineffective government that needs to be replaced, and if I had the power I would do today what the vast majority in this province wants: I'd call an election.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on the motion by the Minister of Finance to pay the bills in the next two months and begin the debate by saying I think the issue, perhaps the major issue, certainly one of the major issues that this Legislature is going to face over the next two years, is where we're going to find the money to pay the bills.

I would say to the Legislature that we have a legislative committee called the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, and it began public hearings today on the underground economy. In my view, that's going to be a very worthwhile activity.

1730

What it's shown so far is that we have a major problem on our hands. I think many of us intuitively understood the size of the problem, but today we were fortunate to have the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the group concerned about smoking, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Ontario Home Builders' Association before us. All of those groups highlighted the enormous revenue problem that the province has faced and is going to face.

I realize the solutions are going to be less easy to find than defining the problem, but I'll just go over some of the numbers so we understand what we're dealing with here.

Back in 1990-91, tax revenue in the province was about $33.5 billion; that's how much tax revenue came into the province, and that's where we get our money to pay the bills. In the last three budgets, the NDP's first three budgets, taxes went up by $3.5 billion. So 1990-91 tax revenue was $33.5 billion and taxes went up by $3.5 billion, so you would expect tax revenue to be at least $37 billion because of the increase in the tax rate. You would actually expect it to be higher, because there had been some economic growth and that should have generated more tax revenue, so you would expect tax revenue on that basis to be around $37 billion. Tax revenue this year actually will be around $31 billion. Somehow or other, the tax revenue has dropped over what you would have expected by about $6 billion.

I think we can all understand the magnitude of that problem, but it is immense, and there probably are three explanations for it. Yes, the economy has been somewhat weak, but that was built into the estimate that we should have had $37 billion of revenue. Inflation's been quite low, but that was built into the numbers too. In my opinion, the major reason for that revenue drop is that we are seeing a very dramatic growth in what's become known as the underground economy. Some would call it the black market economy, some would call it the informal economy, but whatever you call it, it is an enormously major problem.

The reason I raise this when we're debating supply, where we are voting on paying the bills, is that I think we're going to have to focus quickly on how we are going to raise the money to pay the bills --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The future.

Mr Phillips: And the future, as my colleague said.

All the groups that came to present today I thought were responsible. They have a variety of solutions to the problem, but they all said the problem was significant. In fact, the chamber of commerce described the underground economy as growing dramatically, that the underground economy is a major and growing problem. They also indicated, by the way, something that really worried me: In the survey of their members, their members are very concerned about it, and many of their members believe, "Everyone is cheating, or trying to," not the members themselves, but everyone. I asked the chamber representatives, "Are we on the edge of an even more significant problem?" and the chamber members indicated we may very well be.

As we talk about the expenditure side and all of those things that we must debate, I think finally this Legislature now has the vehicle for looking at the problems we're going to face on the revenue side, and they are extremely significant.

Mr Bulloch from the CFIB probably has studied this problem more than almost anyone in Canada, save for perhaps some economists whose business it is to study this specifically, and it is his opinion that even now the combined shortfall in revenue this year over what the federal and provincial governments have reported is about $9 billion. In other words, when you take the federal government's revenues and all the provincial revenues there's approximately a $9-billion shortfall over the current estimates.

So here we are. We have seen, as I say, $3.5 billion of tax increases in the last three years. I'm not making a partisan comment here; those are the three budgets. But instead of going up from that $33.5 billion to the $37 billion you would have expected, we've actually seen revenue drop by $6 billion over what we expected and $2.5 billion over what we actually had in 1990-91.

My concern in all of this is that as we vote later today, I suspect, on the interim supply, we are running the risk of an additional revenue shortfall. I had hoped we would have seen the second-quarter results today. I had been told informally that they were going to be available this week. I gather they've been delayed a couple of weeks, awaiting maybe some clarification from the federal government on the updated numbers. I'm not sure of the reason for the delay, but the Minister of Finance has said there's an $800-million to $1-billion revenue shortfall already. I hope it doesn't get any worse than that.

Before I move on to the expenditure side of this issue, I wanted to flag for the members of the Legislature the work the committee is doing. I think we're off to a good start in the message that's coming out of it from outside witnesses. The Ministry of Finance people were before us last week and painted a very concerning but similar picture, and they had a chart that showed tax revenue -- and this is what I've been talking about -- dropping dramatically, and unexplained.

As I said earlier, there's an old rule of thumb around the province that says tax revenue grows at the rate of 90% of nominal GDP. In other words, if the nominal GDP is 4%, and 4% is not unusual, revenue should be going up at 90% of 4% -- 3.6%.

Mr Sutherland: We can't apply that any more.

Mr Phillips: That's my point. The member says we can't apply that any more. That's exactly the point I'm making, that this no longer applies and the reason for that is that much of the economy has moved underground or informally. Well, the member for Oxford shakes his head and says no. I'll look forward to his explanation of where it's gone, then, because the Ministry of Finance people cannot explain it; we asked them to tell us what's happened here. He's a parliamentary assistant, so if he's got an explanation for it then I will expect it before the committee, because we asked the specific question, "Explain that." There's no explanation other than that the underground economy is picking up an enormous amount of revenue.

I'll look forward to that committee's work. I'll look forward to the Ministry of Finance people coming in to explain the details of it, because obviously the member for Oxford has that explanation.

I'll turn now to some of the expenditure issues. I've talked a lot about revenue and raised the concerns about where we are going to find the money to pay these bills. You often hear people saying that at some stage, as you raise taxes, it becomes counterproductive; at some stage, you actually drive enough of the economy underground that it becomes counterproductive.

1740

Mr Callahan: Are we there now?

Mr Phillips: The member says, "Are we there now?" I don't know that, but the facts are, we've taken taxes up that should've yielded $3.5 billion more revenue, and revenue has actually dropped by $2.5 billion. Something's happening there. If you just look simplistically at it, you'd say, It may be that we have finally reached the stage where --

Mr Callahan: Saturation.

Mr Phillips: -- saturation or where tax increases become counterproductive. I think we owe ourselves a detailed look at whether that is true. I understand completely the revenue problems the Minister of Finance faces. There are no simple solutions. I've never said, "The NDP are to blame for our economic woes." I've never said that. I happen to believe the NDP have made a significant contribution to it, but it would be unfair and unreasonable to blame them all for that. They have a problem.

Mr Callahan: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate them?

Mr Phillips: Significant. They have a significant problem with the deficit, but the point I'm making is that to count on more revenue from the taxpayers is now very, very much in question.

I want to turn now to the expenditure side and to say there is no doubt that Premier Rae is pulling out all the stops to try and record lower expenditures. Again, that's not an easy thing to do. I think managing the expenditure side is tricky.

The point I want to make, though, is that when you are faced with what can only be described as quite a desperate fiscal situation, there's a temptation to report things in a way that, in my opinion, may not accurately reflect the real finances.

Mr Callahan: Hide them.

Mr Phillips: Hide them, or report them in a way that I don't think is an accurate reflection of the finances. As a matter of fact, one of the points one of the groups made today was that in its opinion, one thing that people use as a justification for participating in the underground economy is they say, "If government can play games with the books, why do they want us not to play games with the books?" They weren't condoning it; they were just saying it. So when the auditor reported his comments on the pensions, which was widely reported, one of the groups today said that that had an impact. The feedback they got in polling their members said, "Well, the government's playing games with the books and therefore, how do they expect the private sector not to?"

The reason I raise that is because there are several things the government is doing that I believe are questionable. I'll give you three or four examples.

The government is planning to sell off a whole series of government buildings.

Mr Callahan: Selling jails.

Mr Phillips: Jails. The government has planned to sell $500 million worth of jails and show that as revenue. So the revenue coming into the province is going to go up by $500 million because of all these jails that are going to be sold. Does anybody here really think there's a market for jails out there?

Mr Callahan: It's a jail sale.

Mr Phillips: It's a jail sale, as my colleague said. There'll be for-sale signs on the Don Jail and the East Metro Detention Centre and what not, and there'll be a tremendous demand for people who are looking to buy jails. In fact, the market's going to be flooded with jails; $500 million worth of jails is a lot of jails, I think.

My point is this, though. The government is going to "sell" $500 million worth of jails, but they're not selling them to somebody who wants to buy a jail, obviously; they're selling it to themselves. So it will be just a straight paper transfer: $500 million worth of jails that we used to own, and we sold them to, guess who? An Ontario government crown corporation called the Ontario Realty Corp, and then we're going to lease them back.

That's exactly the kind of transaction about which people who aren't involved in government said: "That's so transparent. That's not revenue. That isn't $500 million we've brought in. That's simply a paper transfer." As soon as you do that, they're going to have to lease the jails back and we'll have a new annual cost of at least $50 million.

That's one example where we run the risk of losing the confidence of people. When I say to people, "We're selling $500 million worth of jails and then leasing them back," they say, "What kind of games are you playing there?"

There's a second thing I want to be sure everyone is aware of, and that is the way that --

The Acting Speaker: There seem to be quite a few conversations going on. I would like to be able to hear the member. Please continue.

Mr Callahan: They don't care.

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Madam Speaker. A second thing -- and I'm pointing these things out because I think we don't focus on the real issues --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): He brings his lawyer with him.

Mr Phillips: I'm glad the Minister of Transportation has come in, because the way we now are going to handle school capital and hospital capital I think is playing with the books. Just so everybody understands, every year the province spends $600 million on school, college, university and hospital capital. You can go back year after year after year: $600 million. The province says, "We're still going to spend $600 million a year on it, but we're going to get the school boards to go and borrow the money for us and we will commit to repay that over 20 years." The province will say, "Yes, we're still spending $600 million a year on school capital," but that's debt that's hidden over on the school boards' books. In five years there will be $3 billion of debt there; in 10 years there will be $5 billion of debt. The reason I point that out is because people who are looking for their government to give them the straight goods say, "That's just playing games with the numbers."

There is a third area that I hope I'm wrong on, and that is the pensions. We've been through the social contract discussions and debate here. The goal was to save $2 billion. Just so everybody knows, of the $2-billion saving through the social contract, $700 million of it is in reduced contributions to the pension funds, to the teachers' pension and the public service pension. The big chunk, the majority of the saving, is by reduced contributions to the pension funds.

I think everybody should be aware that those two pension funds have an unfunded liability -- in other words, a shortfall in them -- of $11.5 billion. That's what the Provincial Auditor says and that's what the funds say: $11.5 billion in unfunded liability. That's not me; that's what the funds themselves and the auditor say.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Low inflation and high rate of return.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Transportation is saying it's all just fine. I hope it's all just fine. I asked the Premier in the Legislature months ago to give us, the opposition, the verification of that. If it's actuarially sound, fine. It's curious, as I say, that the majority of the social contract saving is a reduced contribution of $700 million this year, $500 million next year, $500 million the following year.

Mr Callahan: They'll leave it for the next government.

Mr Phillips: My colleague said, "Leave it for the next government." There's no doubt. These are what's called defined benefit plans, so if there's a shortfall in them, somebody's got to make it up in the future.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: I say to the government members who are heckling and I say to the government, if in fact it's actuarially sound, and it may be, do what we asked the Premier to do: Give us the pension fund managers' professional evaluation on that. I asked for that months ago and haven't gotten it yet. We're talking about huge sums of money: $700 million of the "$2- billion" social contract saving is pension fund. If the government's wrong on this, we're talking about dramatically adding to the $11.5-billion unfunded liability that already exists there.

1750

Mr Callahan: How about the GO train rolling stock?

Mr Phillips: My colleague mentioned the GO train. I've been over my concerns about revenue and the underground economy, I've been over some of my concerns about the way the government is dealing with its books, and I understand it is desperate to move everything it can off the books. In fact, in the last year there have been eight new what are referred to around here as schedule 4 crown agencies established.

Just so everybody understands what that means, 4,000 employees who currently are part of what we call here the government books, the consolidated revenue fund, they're shown as part of the Ontario public service, with the stroke of a pen are going to move over, off the books. That's convenient because they can report 4,000 fewer employees, but they'll still be there. The member for Oxford shakes his head again, but the fact is they are going to be off the consolidated revenue, off book. In fact, the auditor came to the committee raising major concerns. In fact, we moved a motion to try and accommodate the Provincial Auditor's concern but, of course, because the NDP dominate the committee, it was rejected.

Mr Callahan: They voted against it.

Mr Bradley: Bill 17.

Mr Phillips: Bill 17, as my colleague said. We moved an amendment suggested by the Provincial Auditor to try and improve the reporting, which we thought was a sound recommendation from the independent Provincial Auditor, and it was rejected by the government members. So you can understand why we raise these issues now in the Legislature, because I want all of us to understand eight new schedule 4 agencies, 4,000 currently on our public service payroll identified as public servants are going to move over and a budget of about $3 billion. I know we talk about these huge numbers; $3 billion is also going to move over.

I've said all along there is some merit in these crown agencies in varying degrees. But I disagree dramatically with the move to try and get them off the book, off the consolidated revenue, out of sight. That's wrong because the public is saying to us, "We need to understand the magnitude of our fiscal situation before we can effectively understand how you're going to deal with it and before you can get our support."

Mr Callahan: And honesty they want; they want honesty.

Mr Phillips: And honesty, my colleague said. So here we have many examples where the government is trying to find ways to mask the magnitude of the problem, whether it be -- as I said, selling $500 million worth of jails is really strange. I don't think anybody out there is mistaken for what that is. It is simply borrowing $500 million, mortgaging $500 million worth of jails, and then going to lease them. I think the way that these crown agencies are attempting to hide both the number of people working for the Ontario government and the spending is very transparent.

The whole issue of the pensions -- and when we're dealing with an unfunded liability, and these are incredible numbers, of $11.5 billion, a shortfall in those pension funds, and then when we get into the social contract, the first thing and the major saving is in a $700-million reduction --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Madam Speaker -- a $700-million reduction in the contribution to pensions, and we can't get from the government a confirmation that that is based on sound actuarial assumptions. If you want the opposition to stop talking about it, bring it forward. Show us that the people who have the responsibility, as they say, the fiduciary responsibility, for managing those plans are in agreement with it.

Mr Callahan: We're from Missouri.

Mr Phillips: My colleague said, "We're from Missouri" on that.

To conclude, I think people who are about ready to see us vote on approving the necessary expenditures to keep the government operating over the next two months should understand those two significant issues that for the opposition are concerning us: Where's the revenue and what's happening to our revenue base? Secondly, let's agree that we will support the Provincial Auditor's recommendations on changing the way the books are kept in the province so we can all be dealing with reality and not fiction.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Charlton, on behalf of Mr Laughren, has moved government notice of motion number 10. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

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

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

Mr Elston: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: In regard to the following notice, I have a question. It says: "Tomorrow, Friday, October 29, Mel Swart is holding a press conference in the legislative media studio at 10 am. He is stating his views on Bob Rae's continuing leadership." My point of privilege, Madam Speaker, is that the use of the media studio is required to have a sponsor. It is not indicated in this notice that there is a sponsor. I wonder if you could check into the matter to make sure that there is a sponsor and if you would advise the House who sponsored the particular media studio visit by the previous member for Welland-Thorold.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Would the member take his seat.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, November 1, we will continue second reading of Bill 47, photo-radar.

On Tuesday, November 2, we will debate an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mrs McLeod.

On Wednesday, November 3, we will complete third reading of Bill 17, the capital investment plan. Following that, we will move into committee of the whole on Bill 40, community economic development, and then begin the second reading consideration of Bill 31, the Income Tax Amendment Act.

On Thursday, November 4, during the time reserved for private members' public business, we will consider ballot item 33, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Turnbull, and ballot item 34, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Marchese. On Thursday afternoon, we will continue second reading debate of Bill 47, photo-radar.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): It being almost 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, November 1, at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1759.

October 28, 1993

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROGRAMMES DE TRAITEMENT DU CANCER

FOREST INDUSTRY

PUBLIC LIBRARIANS

SARAH MCLAUGHLIN

LIVE THEATRE

WASTE DISPOSAL

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

EMILY HOWARD STOWE

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOME CARE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOME CARE

CARLTON MASTERS

BOBLO ISLAND

HOMOLKA CASE

MINOR HOCKEY

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

PETITIONS

VITAL SERVICES TO TENANTS

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

CASINO GAMBLING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE