Hansard Transcript 1993-Nov-17 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Recently, this NDP government secretly approved the relocation of a Ministry of Correctional Services probation and parole office, with an average of 1,400 adult clients, into south Parkdale, forcing me and our community to try to demonstrate in front of the building.

There are many reasons why this move is wrong. First, south Parkdale has already the highest concentration of social service organizations, mental health centres, drug clinics and crisis care facilities. Second, the parole office is not far from an area frequented by drug pushers, pimps and prostitutes, and therefore it's hardly conducive to a rehabilitation program.

The question we should ask ourselves is this: When will this government stop treating Parkdale as a hospital without walls and roof?

The third reason, of course, is that the decision was made in secret, without even consulting the political representatives and community leaders, depriving us, therefore, from suggesting alternative sites.

In short, we want this office closed and moved, and we will not rest until this is done.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The general government committee is currently reviewing Bill 26, the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario was not permitted to join the task force considering this bill. I quote AMO when it said, "Despite AMO's requests on several occasions, municipal representation was not permitted on the task force."

To no one's surprise, the task force itself concluded, and again I quote, "that it would be difficult to apply the EBR to municipal instruments without hearing the specific views of representatives of municipalities."

AMO does not support the Environmental Bill of Rights unless its many concerns are addressed. These concerns include the impact of this bill on municipal planning, on municipal projects such as roads, sewer or water line construction, on municipal costs and on the cost of doing business in Ontario.

Many of these same kinds of concerns have been expressed by the Ontario Mining Association, the Ontario Waste Management Association and the Ontario Forest Industries Association.

In view of these deep concerns, will the Minister of Environment and Energy grant AMO's request about this unclear legislation and take the time required, and again I quote, "for further discussion and analysis" before proceeding with this bill?

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): In the last 18 months, the government of Ontario has been hard at work with Jobs Ontario Training, part of its economic renewal strategy to get long-term unemployed people across the province back to work. So far, more than 32,000 jobs have been created province-wide, with an average wage of $21,000.

On Friday of last week, I was very pleased to attend another broker launch in Cochrane North. The Abatisowin Training Management Group is the second aboriginal training organization in Cochrane North to act as a Jobs Ontario Training broker and will deliver Jobs Ontario Training to six native communities along the coast of James Bay and Hudson Bay. This means that all 15 aboriginal management boards in Ontario have now been approved as brokers.

The goal of the Abatisowin group is to create 350 to 400 jobs over the duration of the program. Between the two brokers, 18 people are already working and 11 employers have been registered. In a region where unemployment is running at about 60%, Jobs Ontario was designed to focus on helping social assistance recipients get the training they need to access the changing job market. Forty-five per cent of those who applied to this program are social assistance recipients.

Province-wide, we have saved $135 million on social assistance benefits this year alone. The training component of the program works to complement our government initiatives like Jobs Ontario capital, housing, community action, forestry and youth.

Jobs are the government's first priority. Along with Jobs Ontario programs, there are a variety of other measures through the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade to assist private sector employers.

Our government's Jobs Ontario programs are an absolute success and we continue our commitment to a program such as this to help put Ontario back to work.

EXPO 2005

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The Premier will know that a major initiative is being undertaken in the national capital region which will involve the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the federal government, local governments and the private sector. I am referring, of course, to the creation of a bid for the national capital area to host the international world's fair in the year 2005.

At a press conference today, the Expo 2005 committee released the results of a pre-feasibility study showing the fair is technically and economically feasible.

Canada's two previous expositions, in Montreal and Vancouver, have resulted in substantial benefits to their host regions, provinces and the nation. In fact, in Vancouver, Expo '86 generated a $65-million surplus, and both left a legacy of new infrastructure and economic development.

I am urging the Premier to please urge his regional minister, Evelyn Gigantes, and his cabinet to be a positive partner in trying to create a feasible world's fair for the national capital region. We really want the province of Ontario to be a positive partner in this initiative. I'm certainly urging the regional minister, who is here in the Legislature today, to look at this seriously and hopefully receive the encouragement of the people in the national capital region.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): In September 1992, the Minister of Education announced that the provincial Benchmarks, which are now referred to as the provincial standards project, will be established for mathematics and language for grades 3, 6 and 9.

These standards will be used to assess both individuals and education programs. They will show what the Ministry of Education expects students to achieve at different stages and in different subjects in education courses.

The standards for student achievement in mathematics were to be released to the school boards this fall, and language standards were to be developed in the 1992-93 school year. We have recently learned, after numerous complaints from parents and educators, that the math standards, which went out for public comment more than a year ago, have not yet been released. According to ministry officials, they don't know exactly when they will be released, but they hope before Christmas. The language standards which were to be developed during the 1992-93 school year have yet to be sent out for public input.

Minister, yesterday you stated in your presentation to the standing committee on estimates, and I quote: "Without a strong accountability framework, we might as well close up shop and go home. We cannot meet the needs of our learners without being accountable to them."

We all agree that our education system must be more accountable. We need standards that are challenging so that students are prepared to compete globally.

Earlier drafts of the mathematics standards were unacceptable. We need standards to show how we can improve learning in the classroom. Parents, students and educators trust that the minister will deal with his ministry staff to ensure that these standards are quickly in place in our school system.

1340

TVONTARIO FUND-RAISING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to salute the Ontarians, many of them my own constituents, who have supported TVO in its current on-air membership campaign. Equally important, I salute the TVO volunteers from around the province who each year donate a combined 8,000 hours of their time to make the on-air campaign possible.

This financial and volunteer support is making it possible for TVO to exceed its already aggressive revenue target. This year's campaign will contribute more than $350,000 to TVO's programming budget.

This will ensure that Ontarians will continue to enjoy the high-quality educational programs they have come to expect: children's programs such as Bookmice that set the standard for all broadcasters; curriculum programming for teachers and students such as Mathica's Math Shop and Many Voices; High School On-Air which provides access to advanced high school courses for more than 7,000 Ontario students; and adult programming including Saturday Night at the Movies which is currently celebrating its 20th anniversary.

Tonight, members of the Legislature will have an opportunity to show their support for Ontario's educational television network and the programs they bring to our constituents. I encourage each and every one of you to join TVOntario's volunteers on air in taking pledges from the viewers tonight. Will you be there, Mr Speaker?

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): To paraphrase an old barnyard slogan, the chickens are finally coming home to roost for this NDP government. Last night in Vancouver, CUPE, which as we know was the former staunch supporter of the NDP, has decided that it can no longer stomach this government, this Premier and this social contract. CUPE has decided to sever all links with the NDP.

It seems that CUPE members can no longer swallow Bob Rae's betrayal of the principles they hold dear, and we agree with them and so it seems does the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Just this morning she admitted that the social contract process led to this rift because, and I quote, "The timing was wrong and it was too much and too fast and people weren't able to accept that we ended up at the impasse."

Talk about stating the obvious. Now the minister understands what my leader, Lyn McLeod, has been saying all along: You're rushing into this, you don't know what you're doing and you don't understand the consequences.

We told you to sit down with these groups and negotiate without putting a legislative gun to their heads. You ignored us and now you are paying the price.

It is too late for the people of Ontario who have to endure the cost of the social contract. But make no mistake, and Mr Premier should make no mistake of this, the people will remember in 1995 what you've done in 1993.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): In May 1992, Premier Bob Rae said that the fatal shooting of Raymond Lawrence, the suspected drug dealer, was part of a disturbing pattern of racism. Two weeks ago a coroner's jury found race did not play a part in the shooting.

It is clear that Premier Rae's remarks were not only wrong; they were irresponsible, even dangerous. He was playing to vocal critics of the police, and without the benefit of knowing any of the circumstances of the Lawrence shooting, he made allegations of police racism, thereby encouraging racial tensions during a difficult period in the city of Toronto.

Now that the facts are known the Premier should publicly apologize for his remarks. He ought to apologize to the Metro Toronto Police Service, to all police officers throughout the province, and in particular to Constable Rob Rice, an honest and very courageous police officer who put his life on the line, and in turn was smeared through innuendo by the Premier of Ontario. Apologize, Mr Premier, it's long overdue.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Yesterday during question period, the Liberal Health critic blamed the Ministry of Health and the social contract for hundreds of people not receiving cancer treatment.

The critic's one-sided view of this complicated issue does nothing more than generate fear in the public, especially those unfortunate patients with cancer.

According to Dr Mark Levine, chief executive officer of the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, patients who require radiation receive it. He stated that breast cancer patients who have undergone lumpectomy for early breast cancer and require breast irradiation have four to six weeks to wait.

However, clinical research has shown this to be safe and not to impact on survival. Patients with early-stage prostate cancer also may have to wait four to six weeks, but this does not affect the curability of the disease. It is important to note, however, that patients requiring urgent radiation have no waits.

With cancer cases increasing substantially, health officials are taking steps to increase the radiation machine capacity and the staffing of those machines to meet the need.

There is no doubt that the waiting list for radiation treatment is an important issue. Government and cancer care organizations are trying to deal with this complicated problem in a responsible manner, but it goes without saying that the Liberal Health critic's fearmongering rhetoric is totally irresponsible.

WCB NEWS RELEASE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege to protest the violation of my rights as an opposition member in this Legislature and as a member of the standing committee on government agencies, which met today to review the Workers' Compensation Board.

As an elected member of this Legislature, it's my duty and responsibility to represent my constituents and to provide the people of Ontario with pertinent information the government feels is necessary for them to be made aware of. Judging by the blank news release that arrived at my office today, I can only assume that the Workers' Compensation Board is trying to withhold important information from me and the people of Ontario; or is the WCB weighted down so badly by its unfunded liability that it cannot afford the ink for the news release?

That's the news release, Mr Speaker, that I got this morning. It's blank. That's the way the WCB seems to be operating.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Simcoe East will know that he does not have a point of order, although it did sound as if he had material for question period.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Thursday, November 4, the member for St George-St David (Mr Murphy), rose on a question of privilege concerning a letter that was critical of remarks he made in the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 56.

The member stated that the letter was intended to intimidate him but that he would not be intimidated. The member for Willowdale (Mr Harnick), who received a similar letter, stated that he too would not be intimidated.

In response, let me begin by noting that Speaker Edighoffer stated on December 10, 1985 (at page 147 of the Journals) that "it is only in very extreme circumstances that there can come to the House a legitimate case of privilege on the basis of the real and accepted and traditional definition of parliamentary privilege."

However, I wish to emphasize here that threats to members are very serious matters when they affect the exercise of their duties and the fulfilling of their two most important privileges, that of free speech and that of attendance in this place.

In the case at hand, after reviewing the letter, the Hansard for October 14 and November 4, and the relevant procedural authorities, I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

I thank the member for St George-St David and the member for Willowdale for drawing this matter to the attention of the House. I know that they and many others were deeply troubled by the content and tone of the letters in question.

MEDIA BRIEFING

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Monday, the member for Markham (Mr Cousens) rose on a question of privilege concerning a press briefing sponsored by a government agency on the previous Friday. The member indicated that he and other members had been refused admittance to the briefing. The member for York North (Mr Beer), the member for Bruce (Mr Elston), the member for Brampton South (Mr Callahan) and the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mr Tilson) also spoke to this question.

In response, let me say that Speaker Edighoffer stated at page 6204 of the Hansard for November 28, 1988, that no privilege was violated in circumstances where the government had not invited a particular member to a media event. In my view, this precedent is equally applicable to where a briefing is held by a government agency. Furthermore, I wish to make it clear that the Speaker has no authority outside the precinct that would permit him or her to ensure that announcements are made in a certain fashion.

1350

STATUS OF BILL

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Monday, November 15, the member for Bruce (Mr Elston) rose on a point of order with respect to committee consideration of Bill 50, An Act to implement the Government's expenditure control plan and, in that connection, to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

I may say at this juncture that normally the Speaker would wait for a member to be present before delivering a ruling. However, the issue is at hand for the assembly, and thus it's important to proceed with the ruling.

The first question the member raised was based on conjecture as to the process involved if the principle of the bill is altered in committee. While this may certainly be an interesting subject for discussion, the member will know that it is a hypothetical question and therefore one on which I am unable to rule.

As to the second question posed by the member for Bruce, I would like to refer to the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice at page 181 where it states:

"The opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising or likely to arise in a committee."

In addition, standing order 120(b) clearly sets out a procedure by which a committee may report any disagreement with a decision made by the Chair. This includes rulings on the admissibility of amendments to a bill which would have the effect of altering its principle.

Finally, I will deal with the question of whether debate during routine proceedings on the motion to adopt and receive a committee's report on a bill is in order. I can advise the member that such a debate is certainly in order. Indeed, there are several precedents of extended debate being entertained at this stage.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 47

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order relating to the business of the House.

The Minister of Transportation said yesterday in this House that we would have two days of public hearings on Bill 47, but according to the motion that was passed by the House yesterday, introduced by the government House leader, within those two days we have to have as well clause-by-clause and vote on Bill 47.

Normally clause-by-clause and voting on a bill take at least half a day to a day. So I'd like to have it clarified, perhaps through you, Mr Speaker, and the government House leader, whether in fact we should schedule this afternoon, at the subcommittee meeting, two days of public hearings as promised by the Minister of Transportation, or will we even further reduce the opportunity for the public to speak on Bill 47 according to the motion from the government House leader?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Nepean: What the House and what the Chair are guided by are the resolutions which are brought before the House.

There was a time allocation motion which we dealt with yesterday, and questions pertinent to that were raised and dealt with at that time.

What the member brings to the Chair today is a concern that perhaps quite properly could be dealt with by the three House leaders as they attempt to organize the business of the House and attempt to provide opportunities for committees to deal with certain subject matters. But I appreciate the concern which the member has brought to my attention.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding with oral questions, I would invite all members to welcome to our Legislature this afternoon two very special guests: First, the consul general of France, Mr Yves Doutriaux, and a senator from France, Mrs Dominique Ben Guiga. You are welcome to our assembly. Would all members welcome our guests.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Who's with the consul?

The Speaker: You may recognize the other person. It is now time for oral questions and the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Labour. I want to ask you some questions about continuing concerns with the mismanagement of the Workers' Compensation Board following the appearance this morning at the legislative committee of Mr Brian King, the vice-chairman of the board.

Minister, our concerns about the fiasco of mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board have reached new heights today. I say to you that Brian King has misled a legislative committee, that Brian King has misrepresented the Provincial Auditor, that he has shown contempt for the Legislature, and we demand his resignation. Minister, will you fire Brian King?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The answer is no.

Mrs McLeod: I suggest to the minister that we consider this to be a very serious matter of public confidence; that the minister is surely aware of the kinds of concerns that exist about mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board; that the questions that are being asked in this committee, the questions that have been asked in this House are critical questions about the responsibility of the senior management of the Workers' Compensation Board, and they are critical questions at a critical time.

The minister surely knows that people are concerned about a Workers' Compensation Board that has an unfunded liability of $11 billion, and that this liability is growing at $2 million every day. Confidence in the management of the Workers' Compensation Board is absolutely essential, and there is no confidence. I call on you today to act to restore that confidence and to begin by asking for Mr King's resignation. Minister, will you ask for Mr King's resignation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The answer to that again is no.

Mrs McLeod: I simply do not believe that a minister who is prepared to accept his own responsibility can continue to ignore the fact that the vice-chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board has continuously and repeatedly refused to accept responsibility for his actions on behalf of that board.

I suggest to this minister that Brian King has betrayed the public trust; that he has betrayed the confidence of the minister; that he has betrayed most certainly the confidence of this Legislature; and that he has betrayed the confidence of the injured workers of this province.

Minister, the injured workers of this province are absolutely dependent for their welfare on confidence in the management of the Workers' Compensation Board, and that confidence has been completely eroded. Why will you not act now to demand the resignation of Brian King, act now to restore confidence in the management of the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The vice-chair of the WCB has written to the Provincial Auditor to deal with the basis for the start of this, to clarify any misunderstanding that arose regarding the objectivity or factual content of the report on Simcoe Place. Mr Peters has confirmed to the standing committee that he is fully satisfied with the response of the vice-chair to his concerns.

Beyond that, I want to say that I think trying to assess lack of confidence in this entire House and in the injured worker community is an absolute crock.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): That is an issue we will return to, but I do want to direct a second question to the Minister of Health.

Today we learned that you will not be pursuing your misguided plan to charge user fees for prescription drugs to seniors. You have finally admitted that copayments are in fact user fees, and you have acknowledged that user fees will just hurt seniors. But the real question is: Why did you ever allow these threatening proposals to be put on the table in the first place?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The proposals that were put forward in our consultation paper were very wide-ranging. They called for reform of the way drugs are administered and prescribed in this province, and they asked for people's comments as to how we could make the system better.

As part of that, we proposed copayment from those who currently benefit from the Ontario drug benefit plan and believed that to talk about sharing in the cost of a product was not a user fee.

The Leader of the Opposition is right, the public disagrees and believes very strongly that being asked to pay for part of prescriptions in fact will hurt the vulnerable and the elderly. I agree with them and so does our government, so we are not moving to put in place those copayments.

But the fact that we want to reform the system has not been changed and the support we received as a result of our consultation for many of the reforms we're proposing was virtually unanimous.

1400

Mrs McLeod: The question to the minister is, what does she believe? The public does not believe that copayments are anything other than new user fees. The issue is, what does this minister believe and what is the place of new user fees in her government's philosophy and its policy? I ask this question because even though you have today said that you will not go ahead with foolish, threatening proposals to charge new user fees to seniors for their drugs, there are still new user fees on the table.

You know well that cystic fibrosis patients, that organ transplant recipients, that AIDS patients remain afraid that you are going to charge them user fees of up to $2,000 a year for the drugs that they need to stay alive. Surely you would agree that these too are among the most vulnerable members of our society?

These people need your assurance that you are not going to charge user fees on their life-sustaining drugs. Will you assure cystic fibrosis patients, AIDS patients, organ transplant recipients, that they will not be hit with new user fees for the drugs they need to stay alive?

Hon Mrs Grier: When I said yesterday that cabinet had said there would be no copayments for drugs, that was what I meant and that applies to everybody who is a beneficiary under the Ontario drug payment plan.

If the Leader of the Opposition chooses to try to misinterpret and twist that, I don't know how much clearer I can be. But no copayments means no copayments.

Mrs McLeod: This is not a question of clarification for the Leader of the Opposition; this is an assurance that people who are out in those communities, who are really afraid about whether or not you are going to bring in user fees, need to have that you are not going to hit them with these fees.

They will be relieved to hear the statement you've made today, but let me say that they also need an assurance that this is not going to be an issue that hits them in the future.

You have agreed that you will not charge user fees to seniors, that you're not going to proceed with these ill-thought-out proposals to charge user fees to those with cystic fibrosis, to those with AIDS, to organ transplant recipients. If that is the case, you will no longer need legislation that gives you the power to impose those user fees in the future.

So I ask you, will you now withdraw the portions of Bill 81 that allow you to charge user fees in the future and give both seniors and people with life-threatening illnesses the assurance that they will not be hit with these user fees now or at any point in the future?

Hon Mrs Grier: The Ontario drug benefit plan covers senior citizens, it covers people on social assistance and it covers people under the special drug program. When I said there would not be copayments for the Ontario drug benefit plan, I did not pick and choose among the categories of beneficiaries; I said there would be no copayments.

That therefore means that many of the issues that are discussed in our consultation paper will be reviewed, and I will be coming forward in the very near future with the reforms that are continuing and that will enable us to assure those people who were worried about drugs.

They were worried about the cost of them. They were also worried about the inappropriate prescribing and use of drugs. Seniors said to us: "We get too many drugs. We get the wrong drugs. Drugs are wasted." We want finally, maybe for the first time, in fact for the first time, better management of the system. That better management and reform is what they're going to get.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH SPENDING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday it was revealed that your former deputy minister, Michael Decter, was dining out at taxpayers' expense at the same time that he was lifting money from the pockets of public sector workers through the social contract.

Not only, of course, is this inappropriate during tough economic times, but it sets a very poor example for other senior bureaucrats in your ministry who take their lead from you and your deputy.

Minister, can you tell this House what audits or audit you have carried out to determine whether other senior executives in your ministry are spending money appropriately?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I refer that question to the Chairman of Management Board.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): This issue was raised here in the House yesterday and is raised again today. I have had a look at the situation with respect to the deputy who was referred to.

Management Board issues a set of directives by which expenses are incurred in the ministries across this government. All of those directives, to the best that we can determine, have been complied with.

The process is that deputy ministers are responsible and accountable through the public accounts of this province. Their expenses are reviewed by the Provincial Auditor and, as far as we're aware, all of the expenses that have occurred have been in compliance with the guidelines.

Mr Jim Wilson: Two independent sources have confirmed to me that an internal audit at the Ministry of Health was carried out and completed three months ago on at least four of the Ministry of Health senior bureaucrats who live outside of Toronto. I've been told that the reason for this audit was to examine why these officials have living accommodations in Toronto subsidized by the Ontario taxpayer.

I say to the Chair of Management Board, will you share with this House the results of the Ministry of Health's own audit into the living accommodation and spending practices of Jodey Porter, Patricia Malcolmson, David O'Toole and Eileen Mahood? Do you, Minister, feel it is appropriate for taxpayers to be denied essential health care services while bureaucrats are given living allowances to live close to their offices in Toronto?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member has raised a number of questions in reference to several specific individuals. I will consult with the Minister of Health and look into the matter.

Mr Jim Wilson: This question would be most appropriately answered by the Minister of Health, who is responsible for the audits that were carried out by her ministry. I don't expect the Chairman of Management Board to know what's going on in the Ministry of Health, as he doesn't know what's going on in most of the rest of the government on the best of days.

Since I'm stuck with the Chair of Management Board, I will remind him that his colleague the Minister of Health, at the Ontario Hospital Association's convention last week, spoke at great length of the need for hospitals to trim their fat and to find innovative ways to do more with less.

While the minister and her bureaucrats have been telling hospitals and health care professionals to bite the bullet, many of these same bureaucrats are living at taxpayers' expense in Toronto. Meanwhile, hospital beds are being closed, drugs are being cut, cancer patients are waiting for surgery, dialysis patients are finding themselves on ever-increasing waiting lists for treatment and now the Ministry of Health is playing brinkmanship with cystic fibrosis patients.

Minister, how can you, in good conscience, continue to deny critical treatments for patients and make random cuts to services while condoning taxpayer-paid living accommodations for senior bureaucrats?

Hon Mr Charlton: I have already said I would consult with the Minister of Health and look into this matter.

Mr Jim Wilson: She said the audit --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Simcoe West.

Hon Mr Charlton: It's extremely interesting how short the memories are around this place. The question was raised yesterday about expenditures of the deputy in the Ministry of Health that were available publicly through the freedom of information process because of policy decisions that were made by this government. Past administrations did not make that information available.

Even more than that, the kinds of audits the member's referring to, although I have no knowledge of them myself, are being undertaken in the Ministry of Health for precisely the purposes the member refers to: to weed out the kinds of things he's talking about. It's interesting to note, and unfortunate, that the administrations that preceded us here in this province never did any of this.

1410

CONDUCT OF POLICE SERVICES BOARD MEMBER

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a question to the Solicitor General. I want to send over, through a page, a notice of a public meeting that took place last night at the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. This public meeting took place last night and I think a very, very serious thing happened last night.

A Toronto Sun reporter signed in to this public meeting, told them she was a Toronto Sun reporter and started taking notes for two hours of a speech given by a member of the police services board, Mr Minors. At the end of that meeting, this Sun reporter -- Sharon Lem, I believe her name is -- got up and was surrounded by four or five people demanding that her notes be given to them and that she not take them with her. She did not want to give those notes to those four or five people who surrounded her. In fact, having spoken to her, she felt she was being physically intimidated.

She, on a couple of occasions, turned to Mr Minors, who was the guest speaker at the time, who saw this all taking place, for help.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is this the police commissioner?

Mr Stockwell: This man is a member of the police services board, appointed by this government. Mr Minors, during the entire proceedings, did not step in to assist this reporter, did not try to stem this theft -- and that's what it was, theft -- but in fact told the Toronto Sun reporter to turn over the notes to the five or six people who were intimidating her. I have been informed further that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force is treating this as a theft, a criminal action. They have turned the investigation over to the Ontario Provincial Police.

I ask the Solicitor General, what action are you going to take with Mr Minors in the meantime, considering this investigation is taking place?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I'm aware of the article that appeared in the paper. I do not have any facts beyond what I also see reported in the media. If indeed there is a police investigation going on, then obviously we need to be sensitive to that. The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services has the jurisdiction and the opportunity to review the conduct of members of police services boards, and that is an option that is always available.

Let me say very directly to the member, I appreciate the concern he's raising. It is a matter of concern. I will look into the matter further and monitor the situation and ensure that any action or reviews that need to take place do indeed happen.

Mr Stockwell: I just don't think that's a good enough answer. First of all, I can't believe that the minister has not been briefed on this issue. With a couple of simple phone calls he would have discovered that the Ontario Provincial Police are now looking into this matter.

Let's turn this around just a little bit. This is a member of the police services board who's entrusted, we hope, to maintain law and order in Metropolitan Toronto. This man is accused, at least being investigated, of not only not stopping a crime but in fact facilitating this crime by not helping the Toronto Sun reporter at this meeting. We know full well he could have stopped that theft from taking place. Further, if this were a member of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force being investigated by the OPP, it would happen in a New York minute. You would suspend that policeman with pay while the investigation was taking place.

I direct to the minister, why is this member of the services board not obligated -- not obligated on your part to take the same action you would take on a policeman? Why is this member not being suspended while this investigation is taking place?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I've got to assume that surely the member isn't suggesting that based on one media report he feels he can do an instant investigation, be an instant judge and jury and mete out whatever measures should or should not be taken.

I do take the issue very seriously and I have said so. I have said to the member that I have no intention of not dealing with this. But there are procedures in place; there are processes in place. I think the honourable member would surely be among the first to rise to his feet if indeed a proper process was not being followed. I have committed to ensure that the availability of those processes are made and that they take place.

Mr Stockwell: Talk about a double standard. Not 10 minutes ago did the member for Leeds-Grenville stand in his place and speak about this Premier with respect to Constable Rice and the shooting that took place. One media report said, "Bob Rae said that the fatal shooting of Raymond Lawrence, a suspected drug dealer, was part of a disturbing pattern of racism." In one media report we talk about "a disturbing pattern of racism" and this constable was cleared of all charges.

I say to the Solicitor General, it's a double standard you have here, sir. If a policeman or a policewoman were involved in an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police, you would suspend them. I say to you, you have an obligation to the people of this province to ensure that the police services board is above reproach, is there to defend the people of this community.

You have another opportunity to fix this, sir. Why will you not suspend a member of the police services board when he is being investigated but you will do that to any police person who works in Metropolitan Toronto? Sir, that's nothing but a double standard.

Hon Mr Christopherson: It is absolutely nothing of the sort. The fact of the matter is that there are processes in place to deal with these kinds of allegations. I have committed here on the floor of the Legislature that those processes and procedures will indeed be used and will take place. That is why they're there.

In terms of any kind of allegation from the honourable member that I, as the Solicitor General, would treat this situation any differently were it a civilian or a uniformed person, I take great exception to because that is not the way that I conduct business in dealing with this ministry.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to place a question again to the Minister of Labour, although on yet another issue of concern. Minister, when the government introduced Bill 40, you promised that farmers would have special protection under separate agriculture labour legislation. Last year the task force that you established to review agriculture labour legislation issued a report demanding that you implement specific provisions to protect the sensitive nature of agriculture.

Minister, anybody who operates a farm can tell you that crops don't stop growing and animals don't stop eating when there is a labour dispute. Work stoppages can ruin crops, they can hurt livestock and they can force farmers into bankruptcy. You promised that you would implement the recommendations of the agriculture labour task force, but an independent legal review of the agriculture labour legislation has found that your legislation does not include the protections that were promised.

I ask you, why have you not kept your commitments to the agriculture community?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Well, I don't think that we have not kept our commitment. Whether or not we will get the bill on the floor of this House this fall or whether it'll take longer than that, I'm not sure. I want the member to know that the two parties, when we pulled them together on this particular issue, came up with the unanimous recommendation. It's that recommendation we're following in trying to draft the proper legislation.

Mrs McLeod: I can tell you that the people who participated in the task force that you set up to bring recommendations that you promised to implement are feeling angry and they're feeling betrayed.

Let me give you two specifics. You said that you agreed with the task force recommendation to prevent strikes in agriculture. But your legislation has no enforcement provisions, no penalties to make sure that strikes and work stoppages do not happen.

The task force also recommended that family members who work on farms not be forced to join unions. But under your legislation, adopted children, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces are not considered to be part of a family farming operation. Obviously, you have no idea of how family farms work.

The independent legal review has found 10 major provisions that contradict your task force recommendations.

1420

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Sarnia.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you cannot continue with legislation that fails to implement the promises that you made to the agriculture community. Will you not withdraw this piece of legislation and go back to work with farm groups to make sure that you are able to fulfil those commitments?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The legislation hasn't gone out yet for debate. We tried to get an agreement not to delay the legislation from both parties in the House and we're prepared to take a look at it and any changes that might be necessary if the opposition parties are prepared to take a look at the legislation. We certainly do intend to try and follow the recommendations that came from both the farm community and the union side of the committee that met on this issue.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. It was recently reported in the Toronto Star that a woman has been waiting for almost two years to learn the details surrounding her husband's death. Given the current special investigations unit legislation, this investigation is no closer to being concluded now than it was two years ago.

In January of this year, your government announced a program evaluation of the SIU with a completion date set for July 1. Minister, it's been over four months since you were scheduled to receive this report. In light of the widely acknowledged problems with the SIU and the importance of its role, when are you going to release this report and introduce the necessary legislation to fix the problems?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member is quite right that we have been awaiting the report. The audit is not yet in my hands but I understand is well along.

At the same time, the SIU of course has been reviewing both its operational processes and has been going through a very extensive hiring process which will result in the hiring of at least five additional investigators as well as a senior former police chief who will have a good deal of authority over the operations of the unit. As soon I do receive the report, I will be making a statement about the changes that the SIU has made and will be contemplating in the future.

Mr Harnick: Minister, you see, the problem is that the special investigations unit of the police department has been continually criticized for inept investigations, inadequate training, extraordinary delays and lack of communication, and I can appreciate that you're going to hire more investigators because it's not right when a car accident takes six months to investigate. But that's not the crux of the problem. It's not a matter of throwing in money and new personnel just to do investigations.

Over a year ago, Howard Morton, the head of the special investigations unit, publicly stated that the unit could not properly function within the constraints of the current legislation. A coroner's jury recently concluded the SIU is incapable of properly functioning under the current circumstances.

Minister, can you explain why, since you took over the jurisdiction of the special investigations unit in March 1990, you've not introduced the necessary legislation that will allow the SIU to properly serve both the public and the police forces of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm delighted to take from the comments of the honourable member that he would support legislative strengthening of the role of the SIU, because I would certainly agree with him that strengthening of that role would probably be effective in terms of dealing with some of these issues.

However, we have made a commitment that any changes in that part of the Police Services Act will undergo thorough study by us and consultation with the affected groups. That was a commitment that we made in this House and we certainly take very seriously that there are conflicting interests in this. Those may be the calls from the director of the SIU, but there are other and conflicting ideas on how this matter is best resolved. We are continuing to work at various options and we will continue to do so.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is directed to the Minister of Housing. We know that apartments in houses which allow one rental unit in a home promote compact development, make better use of often underutilized urban resources, promote the revitalization of our city cores and prevent urban sprawl.

We know that having an apartment in a home allows a home owner to defray mortgage and utility costs by renting to a tenant. We know that the construction of apartments in houses will create much-needed jobs and that the average rent for an apartment in a home is less than in a rental complex.

Finally, we know that many seniors are on fixed incomes and would benefit from apartments in houses and garden suites. I come to the question. There are, in effect, 100,000 illegal apartments in houses in Ontario, often substandard and subject to eviction at the whim of the landlord.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The question?

Mr Winninger: Since apartments in houses promote jobs, income security and affordable housing for tenants, including seniors and single parents --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mr Winninger: -- when can we expect the legislation, Minister, respecting apartments in houses to move forward?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): That was a wonderful question. The member will be aware that in fact for all the good reasons which he has mentioned, both as benefits to property owners, benefits to people who would be involved in constructing apartments in houses and benefits to both future and existing tenants, because we would be providing more powers of inspection for existing illegal and substandard apartments in houses --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Don't listen to municipalities; they don't matter.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- we have tabled and provided first reading for legislation to promote exactly what he is asking for. In fact, the government intends moving forward with that legislation through second reading this fall.

Mr Winninger: I'm sure my constituents would also be interested in knowing what initiatives for affordable housing your ministry has undertaken while we're awaiting this legislation.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member is quite correct in identifying the apartments-in-housing legislation as only one element of this government's program to promote the existence and create new affordable housing in the province of Ontario.

We know that fully 25% of tenant households in Ontario are forced to pay over 30% of household income in rent --

Mr Mahoney: Quit giving funny speeches and misleading people, Evelyn.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Did you use the word?

Mr Mahoney: She does all the time.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West is to come to order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- and therefore we have pursued policies to have good rent control and standards of maintenance provisions for tenants. We have also engaged in the largest non-profit housing creation program in North America. We've allocated over 40,000 units in the three years that we've been in office and we are moving forward on the apartments in houses legislation.

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Students at the University of Ottawa are holding a demonstration on campus today. Like university students across the province, the University of Ottawa students are concerned about what you're going to do to their tuition fees.

Since the academic year ending in 1991, tuition fees have gone up by 30% while the cost of living has gone up by only half that. The Council of Ontario Universities wants you to increase fees by 50% over two years. You said that a substantial tuition fee increase is on the way. We're hearing now that you'll be increasing fees by 30% over three years.

You know, Minister, that tuition fees make up only 20% of a student's actual cost of attending university out of town. You also know that students can't find a job to help pay for the tuition. You also know that you've eliminated student grant assistance in this province. Students are very anxious about the increase you're about to make in their fees. What assurance can you give Ontario university students that their fees will not increase by anything more than a moderate increase?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think that first of all the member asked a similar question yesterday in committee but used a different figure. Instead of talking about the rumours of 30% over three years, I think he talked about 15% and 10%. There are all sorts of rumours out there. There's been no decision made. In fact, a recommendation hasn't even been finalized in the Ministry of Education and Training. So I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about what a tuition increase would be for September, 1994.

I think it's also important to realize that as was restated again this morning in the morning newspapers, Ontario has the second-lowest tuition in all of Canada. So keep that in mind. We have some financial pressures in our university system.

In fact, you've got up and asked questions in the House on other days and said that the universities need more money. Your leader gets up at other times and says, "Lower the deficit." What do you want to do? You want more moneys to universities. You want a lower deficit. The only way that can happen is with some tuition increase to help the universities and to expand the universities in the province.

1430

Mr McGuinty: If the minister won't talk about a decision he's going to make, let's talk about a decision he's already made. That's his decision to turn a blind eye to universities raising tuition fees through the back door.

Last year, you raised tuition fees by 7%, but you allowed universities to raise fees even further through the back door. For example, although you allowed universities a $135 increase in fees, Western university added $200 to that and the University of Toronto added $185, and they did this by jacking up their ancillary fees. The real increase in tuition fees for Western students was not 7% this year, but 18%.

Your ministry's guidelines prohibit a university using ancillary fees to cover operating costs, but that's exactly what universities are doing. Western specifically said it was charging an additional $200 in ancillary fees in 1993 because of social contract cuts to its operating budget.

My question: Why are you allowing Ontario universities to raise tuition fees through the back door, pass on their social contract cuts to students and breach your own ministry's guidelines?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member is simply misinformed. The Western ancillary fee increases have nothing to do with the social contract. He knows that. It's completely inaccurate and silly to make that accusation.

I don't support what some of the universities have been doing on ancillary fees, and I've told the leadership of the university community and the students that when we bring forward a policy on tuitions, we will also want to see some commitments from the university community to keep a lid on ancillary fees. That's a commitment we're willing to make. It's too bad you didn't take action when you were in government.

Mr McGuinty: A point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The minister alleges that I am misinformed. I have a copy of the minutes for the board of governors for Western university. It reads, "Through its expenditure control" --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No. Would the member take his seat. Being informed or not informed is not a point of privilege.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Last week, the Minister of Labour received a 30-page critique of agriculture's thoughts on Bill 91. I'm sure you're aware of that. Actually, a quotation says, "Bill 91 fails to translate into statutory form the consensus developed by the Agricultural Labour Relations Task Force on a number of critical points." Those critical points number 11. The Minister of Labour totally ignored them.

Agriculture, sir, is your area of responsibility. Will you make sure that the Minister of Labour knows that in agriculture we have seasonal workers, not like running GM? Will you make sure that when Bill 91 comes to this Legislature, it does reflect agriculture's concerns?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Of course we will address those concerns. That's why the bill was put together by a committee representing different commodity groups, representing labour. Another group has taken a look at the bill. They have pointed out some things they'd like to see changed, and I would like to assure the member that in cooperation with the Ministry of Labour, we certainly will make sure those issues of concern are addressed.

I do not think this is the appropriate time to try and nitpick on the bill. I think there's enough consensus around the bill from all the groups concerned. We feel confident that this bill has the support, and that perhaps with a few minor modifications that have been suggested, we can bring this bill forward with the unanimous consent of everybody.

Mr Villeneuve: These are 11 major points of concern, Minister, and I think they're more than minor modifications.

When the Minister of Labour brought in this bill, he accused me of being the only negative person. Interestingly, we now have the entire area of agriculture very concerned about, first of all, the Ministry of Labour, knowing nothing about agriculture, moving into your domain and basically taking over what we have thought should have been your responsibilities. It's clear that the Ministry of Labour, based on Bill 91, hasn't the faintest idea of what goes on in rural Ontario.

I reiterate to the Minister of Agriculture that unless major changes occur in Bill 91, I must say to you that you are not doing your job. Will you do your job, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Of course I'll do my job. I also want to point out that the Ministry of Labour and the minister certainly understand agriculture and understand rural Ontario or they wouldn't have put together a committee which is made up of farmers in order to put that legislation together.

I would like to remind the member --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Grey-Owen Sound is out of order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Whether there are one or two or 11 suggestions that have been made, I don't think the number is important; it's the significance of them. We do have consensus on the major items and I think that with a few --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound is out of order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- modifications we can proceed.

I would like to caution the member that the alternative to bringing this bill forward, even if it has a wart or two on it, is that the agricultural workers at this point in time will be subject to the same rules as everyone else, and that is not the desire of this minister. We're looking for some special provisions for agricultural workers and the agricultural industry.

Without bringing this bill forward, they are going to be exposed and they're going to be covered by labour relations as it fits with auto manufacturing. So there's some interest for members of the other side to support this bill so we can bring it in and deal with it and get it passed.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. I was surprised to read in the Financial Post this morning that the provincial governments have reached an agreement on internal trade as part of comprehensive negotiations. Is this true, Minister?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I think members of the House will know that we are engaged in interprovincial trade negotiations, which are ongoing. The Financial Post report that the negotiations have been concluded is in fact quite inaccurate.

Right now, the chief negotiators are meeting on an ongoing basis. At the next meeting of the ministers of internal trade, when it comes up in either December or January -- the date's still to be confirmed -- we will have an opportunity to review the progress that the chief negotiators have made. I think progress is being made but there's no deal that's been concluded at this point in time.

Mr Sutherland: The article also makes reference to agricultural marketing boards, and I was wondering if you could inform this House and my constituents as to how a supply management system may be part of these negotiations.

Hon Ms Lankin: Supply management is not an issue that is under negotiation in these interprovincial trade negotiations. I believe that in the internal document the Financial Post referred to, there were illustrative cases put forward from a number of sectors, but I can assure the member that supply management boards are not under negotiation. These negotiations, in the area of the agriculture and food sector, are being directed by the ministers of agriculture. He could seek further information there.

I understand that at the federal level, the chair of the interprovincial trade negotiations is issuing a press release today to also correct the record with respect to the Financial Post article.

1440

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. You will be aware of your public relations exercise in the area of zero tolerance: zero tolerance, no blood alcohol while driving a vehicle. But zero tolerance without a penalty is just a fancy press release, just words on a piece of paper. You are aware that there is no driving penalty for a young person, a person under the age of 19, having any alcohol in their body.

As you are aware, I have introduced legislation which will prohibit persons under the age of 19 from operating a vehicle while having any alcohol in their body, the penalty for which, on contravention, would be the suspension of their licence for one year. My question to the Minister of Transportation is, will you support this legislation?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): It's quite refreshing and welcome indeed, with respect of course, to have a member opposite not talking about money and to have a member of the government talking about saving lives. It's quite a departure from recent form and hence certainly the cooperative attitude.

The member has approached me, and I very much appreciate this, with ways to sort of make it foolproof. For instance, you cannot, under the statutes in the province of Ontario, consume any alcohol if you're younger than 19 years of age. This is a given; it's the law of the land indeed.

The only dilemma we could possibly have is with the legislation under our safety initiatives -- and there are many programs that we're bringing forward -- the ability of that legislation to blend, to connect with the desire and the substance of what the member is bringing forward. I don't say this as a deterrent; quite the opposite. It has to work together. There has to be a beginning, a middle and an end, and it must never be contradictory for its application and enforcement thereafter.

We're looking forward to good cooperation. If it's his idea, it shall remain our idea. We're not offended by it and look forward to working together. But first we must make sure for the citizens we represent that both pieces of legislation blend and blend well.

Mr Offer: I cannot understand that type of response by the minister. On an earlier date, I sent over to the minister statistics from Dr James Young, the chief coroner of Ontario which really do indicate the depth of the problem in terms of the fatalities on the roads where alcohol is a contributing factor. We have young people in the gallery today.

Mr Minister, the issue is this: There is a law in this province now that people under the age of 19 cannot legally consume alcohol. There is no law in this province that a person under the age of 19, having consumed alcohol while in the operation of a vehicle, will suffer a penalty.

This question is very simple: Will you support legislation in which a penalty is foisted upon young people under the age of 19 who operate a vehicle while having alcohol in their body?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We already have under the statutes --

Mr Offer: You don't have a driving penalty.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- laws regarding the legal drinking age in the province.

Mr Offer: There is no driving penalty.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Will you stop shouting like a jackal?

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please. The last remark was not helpful, but on the other hand the member asked a very serious question and I would anticipate that he would appreciate a thoughtful reply. The minister now has the opportunity to provide that.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw. There's no call for this and I apologize. Under the heat of debate when we both take our roles rather seriously indeed, sometimes our temper, our temperament, gets the best of us. I apologize.

Perhaps just as importantly, if there is a way that we can arrive at it, if it's commonsensical, if it works in the real world, we shall endeavour to do so. We're talking about the same thing. What the member says is, "Why don't you support my bill?" and what we're saying is, "If your bill is applicable, does not contradict the legislation already in place, if it is workable, if we can monitor compliance, we will do it together."

UNIVERSITY STUDENT SURVEY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. I'm sure that the minister as well as myself was made aware of a news article this morning by Christie Blatchford in the Toronto Sun, where she was reporting on equity questionnaires that are being distributed to university students who are applying to get into our universities.

Since we've had a number of questions, I thought I would pose it to the minister in the House. It states: "The resulting data will be used to develop and justify various 'quota' systems at the province's 20 publicly funded universities."

I wonder if the minister could take the opportunity of this question and explain to us just what this is all about, since the ministry is funding to the tune of $150,000 a grant to do this survey, why it chose to use this vehicle to get this information and what it's going to be used for.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): When I read the article this morning in the newspaper, I was quite concerned myself. Then I decided to try to get the facts. We should never rely on the Toronto Sun to present the facts on issues like this.

The fact of the matter is we don't have good statistics in this province as to the makeup of our university bodies. You know that we've had these discussions in committees around here before. Some of the universities have done censuses on their own to get a proper analysis of the makeup of student bodies in the province. That has been hit and miss. So the universities decided that it was appropriate, through the application process, to get an idea of who was applying to go to university in Ontario.

I want to make it very clear, and I've got the form in front of me that the students fill out, how the information will be used. The information you provide to the application centre will not be disclosed to the universities before the admission decisions are made.

This has nothing to do with admissions to the universities. It's a statistical analysis to help us in the ministry, in the provincial government and the universities to plan our university system and to get a better idea of the makeup of our university applicants in the province of Ontario. It has nothing to do with quotas. It has nothing to do with that issue whatsoever.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm obviously raising it so that there is a clear understanding. I do have to remind the minister that when a similar question was asked about gathering data on crime, he stated in the House that it was okay to ask all these questions but it wasn't okay to ask a person's race. So we do have a double standard in the kind of forms that are being filled in and being asked to be filled in across the different ministries. I would ask you very carefully to take a look at that, because in fact it is a question in the eye of the public.

Getting back to this issue, I have to say to the minister that right now we're advised, and he knows this as well as I do in my position as critic, that across the province of Ontario right now there are some universities that do have quota systems based on some of the answers to these questions or maybe based on needs, especially in the fields of education. In fact there may be a need for that.

I'm going to ask the minister this: What is he going to do if there is a need for these systems, which we don't really know about but we hear are in place? What is he going to do provincially about these quota systems that are being established in colleges, teachers' colleges especially, faculties of education across the province of Ontario, when he's saying today he doesn't have these data? It's already taking place.

Hon Mr Cooke: The member is dead wrong. There's not a quota system in the universities of this province; there's not a quota system in the faculties of education of this province. There are programs, as there are at York University, and there have been for many years, even when your party was in power, that try to promote a variety of criteria for admission to the faculty of education, something you've advocated and something I've advocated.

It is just good common sense to have a teaching profession that represents the entire province. I do get exercised about these types of questions, because it's not helpful to make accusations about quotas when they're not there, they're not true, and you know that they're not there. It's not helpful to try to make accusations about a system that are not true when we're trying to have a university system that is more representative of the province and do it in a way that everybody can support and make it that way in a way that everybody can support.

The universities have programs in place --

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

Hon Mr Cooke: -- programs that you supported. So don't try to alienate people from the system when we're trying to make a university system and a professional system that is representative of all of Ontario. Your kind of accusations are not helpful.

1450

NHL DISPUTE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I've been following with interest the negotiations between the National Hockey League and the NHL referees. I know that in Ontario, under the amendments to the Labour Relations Act, it is illegal to hire replacement workers during a strike.

Can the minister tell me why replacement referees have been hired for games played here in Ontario?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): It's nice to get an intelligent question in the House for once. The NHL can, unfortunately, hire replacement refs because the referees are not recognized as a trade union under the Ontario Labour Relations Board. They have not been certified by the OLRB and, therefore, they don't have access to the provisions of the law. They are not recognized as a union because they have not gone through the usual process of getting at least 55% of members to sign cards.

It makes an interesting question that maybe should seriously concern the referees and linesmen going through the process, but I think we should also be aware that, if they did go through the process, it's likely they would also have a battle with the NHL over jurisdictional grounds as to whether it was national, provincial or international.

Mr Hansen: Is there any way for these workers to access the provisions of Bill 40 in order to halt the replacement workers from being used in a work stoppage in Ontario?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Burlington South is out of order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: In response to the final question, were I in the position of the linesmen and the referees, at least I would try the process of organizing in the province of Ontario and becoming a member of a certified union before the board.

However, I also fully understand that there would undoubtedly be a challenge by the NHL over the fact that it's not just a provincial jurisdiction; it's international. That might very well make their efforts not very successful.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm just wondering why an employer cannot discourage his employees from unionizing --

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No. The member has a question for question period. If he'll take his seat, perhaps he'll have an opportunity. We still have time in question period.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is also to the Minister of Labour, and since I won't have time for a supplementary I'll try to wrap it up into one.

This morning in committee, it was quoted that Mr Brian King said something to the committee that Mr Di Santo agreed was incorrect, and I'd like you to hear it.

On September 15, Mr King said:

"As a matter of fact, the company that ultimately ended up as the real estate holding company," of the new building, "the numbered company 799, had been specifically audited by the Provincial Auditor's office in 1990, at which time the Simcoe Place development was known and it was known that 799 was going to hold the Simcoe Place."

The auditor comments, "This passage contains a number of statements which are not factually correct." He says that at no time during 1990 was it known about Simcoe Place or the investment in Simcoe Place.

In fact he says, "By the time of completion of the audit of investing activities, September 1990, the WCB had placed ads in newspapers requesting pre-qualification information from parties interested in providing space." In other words, the board had asked for submissions. The auditor had not audited the numbered company that holds the real estate investments for the WCB.

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

Mr Mahoney: The auditor had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Mr King, according to Mr Di Santo, in response to my question --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: -- made a factually incorrect statement, the auditor said it was factually incorrect --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I have asked several times. If the member actually has a question, I would invite him to now place it quickly.

Mr Mahoney: What's your hurry?

It was pointed out in committee this morning that Mr King had made an incorrect statement. My question to the minister is: Do you agree with Mr Di Santo that Mr King made an incorrect statement to the committee and misled the committee? If you do agree with that, what are you going to do about it?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): On this specific question that's been asked by the member, I'll get back to him at a future meeting of the House.

PETITIONS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition which I would like to present. The petition is from many people in the area of Quinte and it reads:

"To the Legislature of the province of Ontario:

"The government of Ontario has presented to the Legislature of Ontario a bill identified as Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women.

"We, the undersigned, believe most of the items in this bill are discriminatory, racist and inflammatory.

"This bill, if passed, will create additional cost to employers, double jeopardy legal entanglements and an entirely new bureaucratic hierarchy in this time of financial problems for governments and industries.

"We, the undersigned, request that you withdraw or defeat this bill."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 50, An Act to implement the Government's expenditure control plan and, in that connection, to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act / Projet de loi 50, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le Plan de contrôle des dépenses du gouvernement et modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé et la Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. Shall Bill 50 be ordered for third reading? Agreed. So ordered.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the County of Grey

Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

1500

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 12:

That pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House, in relation to Bill 8, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos, one further sessional day shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 3:30 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House following passage of this motion. Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5 pm on this sessional day. At 5 pm on this sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

That, upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

That, at the end of the sessional day on which Bill 8 is called for third reading debate, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment. No deferral of any required division shall be permitted.

That in the case of any division in the House relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'll again be very brief today, but I think it's important that I do make a few opening comments on this motion to proceed to use time allocation to complete the legislative process around a piece of government legislation.

The circumstances today are somewhat different than the circumstances we found ourselves in as a government around the piece of legislation yesterday. This is a circumstance where this bill has been through the second reading process, has been through extensive committee hearings during the legislative break in August and September, had some considerable amount of time allotted to it in clause-by-clause during that break and has gone back into clause-by-clause discussion here in the House.

Unfortunately, in this process the opposition has made it very clear to the government that, firstly, there are several sections of this bill that it will not under any circumstances allow to pass. The consequence of that is the very piece of legislation itself. In fact, the opposition has said clearly to this House leader that it has no intention of seeing this bill pass in the form the government intends it to pass in. From that perspective, this is in fact the kind of circumstance where I guess almost any House leader of any government party would find it necessary to proceed with time allocation.

We have allowed a very extensive process around this piece of legislation; it had extensive public input. But there comes a time when democracy must be served, when the government must be allowed to govern and deliver the legislative program it has initiated. Since the opposition has made it very clear to us that it will not allow this bill to pass without this kind of action, we must proceed to use the standing orders to move this piece of legislation forward to its completion. So, as unfortunate a circumstance as it might be that we find ourselves in, I find it necessary to proceed in this fashion to get on with the rest of a very lengthy legislative agenda that will follow this bill.

Just before I take my seat, when my remarks end the remaining time this afternoon will be, as I understand it, split by the two opposition parties to discuss this question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is that agreed? Agreed. Is there further debate on the resolution?

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Mr SPeaker, I recall, less than 24 hours ago, sitting in this place observing an exchange between you and my government House leader. Mr Elston, the member for Bruce, stood in his place and challenged you as Speaker in terms of a government time allocation motion that was brought yesterday. It was a very passionate debate.

I'm not going to revisit that right now, simply to say that during the course of that debate I interjected when the government House leader said, "None of us likes to use time allocation motions, but from time to time they become necessary in terms of the scheduling of government business." He stood in his place with great righteous indignation and talked about how he had to move forward with the government business and introduce a time allocation motion yesterday.

At that point in time, you chastised me, Speaker, because I came back to my seat and I heckled -- I confess I did that -- and I said, "Tell me now, then, Mr Charlton, that you're not going to introduce the time allocation on Bill 8." He smirked, of course, and just sort of shrugged his shoulders. He said: "I really don't like doing this. This is contrary to what I believe in, in terms of the democratic process and the operation of this place, but I'm doing it on the photo-radar legislation because I feel compelled to do it."

Again, I interjected from my seat here and said to him, "Tell me, promise that you won't do it on Bill 8." Again, a smirk from the government House leader, knowing full well that yesterday he was going to do exactly that same thing.

Hon Mr Charlton: We just tabled it yesterday.

Mr McClelland: You tabled it last night. The government House leader said, "We just tabled it yesterday." You stood in your place yesterday, I say to the government House leader through you, Speaker, and you knew exactly what your intention was doing. Notwithstanding all of your rhetoric about how you don't like to do it, you have no hesitation. The bottom line is this: If people disagree with the government, people and the process can be put aside. All that matters is that the government gets what it wants, the way it wants it, when it wants it.

It's interesting to hear the government House leader say, "We gave everybody ample opportunity." The fact of the matter is, we have had two days of debate in committee of the whole on this legislation -- two days. We got hung up on one specific amendment that I introduced that will be debated at length tomorrow for an hour.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): You have delayed it and delayed it.

Mr McClelland: Some caterwauling over here from the member: He says it was delayed. We discussed for two days on one amendment. The great irony, of course, is the government members would stand in their place and say, "We agree with this amendment, we think the amendment makes sense, but we're not going to pass it." The member for Grey-Owen Sound stood in his place and said, "Maybe if the government introduces the amendment, because it agrees with it, then it'll pass it."

That amendment specifically spoke to the fact that the taxpayer, at the end of the day, will not be responsible for any losses incurred from the construction and/or subsequent operation of a casino, a fairly straightforward amendment. Yes, it became a hurdle in terms of moving this legislation through the process as we go in sequence, section by section.

So we got hung up on section 6 and spent the better part of four hours, which is a considerable period of time, granted, on one amendment. But I remind you that at that time the government took the absurd position that, "We agree in principle with what you're saying, but we're not going to pass it." Members of both opposition parties spoke to that over and over again, and now the government has the unmitigated temerity to stand and say that it gave this full due process. I have never heard anything more absurd and disingenuous in my time I've been here.

I received a number of phone calls from the electronic media in the Windsor area last week. I went on, I believe it was, CBC. CKLW also interviewed me and a number of other media. The woman who was interviewing me said this as she teed up the interview: "'Bill 8 is being delayed by the Liberal opposition at Queen's Park,' says Mr Cooke, the Minister of Education, the member for Windsor-Riverside. We have on the phone, and after this break" -- of course, all the usual; they've got to pay for the show, take a pause to sell some time -- "we'll be back to talk to Mr McClelland to find out why the opposition is delaying the bill."

I said at that time, and I say in this place again, that the opposition is not delaying this bill. I say very plainly and clearly that the government, and the government alone, is responsible for any delay on this bill. In fact, there has not been delay. There's been two days of discussion on an amendment that the government says it agrees with.

Furthermore, they did not call the legislation until late in September and allocated two days. They wait now until mid-November and say, "My goodness, we're in a crisis situation." The fact of the matter is that this time allocation motion is being brought because the government cannot manage its affairs. They have had no idea of where they're going with this legislation.

Shortly after this legislation was introduced in the House, in question period and on other occasions I had exchanges with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have said to her, "The fact of the matter is that you let the good ship Casino sail from the harbour and had no idea where you were going." It has been evident from day one that the minister, with all due respect to the minister, who is a fine woman, has no idea what's happening with this legislation. She is totally out in the dark on this. What happens is that she reacts from day to day, from whim to whim, and has no idea of what's going on.

1510

I predicted it, interestingly enough, a couple of weeks ago. I said: "Do you know what the government's going to do? They're going to sit" -- and it's interesting that there are some electronic media waiting to interview me following the debate today. They said: "That's really interesting. That's exactly what you said would happen." I said a couple of weeks ago: "The government will wait and at the appropriate time, a couple of weeks from now" -- being some time this week or next week -- "will throw up its hands and say, 'Oh, isn't this terrible. The opposition is delaying the bill,'" knowing full well that it had not called the legislation for debate, that it had devoted only two days in committee of the whole and was actually setting the table so it could rise with some sort of indignation and a sense of righteousness.

The government House leader says, "Well, you know, we have to allow democracy to work." What absolute hogwash. Allowing democracy to work? "We'll introduce a time allocation motion and cut off legitimate debate, on some very significant amendments that are before this House and some very controversial sections of the bill," which I think quite frankly the government wants to avoid debating, because I think the government's embarrassed and would be embarrassed to have to discuss some of the more contentious elements in this bill.

That is the reason we have the time allocation motion today. It has very little to do with moving along the legislation or having any regard to the government's agenda. It has everything to do with the fact that this government has been unable to manage. They have demonstrated with Bill 8, as they have with other pieces of legislation, incompetence and a total lack of management. This bill has been handled in such a way, and I say this without fear of having it corrected, that they created a situation where they could try to justify a time allocation motion.

There was no need for a time allocation motion. It would have required perhaps a little bit of reasonable response from the government. The government House leader says, "We had public hearings for a few weeks." Do you know what the public said? The public said they're concerned about taxpayers' costs on this matter.

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: One of the government members, Mr Dadamo, moans when he hears me say that. It's very interesting. It seems to me that if you go back home to Windsor and talk to the people there, they too will tell you, notwithstanding the fact that they're in favour of the project, generally speaking, that there's some opposition in Windsor, as one would expect. They're saying they too have concerns about some of the economic modelling in the forecasts. The fact of the matter is that people are concerned that the taxpayer not be responsible and left with some white elephants in and around the province.

It is also important to note that Bill 8 is not about the Windsor casino. Yes, the government announced a time frame off the top of its head, if you will, without any real thought to it, and said, "We're going to have the interim casino up and running for January 1, for New Year's Eve." It became apparent that they weren't able to do that and they bumped the date a little further and said maybe into March.

Now I suspect, if you want another prediction, they'll say: "It would be really good to try to get this on stream for the Freedom Festival on the long weekend in July so that we can capture some of the American market as they come over and use it to kick off the casino with some sort of fanfare and appropriate celebration."

They will need another excuse. Doubtless it will be perhaps the Liberal opposition or maybe this time it will be the PC opposition that delays their March date. They'll find an excuse to pin on somebody else or to attempt to pin on somebody else why this legislation has been delayed.

It hasn't been delayed. There's been two days of discussion on it. The government House leader comes in, picks up his paper, looks over at me and smiles, because he knows what I'm saying is true. The record indicates very clearly two days of discussion. Having had those two days, the government found itself in an embarrassing situation. So what do they do? They wait and they wait and they wait, and about a month later they throw up their hands and say, "Oh, the opposition's delaying it."

It has been delayed, and it's been delayed, as I said, because the government doesn't know where it's going or what it's doing. I suppose when you run into a situation where it becomes patently obvious that you are mismanaging a situation and have fairly patently demonstrated that you're incompetent in the matter, you obviously look to blame somebody else. That's what the government has tried to do.

One of the reasons I alluded to a bit earlier, and we'll probably get into this if the government doesn't find some other way of killing debate, get into some of the substantive elements of Bill 8 that are contentious, is that we know that there is a court application pending, that there is a contentious matter with respect to the lands that would be used for the permanent casino. There is also some question as to the propriety of entering into a lease arrangement on behalf of a corporation that doesn't yet exist. Be that as it may, those are some issues that I'll leave for my friends in the legal profession to battle out in the appropriate forum.

But I think it very interesting on this note, that as we look at some of those contentious issues that I believe the government wants to avoid, to effectively sidestep as they introduce this time allocation motion, I suspect that what they don't want to deal with is the fact that they have an amendment that they lost in committee. We know about governments that lose amendments in committee.

It was very interesting to see, when one of the government members, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, spoke in favour of an opposition amendment, that there was suddenly a recess called and all the minions ran over from the minister's office and, if I can use it only sort of euphemistically and in allegory, kind of beat up on him in the corner and persuaded him that it would be in his best interests to vote against the opposition motion even though he had spoken in favour of it. It's not perhaps a wise career move to vote against the government. We know what happened to Mr Hansen when he stood up for his principles and what happened to Ms Haslam when she did the same thing. They probably reminded him of that and said, "You know, you don't want to vote with the opposition on that, even though you believe it, in committee," and so that was changed.

Regrettably, the minions from the minister's office weren't quite quick enough when it came to a section 19 amendment that the government's really concerned about. That amendment was lost in committee and, to his credit, the Chair of the committee, a government member, Mr Johnson, stood with tradition and protocol and maintained the status quo.

That amendment, in my view, that was lost and I suspect will be slipped through by way of this time allocation motion -- and I suspect that's one of the motivating factors for introducing this time allocation motion at the present time -- would have effectively bypassed, potentially eliminated, in my view, some remedies available in law to some land owners.

Now, without getting into all of the argument on that particular section -- because I suppose that the government may even break down and allow one full day of discussion yet to remain, and I'm sure we'll have ample opportunity to discuss it at that point in time -- let me give you an idea of why the government is trying to avoid discussion on this.

Their amendment to section 19 of Bill 8 would effectively say to people who own lands where the casino project is to be located, the permanent casino: "We're sorry. We don't like the fact that you're objecting to our acquisition here. To be really, really sure that we can acquire the lands, we're going to change the law to circumvent your legal remedies and your right to protest and to use the Ontario Municipal Board and the Planning Act and other vehicles and remedies that are available to you."

Effectively, what the government has said is, "We're not sure we're going to win this, so we're going to use the power of government to change the rules in terms of property rights because we want to have our way." Some people may say, "Well, you know governments; that's the way it happens," because this government has a certain propensity to ride roughshod over people when it has to be their way.

It's really interesting. I recall the Premier in 1990 making a big splash in the papers and electronic media when he went up to Temagami and arranged to have himself arrested because he wanted to fight for people's rights. It's interesting now that his government stands by and says, "People have some rights and they have some concerns and some beliefs in terms of their property rights with respect to the acreage in question in Windsor, but we don't like the rules the way they've been written, so we're going to change the rules."

During a committee meeting I likened it unto sort of the old coin toss, where you say, "Heads or tails?" and you call heads and it turns out tails and you lose and you say, "Well, let's try two out of three," and, "Let's try three out of five," or four out of seven, and you keep going until you win.

Let's put it another way: "Let's keep playing the ball game and we'll keep adding an inning on until we're ahead, and that's when the game will stop." That's what the government is saying. That may sound simplistic, but what they're saying is this: "We're not sure we're going to win this court case, so with a section 19 amendment we want to change the rules to ensure that we're gonna win."

1520

There are some land owners in Windsor who have some legitimate concerns about their property rights. Whether I agree with them or disagree with them is, quite frankly, irrelevant in terms of the substantive argument of their case. What I think is fundamentally at issue here is their right to make their case.

I find it, quite frankly, appalling that a government that, when it was in opposition, said it stood for the rights of the little guy -- I use that in a generic sense -- or the little woman -- I don't mean that in a disparaging sense -- the people of the province of Ontario, that we're going to stand for them and fight for them, now says: "When people have some rights that they want to exercise and they disagree with us, we want to push them out of the picture. We want to change the rules to make sure they can't engage in their protest with the government according to the rule of law that was established prior to entering this particular piece of legislation into debate in the House." I find that absolutely repugnant.

Anyhow, the government members sit there because they've heard all this stuff before. We all hear it and we get a little bit insulated, I suppose, from some of the rhetoric because there's an awful lot of rhetoric in this place from time to time. But I would ask some of the government members to listen very, very carefully to this situation.

I want to lay out a bit of a scenario for you. Ask yourself how you'd respond to this, because I think I know how you would respond. I think I know exactly how you would've responded when you were in opposition.

Presume, if you will -- and I don't use this to be dramatic -- a single mom with two or three kids who has a piece of land on the corner of a property in the city of Windsor. Some big, bad developer -- because, according to the New Democratic Party, anybody in business and developers are all bad people; they're all profit-hungry people -- but those big, bad developers, they want to come in and, God forbid, they want to make money; they want to develop this land.

They put a proposal to the land owner and they say, "We want to give you" -- say, arbitrarily -- "$100,000 for your property." She says, "No, I don't want to sell." They say, "Well, we'll give you $200,000." She says, "I still don't want to sell." Next thing you know, "You're crazy; we're offering you twice as much as the land is worth." She says: "I don't care; I want to stay here. This is my home and this is where I belong and I want to stay here."

Then that developer came to the government and said, "Would you pass a law or an amendment that gave us the opportunity to kind of circumvent the existing protections under the Planning Act and rezoning procedures so we can get this lady's property and go ahead with our development?" You know what would happen then? There isn't a woman or a man who carried the New Democratic banner who wouldn't have stood -- probably literally if not figuratively, laid down in front of the bulldozers for that woman. You would've done it and you would've been proud to have done it.

There are some ministers sitting in this House today who would've done it. There's a former minister standing in this house today who would've been proud to have been associated with that kind of a fight, to fight for a person who is defending her rights. But you know what happens here? It's changed a little bit now. Now it's the government that has a project. Now the government wants to proceed and there are some land owners who say: "We don't want to give up our land. We think what you're doing is wrong. We have some remedies available that we want to exercise."

As I said -- and I want to interject this -- whether or not I think the land owners are right or wrong is really irrelevant. The fact is, they have a right in law to make an application or to put forward a remedy -- some might call it a hurdle; so be it -- in terms of this development. But the government comes along and says: "It's our game this time and we're the ones who want to do it, so you know what? Our principles don't matter any more."

This government -- as I read today in the article by Steven Langdon in the newspaper, that calls upon the Premier to resign -- stated very, very clearly and succinctly evidence that points to the fact that this government is willing to compromise its principles if it's expedient for it to do so. This section 19 amendment that they're going to propose, I say without fear of retribution in any sense, is exactly that. It's a fundamental departure from the principles these people who call themselves New Democrats used to fight for and proudly do so.

There are some members of the caucus who, I think, when they understand, if they choose to understand what's happening here, will be very, very loath and perhaps in their conscience find themselves unable to vote in support of that particular amendment because what you're saying is this: "We want to change the rules to ensure that we get a win."

During committee hearings, legal counsel was called from, I think it was, Municipal Affairs, to testify. She testified before the committee and said, "I was asked for advice on this one and I indicated that the government would probably win at the end of the day. They'd go through the expropriation procedure with the city and so forth. When I say 'the government,' obviously they're proponents of this particular project so they're in partnership in that sense, if you will, but they wanted this to take place. But I can't guarantee them," said legal counsel, "that they're going to have the victory."

I think that any of my colleagues in this House who have practised law or have been associated with the legal profession would know that it's a very poor, unwise lawyer, she or he, who guarantees any outcome in a case. All they can say is that on balance they suspect the following will happen. I've always said that any lawyer who gives you a guarantee is probably not a good lawyer, because there are no guarantees in a lot of things in life, and law of course is one of those things in life where there are very few, if any, guarantees.

What legal counsel said was: "Well, I can't tell the government without qualification that they're going to win. They probably will." The government said, "We want to know that we're going to win, and how can we do that?" She said, "You're going to have to change the rules."

That's great. That's like saying, "The Leafs this year are going to win, I hope, without any help." That would be like saying: "We want to make sure that the Leafs win this year, so you know what we're going to do? We're going to keep penalizing the other team and taking one of their players off the ice until we pad a lead and make sure that we can run the clock, and when it comes to 19:59 of the third period, we'll allow the team to revert back to the other rules."

You kind of chuckle and say, "That's kind of silly, isn't it?" But that's precisely, if you want to use that imagery, what the government's doing. They're saying, "We're going to change the rules in this case because we're afraid we might lose, and we don't like to lose." It's interesting that this is the government that used to say: "We don't like people to lose. We believe in people's rights."

The member for Durham East stood in this House two weeks ago Thursday and spoke about Remembrance Day and very genuinely displayed emotion. There's no question that was a genuine expression of gratitude and respect for women and men who gave of themselves for this precious commodity that we call freedom and some of the pleasures that we enjoy under our system of government. This is the kind of thing that we're talking about here. He stood there and talked about that. Part of that is a sense of property rights and a sense of having the opportunity to have rule of law and predictability in law.

This government says, "Sorry, we might lose this case, so we're going to change the law to make sure that we win." To the New Democratic members who are in the House or are busy doing other things or are back in their office watching this debate or who may watch, or the folks back home who are watching this or hear about it, remember what's happening with this. It's only one section of one bill affecting some 14 property owners or so. I think the number may be 20 for 14 acres or 14 for 20 acres. Be that as it may, a couple of dozen property owners have some land in question for a casino development.

What we've allowed here is the beginning of the erosion of a principle, and that's a fundamental property right that says, "If the government wants to do a project, I have my right to defend it and to put it through due process and through the due process of law." This government says, "I'm not prepared to give that to those people, because it's our project and we'll have it our way."

Talk about the little kid who says, "I'm taking my ball and going home if I can't have things turn out my way." That's exactly what this government is doing, and it's using the time allocation motion to hide that very fact.

I say to you that I will not allow that to happen. Whether anybody picks up on this and whether or not it becomes a matter, I'll tell you that my caucus colleagues are assured of this, that we have made the point and put it on the public record. But when the government of the day begins to, I believe, get on that slippery slope of justifying bringing the power of the state down to bear on people who disagree with it, in a heavy-handed manner, it has opened the door for some potentially very serious consequences down the road. It's like a lot of other things in life. Once you do it once, it becomes easier the second time, the third time and the fourth time and suddenly you forget; you forget what this is all about and you forget some fundamental rights and some fundamental freedoms that we enjoy.

1530

You know, I would be accused of being dramatic, but so be it. The member for Durham East stood and talked about people who fought and died for the right to at least have a rule of law, an opportunity to challenge governments in the courts.

I would hope that in this case the government members would look very, very closely at what their leadership is proposing to do, understand what's happening with this particular section, understand that in section 19, when we get to that amendment, you're saying to some people, "We're not going to allow you the opportunity to have your due process of law." I guess the question is, when you do it once, is it okay the next time? Is it okay to do it a bit more and the fact situation changes?

Let me get back to that little hypothetical scenario I gave you a while ago about the single mom maybe of two or three kids who had the little corner lot that the developers wanted to develop. Do you know what these government members would do, Mr Speaker, if that was the situation and that was the person whose property rights were being potentially challenged? Every woman and man on the New Democratic side would rise to her aid and to her defence. They would make a hero out of her. I said in committee, "It's the stuff that you would want to see made into an ABC Sunday night movie or a CBC Sunday night movie." That's true.

I think it's so telling, and this will probably rankle them a bit, that when the socialists don't get their way, they say: "It's okay to change the rules to make sure that we get our way because that justifies it, because we must be right, after all. We'll change the rules to make it right. Civil disobedience is okay if it's what we believe in, and changing the law is okay if it's what we believe in. But people be damned if they disagree with us," says the government, "because we have the power and we'll use it to our advantage." And therein lies, I believe insidiously, the real folly of this time allocation motion, apart from the fact that governments use time allocation and this government has used it more freely than any other government in the history of Ontario.

What's really underneath it all? I think what's underneath it is the following. They're embarrassed about the way they've mismanaged this. They haven't managed it well from day one. They have demonstrated, I think, complete incompetence in terms of the management of this legislation. They don't know where they're going with it, or how, or when, and suddenly they find pressure.

The members from Windsor find pressure back home. "What's happening? How come the legislation isn't passed? Why are we having trouble with the interim site? Why has the January 1 announced opening date passed and gone and now we're into March and probably into July? Why is it that maybe this thing won't get off the ground before the next election and maybe the project's in jeopardy?" All of these questions are being asked.

So government members come back from their weekends in Windsor and say, "Oh, my God, this isn't going well." People scurry around and they sit down and they strategize and the political staff say: "You know, if we string this out long enough, we could always introduce a time allocation motion, justify it -- people aren't going to pay too, too much attention to that -- ram it through, minimize the debate, minimize the fallout and get on with the project, and we'll have somebody to blame. We can blame the opposition."

Nice scenario. But you know what? People aren't that stupid. You may think they are and you may think that people really don't care about the procedural aspects about this place.

It was interesting when the rule changes took place. We had great debates where my friends the member for St Catharines and the member for Bruce and others on the government side and the members for Oriole and York Centre stood and talked about the traditions of Parliament and the rules and how they had evolved. People said, "Well, that's just the way you conduct business." I'd go back to Brampton evenings or on the weekends and they'd say: "Why are you women and men so hung up on these rule changes? Does it really matter?"

I suppose in some sense, you know, when you're trying to meet a mortgage or worry about your kid's health and wellbeing and school and so forth, these things are secondary at best and are somewhat esoteric. They are sort of "out there" and the kinds of things that happen down at the Pink Palace. I think that our behaviour collectively or individually from time to time gives people a sense that "You guys are all crazy anyway and you don't really know what you're doing."

But there are some real, fundamental issues at stake here when you begin to changes rules partway through the game. When the rule changes came down here, people said: "What's happening? Does it really matter?" They didn't really pay much heed to it. But when something came down the pipe in terms of legislation and they wanted us to fight it, we said, "You know, the most we can do is have half an hour on this one because of the rule changes." They said: "How come you didn't fight the rule changes? Where were you?" and we reminded them that we did fight it but the government felt it was expedient to change the rules to its advantage.

So where are we now? We're in a situation that's very similar, I say to you. Maybe it's not particularly analogous, but I think it's similar in kind. We have a situation where the government says, "We believe in this concept of open debate and we believe in this concept of free votes and we believe, sort of theoretically, in the opportunity for people to go into committee hearings and have their views presented and then brought to the floor of the Legislature by way of amendment by the opposition," and I say quite frankly by way of the government from time to time as it responds to things it's heard across the province.

But when push comes to shove, when you get right down to where the rubber hits the road, if you don't like what the opposition is doing, it's find a way to slide out of it, find a way to keep people quiet, find a way to make sure the public really doesn't have an opportunity to understand what we're doing.

A time allocation motion such as this one plays that scenario so very, very well for the government, because we can talk about the amendment that became the contentious issue a couple of weeks ago, about three or four weeks ago, the amendment that said the taxpayer would be responsible. We can talk about the amendments at length if we want, make the points and let's move on, I would say.

We could do that, but the government has said: "You know what? No matter what you do we're not going to listen to the people of this province and we're not going to give you the amendments." So we fight, as opposition members, as is our responsibility to do on behalf of the people of Ontario.

The government House leader says, "Well, you know, democracy," and stands and sort of lifts himself and puffs himself up and says: "This is an issue of democracy. We have to get on with the government's agenda." The fact of the matter is, if they really believe in democracy they would listen to the people and allow themselves the opportunity to think through some of the things they're doing and to deal with it in a forthright, direct manner.

I don't think it's the end of the world when you have a time allocation motion, but I think when you do it this way you begin to erode, ever so insidiously and ever so slowly, the institution we all serve in, the process that has served us well for so many years.

Sometimes government is tough, sometimes it doesn't go your way, but maybe there'd be a lot more people around -- and I say to you, Mr Speaker, although you sit in the chair and do so very well in a non-partisan fashion, maybe some of your colleagues who served with you over years past who got caught up in the reaction, the wrath of the people, would still be here.

I take no particular personal credit for having survived the 1990 election. A lot of good, good women and men were defeated and a lot of good women and men are going to be defeated sitting on the government side who served their constituencies to the best of their ability.

One of the reasons many of them, if not every single one of them, are going to be defeated is because they too came in with these lofty ideals about listening to the people, but when it comes down to it they say: "Oh my God, I might lose my parliamentary assistant position or my committee chairmanship or, God forbid, I might be chastised by the Premier and embarrassed in front of my caucus colleagues. I'm going to just kind of let this thing slide by and be silent. I might even go to the washroom during the vote." We know how that game's played.

I say to the government members, think about what you're doing, not on the time allocation motion but the stuff you're trying to hide on this, the substantive amendments that were tabled by the opposition. Yes, it's true we got hung up on one amendment. The member is no longer here. The member for Oxford, Mr Sutherland, said, "Yes, but you spent two days on one amendment." Yes, we did spend two days on one amendment, because we were frustrated when the government would stand in its place and members were saying: "It's a good amendment. We believe in it. We agree with the principle but we're not going to support it because it's an opposition amendment."

The Conservative member from Grey-Owen Sound stands in his place and says, "Maybe you don't like McClelland," he sort of said tongue-in-cheek. "I can understand if you don't like him. He's in opposition and he's always bugging the government. Why don't you introduce it yourselves and we'll support it."

So, yes, we got hung up on one amendment, but for the government House leader to say that's somehow an abuse of democracy I think is absolutely antithetical to what in fact actually happened. That is not in fact the case. The government's introduction of the time allocation motion is contrary to some of the democratic principles we believe in.

The members of this government when in opposition stood for hour after hour after hour filibustering legislation they didn't believe in, and they like to pat themselves on the back and liken themselves unto some latter-day heroes for having done that, as they sort of figuratively stood on the bridge singlehandedly.

The member from Thorold held off the barbarians and saved the nation as he fought hour after hour on government auto insurance. He was a bit of a folk hero. I know since that time there's maybe been a little bit of parting of company and a little bit of disagreement around the kitchen table, but the now government members, then sitting in opposition, thought that was great.

You know what happens when somebody else in opposition now starts to do it? They think it's terrible because it's suddenly their game that's being upset, their game plan, and now they have to bend a little bit and now they have to compromise, and they don't like that. They find that really, really hard to deal with.

1540

When all is said and done you come back to this particular government motion and you ask yourself, why are they doing it? They're certainly not doing it because they're wanting to get this legislation through. If they wanted to get the legislation through, they would have called it a lot earlier. They would have allowed some more extensive debate on the contentious issues.

In fact, if they really wanted to do it, they might have suggested something like this: "Well, obviously we're hung up on section 6, on that particular amendment. Why don't we set that aside and move on to the rest of the bill and come back to that if we can't find some resolution?"

You could do that with unanimous consent. We suggested it to the government, but they weren't prepared to do that. You know why, Mr Speaker? Because they wanted an excuse. They wanted to set the table to be able to say, "We're bringing in time allocation because those terrible Liberal opposition members and PC opposition people are holding up the government's agenda."

I think that is the height of disrespect, not for this place -- although I think it is for that -- and the traditions of this place, but for the people of Ontario, because, when all is said and done, the people of Ontario have us as their voice in this place. Whether you're in favour of casino gambling or not and whether you like the bill in its present form or not, as the government has said, we have no intention of seeing this legislation pass in its present format, and that's true. Failing some very significant amendments, I am personally not prepared to support this legislation and, as critic for my party, it will be my recommendation to my caucus colleagues that we not support this legislation in its present format.

That is not an anti-Windsor scenario, lest my friends in Windsor run back and trot out some sort of absurd statement that we're trying to hold up the Windsor casino. We're saying, in short, that this is a bad piece of legislation that has a lot of holes in it. It hasn't dealt with a number of the issues. It hasn't dealt with the assurance of the infrastructure in terms of policing being in place for the city of Windsor. It hasn't dealt with issues in terms of the horse racing industry. It hasn't dealt with the issues in terms of the social economic impact, the downside impact on the community and how that's going to be responded to.

In point of fact, during committee hearings I asked the question of the consultants who were paid some quarter of a million dollars plus to craft the report in support of the casino legislation. I said: "Tell me about your studies done that measure the downside impact in terms of the social network system, the support system that will be in place in Windsor. How's it going to affect people adversely?"

"That wasn't part of our terms of reference. The government told us not to look at that. They just told us to look at the good stuff and to write a report that took the economic modelling that we could show the people of Windsor and elsewhere in the province what an economic benefit this project was going to be."

We wanted to discuss some of those things in committee. We wanted to talk about the fact that some of the economic modelling was based on best-case scenario and that maybe it's not going to be as rosy as we all think. We wanted to talk about amendments that said the cities that are contemplating casinos should put the issue to the people of their communities for a referendum.

We should have a series of referenda across this province, ideally perhaps the November municipal elections coming up this year. What a wonderful opportunity to put the issue to the people of every community that's contemplating a casino for some genuine debate at the grass roots. That's what this is all about. It's about trying to curtail debate on those issues.

Mr Speaker, I am not sure, and I'm going to ask for your assistance, if I might for a moment, in terms of our timing situation here. I note the clock now shows 47 minutes. Maybe the table could advise us. Is that the time remaining for our party?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Yes.

Mr McClelland: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I appreciate that. Thank you, table officers. I'm going to leave some time for my colleague the member for St Catharines, so I'm going to briefly summarize and leave him some 40 minutes, I think, to make his comments.

Let's come back to the original point of departure in terms of my discussion on this particular time allocation motion. We'll have one day to pick up some of the discussion that I referred to, some of the discussion with respect to amendments in terms of the advisability of the casino; the economic modelling; protection for the horse racing industry; infrastructure requirements for the city -- in other words, developing a formula to put money into the city to ensure that there's adequate policing, adequate social services; to talk about a fail-safe mechanism or a guarantee that the taxpayers won't be on the hook; to talk about allowing people to participate at the community level in terms of responding to the question, "Do you or do you not want a casino in your particular home town or your community?"

Those are issues that all need to be canvassed, need to be debated at length, and the government's going to ensure, through its time allocation motion, that they are not given full and complete debate. How much debate is enough? I'm not sure, but I can tell you that an hour and a half in total for all of those issues combined is not sufficient. It's not adequate to begin to look at those very, very significant issues, bearing in mind that this piece of legislation is not only for the Windsor casino, but should it become the order of the day, so to speak, is for casinos all across the province, anywhere, any time. This is the umbrella legislation that will allow the province to introduce casino projects anywhere in the province of Ontario. It's not a Windsor bill.

When the CBC or CKLW or whoever calls me from Windsor and says, "Why, Mr McClelland, are you holding up the Windsor casino project?" I say to them: "I'm not holding up the Windsor casino project. The government has brought forward legislation that it's not prepared to deal with in a responsible fashion. They're the ones who only called two days of debate on it."

The government has the control of the levers of power around this place. The government is the one that sets the agenda. They are the people who call the legislation and allocate time. They're the ones charged with the responsibility of managing, and because they can't manage their legislation or can't manage the agenda around this place, they look for an excuse. So they create a scenario that allows them to stand up and beat their breasts and say, "This is all for the sake of democracy." It's anything but; in fact, it's everything contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy.

These people used to believe in allowing people the opportunity to speak. They used to believe in people's personal property rights. They used to believe in citizen participation. They used to believe in free opportunity for the former member from Haliburton, who resigned, the member from Thorold and others to stand in their places and say, "We think this is wrong."

What happens now? The government says, "We don't want to deal with the heat, we don't want to be in the kitchen and take the heat, so we're going to slide out of this with a time allocation motion." That's what's at stake here. It's not just the debate. It's not just the time on the particular amendments that are put forward in this legislation. What it's about are some very fundamental rights of people and fundamental process of democracy in this Legislative Assembly.

I say, in conclusion, when you begin to erode it around the edges, you wonder how far it will go and how much of a hole you need in the dike before the whole sea starts to rush in. That's what you've done here, make no mistake about it. When you cross over, as inevitably you will, using your majority to force the amendment on section 19, you will have begun to erode some people's rights in law. You will have said to the people, because they're opposed to you: "We're going to change the rules to make sure that the government wins. We're going to bring down the heavy hand of government to have it our way." No matter how you try to rationalize it and say that it was expedient and necessary, that's what you've done and you can't escape it.

I say to each woman and man in the New Democratic Party, without fear of being contradicted, that had it been another government doing this, you would have stood with absolute outrage in defence of the people whom you today presume to wipe out with one stroke of the pen, and you know it. In your hearts you know that you would have done it and you would have fought to the very last breath to defend those people. But because you're in government now and somebody tells you, "You've got to do it this way because that's our government plan," you're willing to rationalize it away or pretend you don't hear or dismiss it and say, "It's McClelland just rattling on about the government again."

Think about what you're doing. Think about the people who are involved as land owners in Windsor and the fundamental principles of democracy that you're taking away from them, and their property rights. Ask yourself this question: If any government came to you and targeted you personally with an amendment on a piece of legislation to circumvent some rights that you had enjoyed in law prior to a piece of legislation being introduced, how would you feel about it? How would you like it if the government came after you?

1550

The member for Durham Centre looks quizzically at me. Obviously, he doesn't understand the implications of section 19, so let me help him with them a bit. Let's presume the member for Durham Centre owned a piece of land and he didn't want the government to put something on his land and said, "I'm going to fight this," and the government came along and said, "For purposes of your particular land, we're removing your rights to fight it." That's exactly what's happening. You'd be outraged and you'd be calling on your local member of Parliament, your New Democratic member of provincial Parliament, asking him to stand in his place and defend you. That's precisely what's happening here.

The government is saying that it wants to roll its legislation conveniently into a package called the time allocation motion and slide it through in a couple of hours and it'll be done. But it won't be done, and I want to tell you that there will be New Democrats who will rise in opposition to this.

As Mr Langdon bravely wrote today in the Star, it's time you return to some fundamental principles. There'll be other people who will write about this piece of legislation and this particular section and say, on this one, that they too will talk about some fundamental principles and individual rights.

This debate isn't just about a time allocation motion. It's about a government that, on the one hand, preaches democracy and, when push comes to shove, does the entire opposite. It's about a government that says it believes in people as long as they agree with it, but if they don't agree with it, "We don't believe in you any more." It's about a government that says, "If we can't manage, if we're incompetent, we'll blame it on somebody else and we'll try to create a fall guy for it." It's about a government that says: "If it's our way, then anything goes, nothing matters, principles aside. We'll do what we need to do to get our agenda on track, and if anybody stands in our way they'd better look out." It's about a government that says that some of the things we talked about, fundamental rights and freedoms and what people died for, aren't all that important if they stand in the way of its agenda.

That's what this time allocation motion is about, and I can only hope when it comes down to it that some members -- because I know I can predict, I think quite accurately, that most of them will vote on this -- will really understand what they're doing, that they'll think very clearly about the implications of what they're doing with this time allocation motion.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm going to participate in this debate this afternoon. I'm not going to be lengthy, by any stretch of the imagination, but I think a few things have to be put on the record with respect to this time allocation motion.

I think maybe we should start with the line, "If this is Wednesday, it must be another time allocation motion by the NDP government," because it seems to be doing this with alarming regularity. A procedure that at one time in the Legislature of Ontario was thought of as being extremely rare and might be used once or twice a year, at most, has now been used twice in two days by this government. They may justify in any way, stretch or form why they are doing time allocation motions with alarming regularity, but quite frankly, I think a great deal of it has to do with their lack of ability to administer government. It's just as simple as that.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food snickers. I don't think he'd be snickering if the province was passing a special section to a casino bill to do away with his rights under the Expropriations Act and the zoning bylaw in place in the city of Windsor. That's probably one of the most draconian pieces of legislation I have ever seen a government take, taking away somebody's legal rights, and that's exactly what it's doing here. Apparently some government members haven't been informed of that perhaps, but that's exactly what's happening. We'll get to that in a minute.

I think the first thing we should talk about is why we're in committee of the whole in the first place. We're not in committee of the whole, I want the government members to understand, because the opposition parties wanted this bill to go to committee of the whole. We're in committee of the whole because the government, to put it politely, screwed up in committee and didn't have its members there and now wants to pass about seven or eight amendments that it couldn't get passed in committee because it only had five people there.

That's where this whole thing started, and I think it's important that everybody know that and understand that, because every vote was tied on the government amendments in committee and the Chairman, doing what proper chairmen should do, had to vote to preserve the status quo. Therefore, the amendments couldn't pass. That's why we're here, where they have a huge majority. They can't screw this up, I presume. Because they have such an abundance of members, they can't possibly lose this vote. But that is how we got here in the first place. The government was quite frankly not able to manage its own members in committee. That's why we are here in committee of the whole to start with.

Two of their amendments are very controversial. In committee of the whole we've spent about three, three and a half hours on amendments to section 6 of the bill. That amendment was fairly controversial because all the way through Bill 8, the casino legislation -- and Bill 8, as the member for Brampton North properly pointed out, doesn't just deal with the Windsor casino. It is the bill that establishes the framework for which all other casinos in the province of Ontario will operate in the future. It is not just the Windsor casino bill, and I think that differentiation should be made abundantly clear to the people out there.

When the government decided that it was going to proceed with casinos, on several occasions the minister and various government officials were asked if the Ontario taxpayer would be responsible for any liability, shortfall or deficit as a result of casinos. In committee, the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister said: "Absolutely no way. There is no way we would ever, ever operate a casino, making the province of Ontario and ultimately the Ontario taxpayers responsible for the debt or shortfall, should there happen to be one, with a casino in the future.

The member for Brampton North introduced, I think, a very logical amendment along that line, that the province would not be responsible for any loss, shortfall or deficit in the operation of any casino, now or in the future, in Windsor or elsewhere in the province of Ontario.

The parliamentary assistant who was carrying the legislation in committee of the whole assured members on several occasions during that debate over the course of two days that this would indeed be the case. Then, when we brought this matter up -- actually, we didn't bring it up. The government House leader brought this matter up in a House leaders' meeting several weeks ago and asked us what our problem was with respect to section 6 of the bill. We told him what our problem was.

I asked the question of the minister that afternoon in the House and she gave a totally different response from her parliamentary assistant, a totally different response from that which her deputy minister gave and a totally different response from that the assistant deputy minister gave. She conceded -- I give her full marks for this -- that there may indeed be a case in the future in which the province of Ontario will have a different cost-sharing arrangement or may even operate a casino itself and will be responsible for any shortfall, liability or debt, and ultimately that will make the Ontario taxpayers pay the debt as well. That is what the problem was around section 6 and the amendment, the new section proposed by the member for Brampton North.

At a subsequent House leaders' meeting, the government House leader asked us what other problems we had with the bill, knowing of course that section 19 was a very contentious section. Very simplistically put, basically the amendments proposed by the government to section 19 are going to do away with a land owner's right under the Expropriations Act of Ontario. They're going to retroactively rezone the property so a casino use will be permitted. Right now, the zoning bylaw in place for the city of Windsor for this property specifically prohibits the operation of even a bingo hall, let alone a casino.

So what the city of Windsor has done -- and I don't blame it; it wants its casino and it wants it now -- is to come to the provincial government and say: "Can you help us out of this legal dilemma that we seem to find ourselves in? It would be very helpful to our case if you could pass these following amendments to the casino bill which will then legitimize retroactively what we're trying to do here in the city of Windsor."

1600

The government has accepted that plea on behalf of the city of Windsor, and it has decided that it is going to amend the legislation to do exactly that. Section 19 of the bill, I might point out, will become effective retroactively as of January 1, 1993, while the rest of the bill will become effective the day it receives royal proclamation, which is the normal case.

So they are setting quite a few fairly disturbing precedents by what the government proposes to do with section 19 of this bill. They're going to fix up the expropriation problem the city of Windsor has, the lawsuit; they're attempting to fix up the zoning problem that the city of Windsor has, so the property will be zoned properly so they can operate a casino, and they're going to do this all retroactively.

They're also going to retroactively affix the date on which the property can be valued for expropriation purposes, which I find very unconscionable. We're going to play with the market value of the property now that we're expropriating from a private property owner, that we don't have the authority to do, but we're going to get the good old NDP government to pass a piece of legislation that strips away those legal rights from people and does it retroactively. That is what this is about. That is exactly what the amendments to section 19 do, and that's what this is about. It's a sad day in the history of the province of Ontario when the Legislature of Ontario is going to pass a law to strip away somebody's legal rights. That's exactly what this is doing.

As I understand it, the city of Windsor didn't even commence expropriation procedures till May of this year, and they want to put these provisions in place retroactively to January 1 of this year.

The reason why we have the time allocation motion today is the last item that I want to touch on briefly here today. The reason why we have a time allocation motion on November 17 is because the government House leader, who calls and orders the business in this place, has chosen to leave Bill 8 sitting here day after day after day, week after week after week, and he tells his friends in Windsor that we're holding it up. The government House leader calls the business. Do you think opposition parties asked for this time allocation motion? We don't determine the order of business; the government House leader does.

The government House leader could have called this bill each and every day since this Legislature has resumed in the third week of September till now we're here in the third week of November. Two months later, he's finally getting around to doing what he should have done: call the bill. You can't debate a bill if the government doesn't call it. Whether it's called or not is totally and solely at the discretion of the government House leader.

So if the mayor of Windsor is listening and city council is listening and the people of Windsor are listening, you have nobody to blame but the NDP House leader for this government, who refused to call this piece of legislation day after day after day, week after week after week, month after month. That is where the responsibility lies.

As a matter of fact, I have even brought the matter up in House leaders' meetings because he wouldn't do it. He was prepared to see it sit there on the back burner and then at the 11th hour come forward with this draconian time allocation motion to cut off debate, because he didn't want these issues debated. That's exactly what this is about. This is a very embarrassing piece of legislation. These amendments are extremely embarrassing to the government. They are stripping away people's legal rights by legislation. I find that extremely disturbing.

The final little piece of the puzzle is why we're doing it now. It's because the court case, the lawsuit that's going on between the owner of the property in Windsor and the city of Windsor, resumes on December 6, and we've got to get this sucker passed before December 6. That's what this is all about. You want to strip away somebody's property, you don't want to pay them what the fair market value is, it can't be zoned for the use that the city wants to put it to, so we're going to rezone it retroactively, and we're going to do all this before the court case resumes on December 6 to help our friends in Windsor out. There's nothing wrong with helping our friends in Windsor out as long as you don't take away somebody else's legal rights in the process, and that's what you're doing.

This is a very, very disturbing principle and a sorry, sorry day in the history of the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this motion, which I wish I didn't have to speak on, because it's a closure motion, or a time allocation motion at least, in this House. This is a result, of course, of the rules which were imposed in this House by Premier Rae in June or July 1992.

What was unfortunate was that my good friends in the Conservative Party voted for those rules and we're now seeing the ramifications of those rules as they're applied. The member for Parry Sound appropriately points out, however, that there's no need to apply them simply because they exist. But when I voted against the rule changes proposed by Premier Rae, I had the feeling that the government would use the jackboots on the opposition whenever it suited its purposes.

The purpose of a lengthy debate in this House on an issue, one which carries on several days, is to allow the public to canvass the issues, to be informed of the various issues that are involved in a piece of legislation. If it goes through in one or two days without much debate, then there's little coverage of it in terms of the news media.

The public at large, if they stay up till 2 o'clock in the morning, can watch the question period through TVOntario. The complaint I have about TVOntario, by the way, is that since the NDP came into power they have moved question period from 11 o'clock on the French channel and 11:30 on the English channel to 12:30 or a quarter to 1 or 1 o'clock. If there's a program on filing your fingernails, it'll come before question period.

People at TVO have never responded to any of the letters or representations which have been made in this House about what they show on TVO -- I've watched at night; people who don't own cable television want to be aware of the good arguments made by the governing side, by the opposition side -- about the replay of question period. It is now replayed, in fact, at best at 12:30 in the evening, and I guess the federal House is going to be played at 1:30 in the evening. As I say, sometimes seven different ways of washing your windows comes before what happens in the Legislature.

I expected that the government would use the rules of this House in this particular way, and it greatly concerns me. We will remember that when the rules under which this provision is being imposed this afternoon came in it had the effect of doing a few things. First of all, they restricted debate to 30 minutes. This is a special debate, where time is divided, so that rule does not apply. But in the overwhelming number of cases debate is restricted to 30 minutes per member, when, if there has to be a detailed analysis of the bill, compelling arguments put forward by both government and opposition, it requires very often in excess of those 30 minutes to do it. Bob Rae decided that I shouldn't, nor should any other member in this House, be allowed to speak for more than 30 minutes.

It also reduced the power of you, as the independent Speaker. We used to have in the House an opportunity for the Speaker to make judgements on when a debate would end. I recall those particular rule changes started to restrict the power of the Speaker, who is elected by all members of the House and who, when he or she sits in the chair, is to be impartial. In fact, our tradition has been that the Speaker is impartial.

It also made closure easier, it made time allocation easier. Now, instead of the House leaders determining how much time should be allocated for a piece of legislation, the minister can simply come in and say, "You will debate the bill for the following number of minutes or hours or days." That is pretty arbitrary, to leave that in the hand of the governing party, particularly a party which has been elected with 37.7% of the vote.

That's the way the rules are set up in this country and I don't object to the fact that that's the way things happen under the present rules. Everyone has to accept that, but it's interesting to note that, with 37% of the vote in the province, this government has this overwhelming power that allows the ministers to make those determinations.

1610

Also, the new rules ensure that the Legislature sits a fewer number of days. In fact, if the Legislature sat the number of days it used to sit before the new rules were imposed upon us, perhaps in those circumstances we would not have to see the government impose closure on this Legislature.

I find it interesting at all times that the New Democratic Party and the Premier of this province, who for years fought for the rights of the minority, fought for the rights of the opposition in this House, fought for the rights of individual members, when in government, gets out the jackboots and stomps on the opposition.

My friend from Etobicoke West, who has dealt with the party members at the local level, told me a long time ago that I was naïve to ever believe that in the first place, but I used to believe it when I sat on the other side of the House. In fact, I used to believe it when I sat here and the NDP sat in the third party's place. I actually thought there was a difference. I was even convinced of it. That piece of naïveté has left me long since, I can assure you.

Why is it important to have a longer debate on this bill? It's because it is a fundamental change in Ontario in terms of taxation of people. Many of the petitions which have come in, as supplied to me by Dennis Drainville, the NDP member for Victoria-Haliburton who has resigned from the House, in very large measure because of a disagreement with the policy of the government as it relates to casino gambling, really point out what used to be the perception about the New Democratic Party as it related to gambling.

The NDP, to its credit over the years -- Stanley Knowles, Tommy Douglas, Mr Winch, Mr Coldwell, I'm sure I could go through the long list.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Stephen Lewis.

Mr Bradley: Stephen Lewis, Donald C. MacDonald, Jim Renwick, all of the icons of the party over the years have steadfastly opposed the imposition of this.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Pat Lawlor.

Mr Bradley: Pat Lawlor, certainly, the late Pat Lawlor, member for Lakeshore. They opposed this kind of taxation of the poor, because they always made the argument that in fact this kind of government gambling encouraged those who didn't have much in the first place to take a chance to win more. It's always more attractive when you are down and out, when you don't have much money, to take that big chance to win some money. Make no mistake about it, that is who this is aimed at. This is not the Las Vegas crowd that's going to come in.

In fact, there was a secret document. I think the OPP were investigating, because it got to the opposition. The member for Brampton North, Carman McClelland, received the document in a brown envelope. The document clearly said, when there was testimony taking place, that you're really not going to be aiming this at the high rollers, you're aiming it in fact at people of modest income, people who are taking a chance to get richer. I thought the NDP would never, never, never bring in legislation which would contemplate that, and that's exactly what's happened.

We recognize, if you look at the experience all over, that the crooks take over. Organized crime inevitably moves in wherever you have casino gambling. Atlantic City is a good example. That was supposed to really help Atlantic City when it got casino gambling. If you look at their experience, I'm sure many people in Atlantic City aren't happy with what has happened there.

People will say: "Well, we already have some forms of gambling. We have lotteries out there." Yes, we do, and maybe years ago they shouldn't have been started or maybe they should, but there's a difference with casino gambling. It's a much more glamorous kind of gambling. It's where people go to the actual location. There's the glitter, the lights, the people dressed up. It's a big event to go to a casino, and that attraction, I'm afraid, is going to bring more and more people who are addicted to gambling out to those particular places.

Do we forget about those people? Do we forget about the families whose main breadwinner or perhaps the two breadwinners of the family come home with very little money left in their pockets because they've squandered the money because of an addiction they have to gambling? As a result, the family and the kids don't get as much as they might have. They have to go to social service agencies, so others have to share that particular burden. It does not help those people.

What was rather surprising perhaps to many of us was an interview that took place on a CBC program that's on Sunday night usually about 10:25, Venture. Robert Scully, who is an excellent interviewer, by the way, both in English and French, interviewed Donald Trump.

Now, I would have thought Donald Trump would have been a person who thought that gambling was good, that casinos were good for a community. He sat there and was interviewed and talked about all the detrimental effects of casino gambling. They asked him, "Are you going to bid on the one in Windsor?" He said, "Yes, I'm very interested in it because I think we can make some money on it as a gambling casino company, but if the community thinks it's going to benefit from it, they have to really re-evaluate that position."

One of the complaints the Liberal critic in the field of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Carman McClelland, has made is that there have not been extensive studies undertaken to determine the effects of casino gambling. The argument is made that somehow this is one casino, "Oh well, don't you worry, this is a pilot project." All this is is the grease for the skids into casinos all over the province.

I'm going to tell you something. I don't want one in St Catharines. There may be people who want one there. There may be business people, there may be people who are entrepreneurs who say, "Oh well, you know, we understand," or people on the other side may say: "It's just because it's in Windsor. It's easy for you to say." No, I don't want it in St Catharines either. I know people are going to say, "Isn't your area hard hit by job losses and wouldn't this bring jobs?" It would bring a lot of low-paying jobs for a little while.

As we recognize in the gambling field, as long as you're the only game in town, you can make money, but once you're no longer the only game in town -- and town in this concept is in the province or is in the country or is in North America -- you don't make that kind of money. They start to lose.

That's why my colleague Carmen McClelland introduced an amendment which said words to the effect that the taxpayers of this province will not be responsible for any debt resulting from the construction or operation of a casino in Ontario, the casino contemplated in this particular legislation.

I would have thought the government, if it was so confident that this was going to be successful economically, would have easily accepted that particular amendment. It's a very sensible amendment, and I'm sure many members of the back benches on the government side thought it was a reasonable amendment, but the government wants to cover the part of the body on which it sits. Therefore, the government has to ensure it's not going to box itself into something it can't get out of and may actually have to bail the casino out, so they leave that provision out of the bill.

I think that was a very intelligent and perceptive amendment on the part of my colleague and I'm very concerned that the government did not accept that particular amendment.

There's also the issue of horse racing. Horse racing in this province -- by the way, I might add while I'm up on my feet, because we don't get this chance very often, I'm also opposed to offtrack betting. I'm sure my telephone will be ringing from all the restaurants and bars who want it in St Catharines, but I'm going to tell you I'm opposed to offtrack betting as well. That's just another opportunity for people to blow their money on stuff they shouldn't be blowing their money on.

But if they want to go down to the racetrack, if they want to watch the horses in action, if they want to see what is going on there, it's a sport. Then what you're doing is taking money away from that sport. At least there's a sport going on there, and this is going to be detrimental to that particular sport.

It's also going to take money out of the pockets of individual charities. I happen to belong to a service club and I know many of the members of the Legislature over the years perhaps have belonged to service clubs.

One of the disconcerting things I saw happen within the service club groupings was the fact that they used to go out to raise money and a lot of good members, women and men, put a lot of time into raising money in a lot of nickel-and-dime stuff and tough slogging to get it, but what happened after a while was, the purpose of some clubs came to be, "Well, how can we get a Wintario grant? How can we get our hands in the public trough?" It was hard to resist because if everybody else is doing it, then of course we should be doing it as well.

So we started to lose. I think the member for Durham East would understand this. He's a sensible person. You started to lose that edge, you started to lose the original purpose of service organizations as governments introduced lotteries. I'm going to make the evaluation that I think casino gambling, particularly if it's extended around the province, is going to take some of that money away.

1620

Yes, the government can say, "Well, we'll make a profit and then we'll give you back the money." I've always felt that the money means more to the club, to the organization, to the service group if they have earned the money themselves through their own projects. Then they provide that to help the community, rather than simply getting it doled out by the government.

It certainly sets a bad tone out there when this main source of income is always the government shelling out to somebody, because very often of course that's the taxpayer who is paying directly through taxes or indirectly through what I call a tax on the poor and a tax on the desperate.

I understand one of the reasons that this bill is being brought forward. it's being brought forward because this government is in desperate financial circumstances. The government has incurred a very large deficit, we are in very difficult economic times, and in desperation is seeking ways to get money in. Yesterday we mentioned photo-radar. I consider --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Oh, please.

Mr Bradley: Now here I lose my friend the member for Durham East, so I'll be very brief on this so I don't lose him. I think he's on my side on the other issue, but on this one I looked at photo-radar and said we wouldn't have photo-radar coming in in this province if it weren't for the fact that the Treasurer needs money and wants money. That's the main reason it came in.

The member may say there are some safety aspects, and I accept his sincerity in putting that forward. But the same thing is true here of casino gambling. The government is desperate. It can't go to the taxpayer and justify some of the expenditures being made and say, "Here are the expenditures and we think there are some additional taxes that should be brought in for this." There would be widespread opposition to that. I understand that. I talk to the public as well. They don't want any more taxes.

So the government was now saying, "What ingenious ways can we develop to get new money in, painless ways?" Of course, the gambling bug is the one that many people will catch and that's a way to get the money in. That's why they're embarking upon it, because of lack of revenue coming in.

The Detroit and Windsor situation: In Detroit they have by referendum over the years rejected a casino. I've been proud of Detroit. I thought it was a pretty wild, wide-open city, but I think the people there recognized that there's a lot of fallout from having a casino and didn't want one. But I'm going to tell you that they're going to have a casino in Detroit.

If you put one in Windsor, as you're bound and determined to do with this bill, then what you're going to find out is that they'll have a bigger and better one because they've got lots of money in the United States. Theirs will be better and it'll be bigger and it'll be more glamorous and Windsor's will suffer as a result.

For instance, I look at Pennsylvania. Somebody, I guess it was Mr Drainville, was talking to somebody from Pennsylvania. They said when they brought in the first casino in Pennsylvania it was quite successful. Then, when they allowed casinos in, they had to spread them out and they really didn't make any more money. Three out of the four died.

Now, if you put one in Niagara Falls, Canada, they'll have one in Niagara Falls, USA. If you put one in Ottawa, they'll have one across the border. If you put one in Fort Frances, they'll have one in International Falls. There'll always be somebody else. We should have stemmed the tide. We should have stuck together as two countries, as states and provinces adjacent, and avoided this intrusion of the new, easy moneymaker for governments. But the government decided it would not do that.

When the former Attorney General, now Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Rainy River, was a student, he did a study for the federal government on casino gambling.

Mr McClelland: Good study; good piece of work.

Mr Bradley: It was an excellent study.

Mr McClelland: Good piece of work.

Mr Bradley: As my friend Mr McClelland says, an excellent piece of work on behalf of Howard Hampton, who is the Minister of Natural Resources.

He came to the conclusion at that time that casino gambling was not good, was not something governments should proceed with. The governments of the day obviously listened to this sage advice. I would have hoped that the government of the day today would have listened to the same advice, because I don't think his mind would be changed just because the government's in desperate financial straits.

I know, being a man of principle, the member for Rainy River, the Natural Resources minister, would still believe, because all members of the New Democratic Party have contended, and their predecessors, the CCF, have contended, that they are people of principle. I know that in principle he would be opposed to this and simply, I suppose, to keep his seat in cabinet, he has to keep quiet. I guess that's a price that he's prepared to pay to stay in the cabinet, because I don't think he would be in favour of this.

So we have in Ontario a major change of pace. We have in Ontario a major new policy. That's a policy that no one would have expected from this particular government.

We have to look then at what the impact is going to be on consumer spending. People have only so many dollars to spend, so many dollars available to them. If they're going to be blowing the money on casino gambling, they're not going to have that money to spend on consumer products which were made in all of our ridings, all of our communities in Ontario. Yes, the casinos might make some money on it, the government might make some money, but people won't be able to spend on those things which create even more jobs in terms of the manufacturing and supply and service sectors.

I look at a number of the issues that surround this. I have another colleague who I think would like to make a contribution. The member for Mississauga West would like to make a contribution as well, and I want to save him a little of the time. But I do want to say -- and he may mention his experience -- he came back from Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, where there was a casino being operated. As a neutral person, he was telling our caucus, a person neutral in this, he kind of thought, "Well, let's see what happens."

He came back, and his observation perhaps was only one night, but he said you looked in there, and if you said who shouldn't be gambling their money away in a casino, that's who he saw in the casino. That's the sad part of it. It's people who are desperate. You can't blame those people. They're desperate in many cases. They don't have a job or they don't have the opportunity to rise through the ranks that others might have in other circumstances, and they're the people who are going to be spending the money.

Go to your corner store. We all know it. Watch the lineup as you're buying bread and milk and whatever else you need at a corner store. Watch the people line up for the tickets. Who buys the most tickets? More often than not, it's two groups of people: one, those addicted to gambling; two, those who are in most desperate economic circumstances, who want to make the big win.

It's a tax on the poor. Rich people aren't there buying. People who are in the higher echelons economically in this province aren't lining up to buy the large numbers of tickets. They are not going to be going to casinos every day of the week either.

So we have a motion before us which is going to compel us to terminate this debate, to not allow us to continue to bring to the people of Ontario the various arguments, to not allow the people to get an insight into the various issues that have arisen. I have many other issues that could arise out of this, quotations that I have used in the past, but I don't want to go over those time and again.

But I think the petition which was brought forward that is perhaps most interesting, and it was brought to many of us, says:

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore we, the following, petition the assembly...."

Obviously, these people are opposed to casino gambling, and these are people who may have been supporters of the NDP in the past. I don't know that, but the fact that they would sign a petition which said the NDP has a tradition of being for all of the things that have been mentioned in this petition would suggest to me that if they were not at least New Democrats, they were people who were either neutral to the political system or perhaps people who leaned to the New Democratic Party on issues of this kind. Even some of the people in this province or this country who haven't voted NDP -- and this was one of the arguments made in the last federal election -- always hoped there would be some New Democrats around to fight these kinds of issues.

That's why Audrey McLaughlin in the latter part of the campaign, when she recognized that her party wasn't going to win too many seats and that there was likely going to be a majority Liberal government, pleaded with people to elect New Democrats to stand up for the issues that you find here.

1630

What they find out, and it's very disillusioning, is that when a New Democratic Party gets in government it doesn't stand for those issues anymore. In opposition, they made some good arguments. I've read some of the speeches. I've sat in this House since 1977 and heard various excellent speakers from the New Democratic Party defend the position I am defending at the present time. I would have thought that they would have been the people who would have prevented this from happening, prevented casino gambling from being introduced.

It's very difficult for the Speaker who is in the chair at the present time, the member for Niagara Falls, and difficult for me because there are going to be people in our communities who are going to say: "Well, you're in desperate straits in the Niagara region. Why don't you have a casino as well?" I've stated unequivocally that I don't want a casino in St Catharines. I can't speak for any other member but, I'll tell you, it's very attractive. There are very attractive arguments made for the spinoff and the jobs and so on, but the studies I have seen, and they've been limited, indicate that it is unlikely to be much of a spinoff effect in Windsor, that most people are going to come in, they're going to blow their money at the casino and then they're going to head out of town.

We're not going to see what we see in Las Vegas, where people fly in from all over and stay a few days because there is a lot of other entertainment. You've got Wayne Newton -- whoever goes to see Wayne Newton -- or Frank Sinatra or somebody else or a boxing match, something else that's going on in Las Vegas. That's not going to happen in the circumstances in Ontario.

I find it a very sad day in this Legislature. I find a lot of things that are happening today disconcerting. I find it particularly disconcerting that we're heading down a path to casino gambling. I'm going to say something: Once you've got it, it's very hard to take it away. Once this bill is passed, once the casino is set up, if another government comes into power, it's very hard for that government to go in and say: "Yes, we were opposed to it in the past and guess what? We're going to yank it out." It doesn't happen that way; things don't happen that way.

That's why it has to be stopped now. That's why it's important to have this debate in the House today. I only wish that members of the governing party, many of whom I know are opposed to this legislation, were allowed to speak their minds and vote the way they want to. They can't do it because of our system. It's not because they're lacking in intestinal fortitude; it's because our parliamentary system doesn't lend itself to that.

Therefore, they would have to really put their own jobs on the line in terms of parliamentary secretaries or committee chairs or something, because the Premier would make sure they were fired out the door and from those positions if they opposed government policy. That's the way the system operates. I've seen that happen many times in many different circumstances. I don't want to simply pin it on the government of the day. That's the way the system works.

I would really love to hear some of the speeches that could be made by members of the New Democratic Party if they were really allowed to say what they think and I would be interested in the vote in this House. It might be surprising. I think you would probably find people in all three parties divided as to whether they agree or disagree with casino gambling.

I don't think everything lends itself to a free vote by any means, because government policy is government policy and it has to defend that policy, but I think casino gambling would have been one area where it would have been very advisable to have the members of this Legislature speaking on behalf of their constituents, attempting to reflect the community points of view, voting on this issue as individual members. Some day that may happen. It is not going to happen today.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to contribute to this debate, which is essentially the closing down of the debate on Bill 8, the gambling casino bill. I will say that the last time I participated in any discussions involving gambling casinos was in committee of the whole when we were in the middle of speaking to an amendment by the Liberal critic, the member for Brampton North, who was simply asking a very simple question -- I didn't mean it as a simple question from the member for Brampton North -- with respect to a very obvious request, that if you're going to operate a gambling casino and you're going to allow someone outside the government to be participating in it, why would the province of Ontario guarantee the debt?

His amendment, and I don't have the precise wording in front of me, was a very simple amendment that the province of Ontario would not be responsible for the debt of a casino. We spent a considerable period of time on that and I will say the parliamentary assistant was unable to answer a lot of the questions. He assured us, "Oh well, this will be provided for in contracts with the casino operators," because this bill applies not just to Windsor but to future gambling casinos across this province, whether they be in Toronto, Sault Ste Marie, Ottawa, perhaps Niagara Falls, wherever the various casinos are being proposed.

The concern of the members of the opposition, and certainly the member for Brampton North, who put the amendment forward, was that it's fine to say, "Oh well, there'll be a contract with respect to Windsor," but why wouldn't you ensure, with respect to the rest of the province, that the province won't be picking up the debt, won't be guaranteeing the debt in the same way the province of Ontario seems to be saddled with the debt of such things as SkyDome and other such matters as Teranet? I will say it was strange that's how it was left. That question remains unanswered and will remain unanswered until we see exactly what happens for the future.

So here we are with a time allocation motion that is essentially going to shut down the debate on gambling casinos, not only in the committee but with respect to third reading. The whole topic of gambling casinos, gambling in the province of Ontario -- how ironic that a government run by the New Democratic Party is putting forth this legislation.

I'm reading, as many of us are, a little book that's been put out recently. I can't remember who wrote it. It's called Giving Away A Miracle, which talks about the history of the New Democratic Party --

Mr Bradley: Giving it away as a Christmas present.

Mr Tilson: Yes -- with respect to the history going back to the CCF: Mr Woodsworth, Mr Douglas and the very moralistic aspects, whether it's the CCF or the NDP. They described the history of their party right up until the present time and how it's evolved. I will say it is a strange situation, a very ironic situation, that a party that has stood up in the past for such moralistic principles -- and many, whether you're a member of the New Democratic Party or whether you're a member of any other philosophical party within this province, in many ways admired that philosophy. But that philosophy seems to be abandoned. It will be interesting to see how many people on the government side are in the room when they vote for this resolution and any other resolution involving gambling casinos, because you're going to have a lot to answer for to your constituents, whether it be on this subject or on the subject of Sunday shopping.

I can't let this time go by but to refer very briefly to the Reverend Drainville, the member who resigned from Victoria-Haliburton to run in the federal election and who was a former member of the New Democratic government and sat as an independent in this House. One of the main reasons why he did resign from the government was --

Mr Mills: I think he was a member of all three parties.

Mr Tilson: You know, you can be critical of Mr Drainville, but you have to admire what he stood for. He did stand for the principles of the New Democratic Party. He was one of the few who did and he made it quite firm in his speeches in this place. I can well imagine the speeches he made in caucus and I can well imagine the attempts he made to persuade members of the government to reverse this position. I obviously don't always agree with Mr Drainville on some of his other philosophical statements, but I will admire his fortitude in standing up for what he thought was right as opposed to hiding on voting and as opposed to simply voting with the gang.

He did stand up for his rights and he sent scads of pieces of literature around to all of us, whether members of the government, Liberal or Conservative parties. One of the pieces of literature he passed around, which I believe the member for St Catharines referred to in his presentation, was remarks from a public broadcast interview with Donald Trump.

Mr Trump, in his usual candid way, made a couple of statements. This was broadcast on the program Venture, April 4, 1993, and I'm simply referring to what appears to be a transcript that Mr Drainville has prepared and sent to all of us.

1640

I'm going to quote from some of the things that Mr Trump, who knows the gambling business, said, because Mr Drainville sent that to us so that we can perhaps better understand from someone inside the system as to where you're going with this legislation.

Mr Trump said: "Gaming doesn't come cheap, and I have to agree with a lot of the critics on that. It brings crime" -- as the former Attorney General, Mr Hampton, said, who did a very extensive report, which I filed in this House some time ago after the bill was presented. "It brings prostitution. It brings a lot of things that maybe areas didn't have before. It brings money, but also the money is dissipated because maybe you're going to have to pay your school teachers more because otherwise you're going to lose your school teachers. They're going to be working in the casinos as croupiers." I'm probably pronouncing that word wrong, but not being in the gambling business, I don't know what the heck that is. "There's a big cost to pay.

"I mean, most jurisdictions have considered gaming and most jurisdictions, even though right now it seems to be the craze, but most jurisdictions have rejected it. And the ones that have accepted it, many of them if you gave them their choice again, they would have turned it down." This is from Donald Trump, whom we all think of as a gambling czar in the United States.

Robert Scully, the person who was interviewing him, then said, "That's odd coming from someone who owns three casinos."

Mr Trump then said: "No, no. I'm telling you the facts. The facts are that it's just been a very negative experiment for a lot of cities and a lot of areas. And again most people -- well, they've been looking at gambling in Florida for years and Florida has correctly turned it down. Florida's a booming economy. It's doing great and they've decided not to rely on the casinos.

"New Orleans is going to do a casino. It's going to totally change the whole incredible city. It's going to change it. It's going to be a different city."

Mr Scully then said, "Is it going to be worse?" and Mr Trump said, "Well, it's going to be a city much," and he started to say "worse," but he said, "much different and perhaps worse. You can't say worse, but perhaps it will be worse. I mean, the French Quarter, these areas in New Orleans, these are classic great areas. This is not a city that's got problems from the traditional standpoint. It's going to be a very different place. So, you really have to be careful with a gaming experiment and we'll see what happens."

Then he went on and I won't quote from it any further, but I will say that this is the last chance. This is the last chance for the party of the philosophy of the CCF, the philosophy of Tommy Douglas, which is now, can you believe it, into gambling? The province of Ontario is into gambling to pay off its deficit. I'll tell you it is a gamble. It's a major gamble when you look at what's going on all around us, when you look at the gambling casinos all around us. That may be morally bad or it may be morally good. I don't really want to talk about morals. I will say that business sense -- it's as if the casino in Windsor is going to be the only casino in this place, and of course we're predicting more.

But do you really think that people are going to flock to Windsor to gamble? Do you really think this is going to improve the economy of Windsor? There was the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition, and everybody's had scads of literature on this whole topic because I don't know who wants it. The Windsor city council perceives it's going to make lots of money.

This letter that came from Dr Glen Brown, who is the chair of the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition, went to many of you, I believe. He said: "Who wants the casinos? Not the people." Then he referred to the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, which at its last convention voted unanimously against casinos. We've heard countless petitions from all sides, from the Liberals, the Conservatives and even the NDP. It'll be interesting to see who in the New Democratic Party who has been reading petitions is going to vote aye or nay with respect to this resolution and with respect to any other resolution involving gambling casinos, because they stand up in their place and they say they're opposed to gambling. Are they going to be in the House to vote? Well, time remains.

Dr Brown says that in the United States, casino introduction requires a referendum. There hasn't been one passed in a number of years. We've asked, "Why don't you have a referendum?" Why don't you have a referendum on this subject? Do the people really want it? When you can have an intelligent debate in this place, not only in this place but in the areas where they're going to have it; when you hear the stories that have occurred, whether it be in Atlantic City, Las Vegas, all places across this North American continent where casinos seem to be -- the wealthy corporations seem to be reaping in all kinds of funds.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Order. There seem to be conversations going on. I would appreciate if I could hear the member. The member for Dufferin-Peel, proceed.

Mr Tilson: Dr Brown continues: "Detroit has seen them rejected by the voters on at least three occasions. The city of Windsor," referring specifically to the council, with all due respect to the city council of the city of Windsor, "feels they'll create more business. It does seem odd," Dr Brown says, "that the losses Windsor suffered due to cross-border shopping prompted the location of the first casino in that city."

The current Minister of Education, whatever he's called, it is said, was mainly instrumental in bringing gambling to this province. He's the source, he's the so-called power of the New Democratic Party that has brought gambling to hopefully improve the economy of Windsor. Dr Brown says: "Do they really expect Americans will now shop in Windsor? We still have the same higher prices burdened by a 15% sales tax." And yes, there's GST. Yes, the Conservative government in Ottawa has its GST; they brought that in. And yes, you people have brought in terrible, terrible taxes to this province.

Why would people shop in Windsor? Why would the Americans come over to Windsor to shop here? You can get goods a heck of a lot cheaper in the United States now, and you know it. They're not going to come to Windsor to shop. They're going to come for crime and prostitution and gambling. That's why they're going to come here.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): That's so cheap.

Mr Tilson: I'm sorry, it's not cheap and you know it.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member has the floor.

Mr Tilson: Dr Brown continues, "The average length of stay for an Atlantic City visitor is six hours, with virtually the entire time spent in the casino." There are statistics that have come forward as to what's going on in Atlantic City, where buses come in from all over the land to gamble. They don't shop there. They get out of the bus, they go into the casino, they gamble, and they get back on the bus and they leave. They don't shop in Atlantic City.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The implication here is that every single American who goes to Windsor is there to perpetrate crime. That is so untrue; that is so low.

The Acting Speaker: That is the member's opinion.

Mr Perruzza: I realize they can't vote in this country, but that's totally inappropriate, especially coming from --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Downsview take his seat.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The member is willing to listen to the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: The final sentence that Dr Brown said in his letter, which obviously many of the members who are heckling from across the government side -- "Windsor will be no different and shopping will continue to be done on the other side of the Detroit River."

We all know that's exactly what's going to happen. They're not going to come to Windsor to shop. They're going to come to Windsor to gamble. That's assuming there isn't going to be a gambling casino in Detroit. The whole thing's going to be thrown up in the air, and that's the fear I have. Because the taxpayer of the province of Ontario is getting involved in this little experiment, this little test, as to whether or not gambling can work.

1650

That's where I am opposed to what you're doing. You're rolling the dice. You're gambling on whether or not gambling is going to be successful to earn revenue to pay off your deficit, and all of the other funny programs that you have in this province. You're trying it in Windsor, of all places, and I can tell you that people are not going to shop in Windsor, they're going to shop in Detroit, and my guess is that if they have a gambling casino in Detroit, they're going to gamble in Detroit as opposed to Windsor. Why? Because they'll do a better job than the province of Ontario will.

Those are the immediate concerns I have. I will say that participating in the debate during committee of the whole, and specifically on the amendment that was put forward by the member for Brampton North, all kinds of questions came to all of us that remain unanswered and will continue to remain unanswered.

It brought to mind an article by Mr Walkom in the Toronto Star where he asked a whole series of questions. This was an October 18 article in the Toronto Star. Mr Walkom always has an interesting way of saying things, but most of his article was spent asking questions with respect to the gambling casino experiment that's being tried by this province.

He referred to the concern of the member for Parry Sound, who talked about really the changing of the zoning and the expropriation laws of this province simply so that they could ram this thing through by December 6 to avoid litigation. That's why we're doing this now. That's the real reason why Bill 8 is being rammed through now, so that the people who want to oppose those applications won't have that right.

Everywhere else in the province of Ontario, they'll have the right, but they won't have the right there. It will simply do away with any potential legal action -- and I don't know what the status of that is -- simply to give Windsor the right to expropriate land for gambling, and that will head off any court challenge. That was one of the questions that Mr Walkom asked.

Then the last part of his column was just a series of questions, and those questions will remain unanswered because of this whole process. They were questions that I believe could have been put forward in committee of the whole. Normally that is what committee of the whole is for, so that we can put forward amendments to bills and we can have the opportunity to ask questions of the parliamentary assistant or the minister, if the minister ever chooses to come to this place. Those questions could be put forward and answers could be given. We won't have an opportunity to ask the questions, and certainly the questions will remain unanswered, probably for ever.

One of the other questions -- it's in your clippings and I'm sure you can find it, but I'd recommend that you look at this article before you vote because quite clearly the article does express a lot of concerns of the opposition. He refers to the secret minutes of the casino project that were leaked to the press to describe Caesar's, one of the applicants, having lots of mob involvement in the 1960s and being cleaned up in the 1970s. There's all kinds of things about that.

Then it talked about a couple of other questions.

Mr McClelland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Is there a quorum?

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I would like to put on the record at least the questions that were asked and that will never get answers in this place. The bill will be passed and these very good questions will never, never be answered.

Firstly, he did talk about the legislation that is of course going to do away with people who may contest the expropriation proceedings or the zoning proceedings with respect to Windsor, but then he started talking about another question: "Why is the government trying to replicate Atlantic City and Las Vegas in Windsor? Why doesn't it take the lead from Winnipeg's successful casino and run the operation itself?"

I shudder quite frankly at the province of Ontario running a gambling casino when I really believe that most of you over there don't even believe in this stuff, but the hard core, whoever runs the place, has decided that we're going to have gambling casinos in this province to try to raise money for your programs.

There are questions that should be answered and haven't been answered. There have been no feasibility studies. I went to one of the days of hearings. I sat in on one day of the hearings and the consultant that the government had hired to come and justify what the government has been doing -- which is the most crazy thing I've ever seen in this place, where you start on an adventure down the road to have interim gambling casinos and permanent gambling casinos and then you have a consultant come and justify what you're doing. That's what happened.

Next question: "Why doesn't the minister responsible for casinos seem to know what is going on?" I will say that when I was the critic for Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Brampton North and the member for Parry Sound, in their current capacities as critics in the two opposition parties for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- with all due respect to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, she doesn't seem to have the foggiest idea as to what's going on. Whenever questions are asked, the answers just don't seem to be there. She doesn't seem to be able to explain why the government is going on this route.

I can honestly say, I look at the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I can't believe, having observed her on council, a person who has in the past voted against casinos -- and we must never forget that. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in her life as a municipal politician voted against this whole system.

That's okay because that's a philosophy of the New Democratic Party. Someone's told her to go the other way. Someone's told her to flip the coin and do something else. So she's never been able to answer adequately questions that have been put forward by any of the critics at any time involving gambling casinos.

"What's the hurry?" That's the big question. What is the hurry? If you're going to do something as major as this, that is going to have an effect -- I mean, the New Democratic Party, when lotteries were brought in, was very concerned about compulsive gambling. There were tirades that went on all over the place.

It may not have been too many of the people from the current group that's before us now, but we can remember what they were saying. Philosophically, they were against lotteries and they were worried about compulsive gambling.

I haven't heard a peep from this current minister as to what she intends to do with respect to the subject of compulsive gambling, because it's going to increase. As the member for St Catharines quite rightly said, it's the compulsive gambler who's going to get into this sort of thing, or it's going to be the person who simply can't afford it, the worker, the so-called worker whom you people used to represent. Remember them?

What is the hurry? Why are we ramming this through? Why are we having an interim gambling casino? Why are we having that? Why can't we do it right? Why can't we have a feasibility study that properly explains where we're going in this direction?

Why can't we justifiably speak to the police of this province and be worried about crime and prostitution and the effect it's going to have on the moral fabric of our province, aside from whether or not we've got the financial resources to deal with the guaranteed crime, corruption and prostitution that's going to come to this province because of this process?

Why do I say that? Well, it happens in every other jurisdiction that's got into gambling casinos, every other jurisdiction. It's been documented, yet that question remains unanswered.

Mr Walkom continues:

"Why does there have to be an interim casino? Why does it have to be put in an art gallery which will have to be refurbished at great public expense? Why is Windsor so anxious to expropriate land for its permanent casino now, before the act legalizing casinos has even been passed?"

Well, it's going to be passed first, we know that. That's why we're here now. That's why we're ramming it through. That's why we're not allowing any more debate on this topic. Every day we seem to have time allocation. What kind of a government are you running over there?

This is Mr Walkom's column that I have been referring to: "The government expects a big economic boost from casinos. Is this realistic?" Is it realistic? Is it realistic that this much revenue is going to come to the coffers of the province of Ontario?

1700

There may be stats as to what casinos make in other jurisdictions, but there don't seem to be a great deal of stats as to how they're going to deal with the problems of compulsive gambling, with police, with the effect that it's going to have on the horse racing industry, the effect that it's going to have on agriculture, the effect that it's going to have on all aspects of our society, the effect that it's going to have on charities, as to whether or not charities are going to be able to raise funds in the present the way they have in the past.

Those are all questions that really haven't been answered. They should have been asked and answered in committee of the whole. That would have been the opportune time to ask those questions of the parliamentary assistant, but we're precluded from doing that in this time allocation motion.

"Why haven't casinos given such a boost to American states? Why is Atlantic City still a 'hovel'?" In the second reading of this bill, I referred to an article from the Toronto Star that talked about that, that whole topic of Atlantic City and what gambling has done to Atlantic City. It's tragic. It really is tragic what has happened to that city. I'm not going to read the article again. You can all look at your Hansards and you can all read the article. It was an article from the Toronto Star, May 9, 1992, that I referred to in the past.

I will say that the experiment that happened in Atlantic City, supposedly to improve the economy of Atlantic City, supposedly to increase salaries of individuals working in that area, to make their lives better, to improve the buildings, the streets, just hasn't happened. I'm not going to repeat what I said before, but it's tragic what's happened in many of these communities.

Mr Walkom continues, in his final two paragraphs:

"If, as is almost certain, Detroit sets up a competing casino, will the Ontario government really reap the tax revenues that were the original justification for this gambling adventure?

"Was any of this ever really thought out?"

That says it all in a nutshell: Was any of this ever really thought out? I know what's happened over there. The Treasurer looked at the gambling casinos. I mean, Mr Trump is right, there's a craze going on now. We've got riverboat gambling and we've got casinos popping up all over the place in jurisdictions in the United States, Montreal, Winnipeg, some of the provinces in the west. It looks as if it's the thing to do. Notwithstanding the philosophy of the New Democratic Party, it looks as if it's a way to get money, to get money at all costs. To heck with your principles, you're going to get in on gambling, the whole concept of getting something for nothing.

I respected part of their philosophy. Most of the philosophy of the New Democratic Party I have not respected, but that's one area of your philosophy that I have respected in the past, the aversion to setting something up to get something for nothing. Now you appear to be worse than anyone with respect to doing that.

We've had petitions from various churches that have come forward and been read in this House. It appears that they've had no effect on the government.

There have been petitions from other organizations, from charities and individuals who have organized petitions. They have been read in this place. Thousands of signatures have been signed opposing this philosophy.

I received some communication from the United Church of Canada expressing some of its thoughts. I could pick up, I suppose, literature from any of the other churches around this province. They're all opposed to it. They're all opposed to it for, obviously, moralistic reasons, because they're afraid of the principle of letting people think you're going to get something for nothing. They're afraid of the social problems that are going to be created.

These are tough times. People are losing their jobs. People are losing their families. There may be one way out for some of them, and that's to go and gamble, to gamble their last dollar.

The United Church of Canada sent quite a package to me and, I'm certain, quite a package to many of you. There may have been other churches that have done the same. In the package they did send to me, they refer to an article that came from the Globe and Mail. It was an editorial, I guess, that came from the Toronto Globe and Mail of March 13 of this year.

They talked about a book that has been written. I haven't read it; I've perused it but I haven't read it. It's called Temples of Chance: How America Inc Bought Out Murder Inc to Win Control of the Casino Business. This was partially a book review and partially editorial comment. I'd like to refer to that, because it does express some of the concerns of the United Church of Canada specifically and other churches around this great province.

"When casinos arrived in Atlantic City in 1978, they were supposed to revitalize a community that symbolized urban decay. Not so." As I referred to in my speech on the second reading, it hasn't happened. It hasn't turned out that way at all. It's been a tragedy. They've gone from bad to worse in Atlantic City. Why? Because of the greed of the gambling casino.

"More than a decade later, Atlantic City still has the highest jobless rate in New Jersey. Crime remains epidemic. And more of its residents live in public housing than in any other US city.

"The real beneficiaries were the huge corporations that control the multibillion-dollar casino business in the United States," which are now going to be guaranteed by the province of Ontario, because Mr McClelland's amendment will not be carried or will not even be considered. Can you imagine?

This book was written by David Johnston, and the editorial goes on by referring to David Johnston's book: "As Mr Johnston persuasively demonstrates, casinos are not an antidote to a rusting economy. They create no new wealth and, instead of high-paying manufacturing jobs, they generate low-paying ones." That is the real issue. When you start looking at the economy of Windsor or Niagara Falls or any other place, the whole fact of the matter is that people are now going to be getting jobs that aren't as well-paying as they are now. So whether you're talking housing or whether you're talking jobs, the whole conduct of the economy, the whole fabric of the society, is going down in Atlantic City.

I'm going to finish very soon, because there are a few other members who wish to address the House on this topic. I would like to say a few more words with respect to the editorial from the Globe and Mail on Atlantic City.

"'The casinos are to Atlantic City,'" and this is a quote from Mr Johnston's book, "'as factories are to a Third World country, thrown up at a distant location, served by a highway designed primarily to obtain raw materials and ship out finished products.'

"Turning auto workers into blackjack dealers is hardly a recipe for prosperity. 'As well-paying industrial jobs have begun to dry up in America, the children of blue collar workers...are finding gambling tables the 1990s equivalent of the assembly lines....[Casino jobs] mean less money, often less than half what their parents made with fewer benefits, little individual job security and no sense that their labour is building anything tangible or enduring.'" A very sad description as to where the province of Ontario is going in these communities that are going to have gambling casinos.

I'm going to conclude on the greatest fear I have: the fear of crime and all the matters that are related to crime that seem to develop out of gambling casinos. We are told, at least during the hearings and outside the hearings, specifically by such people as the Peel regional chief of police, Robert Lunney, that the police really weren't adequately consulted in this whole process. That's another question that remains unanswered.

1710

I will now sit down and give the floor to some other members of the House. With all these unanswered questions I will say that this bill, this whole process, is a tragic thing to the province of Ontario.

Mr Stockwell: I believe it to be somewhat of a dubious honour to be speaking to a motion of closure, considering the fact that we had a debate yesterday on closure and now we're entering into another debate on the same subject, dealing with a different piece of legislation.

To me, closure motions are placed in the House or in this Legislature at times when there appears to be some issue that is rather compelling or imperative to be passed by the government. There seems to be little defence a government can offer on a closure motion when it comes to legislation that is being debated in this House by those members elected to represent those points of view that are different than the government's.

It's equally distressing for me and I believe others in this province that a government of this ilk, this political thinking, this background, this history, that has on many occasions -- and I've actually rhymed them off, its positions and policy on closure in previous debates about a closure motion, that it held such strong and vibrant views opposed to any government that brought forward a closure or time allocation motion.

To allow some history into this subject, we can discuss at some length the rule changes that took place, brought forward by this government, supported by this government, by you, as Speaker, I know, and by other members in this government. Those new rule changes made it even more stringent and difficult for opposition members to put forward their positions on a number of issues, as wide-ranging and broad as they may be. When the new rules were brought forward by this government, they restricted the opportunities of those elected to represent viewpoints different than the government sitting at the time could do.

It's a sad day, I believe, in any democratic process when a time allocation or closure motion must be brought forward by the government. Of course there are days, and everyone will be fair, that maybe the opposition has prolonged the debate, unduly elongated it to the point where closure is necessary.

I think too that you must measure the type of debate you're having as to whether or not closure should be brought forward, and maybe you should also look at the mandate of the government on the piece of legislation that is before the House at that time and measure whether closure should be brought forward on those particular issues.

So, in my opening comments, I want to talk about the last two motions that were brought forward by this government on time allocation and the pieces of legislation that they are in fact --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): What about your closing comments, Chris?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would you address the Chair, please.

Mr Stockwell: It was an attempt at humour, Madam Speaker.

I also think it's important that we must examine the pieces of legislation that governments bring closure motions forward on.

I don't know if you could have a lot of debate with a government that campaigned on an issue and was duly elected to a legitimate majority and therefore it felt somehow restricted in passing legislation that it campaigned on. That may well be a reasonably good argument to introduce closure.

For instance, if we were debating government-run auto insurance today and it was a long debate and it was being prolonged by forces outside this House and opposition forces inside this House, you may have an argument from the government side to say, "We now must move closure because we want to pass this legislation and we were mandated in the last general election in the province of Ontario to carry out these legislative initiatives," and there could be some debate.

We're not debating public auto insurance. We don't need to debate that, because they changed their minds. If we were debating some changes to policies that they brought in as opposition, when you think about government spending, deficit financing, any of the programs they're calling for, changes to WCB, any of those kinds of things that they spoke about on this side of the House and out in the broader public during the last campaign, I think there may be some rationale on the government side to say: "Gee, we need closure. We told people we were going to do this and we've got to do it."

But here's the rub, and the rub is this: Yesterday we talked about photo-radar, and this government brought forward closure on photo-radar. Never in the campaign of 1990 or previous to the introduction of the legislation did I hear this government ever talk about photo-radar. Never did I hear them talk about the institution of photo-radar. Never did I hear them say that photo-radar was a necessity that this province needed and that they campaigned on that during the 1990 election. Never.

So I'm a little cynical when it comes to moving closure on a money-grabbing motion like photo-radar. To add insult to injury, we now get closure on a very subject that was talked about in opposition by this government, was debated at length in opposition by this government, was campaigned on by this government during the 1990 general election and in fact rejected out of hand as being an unacceptable process, an unacceptable piece of legislation for the people of the province of Ontario.

So not only are we not debating an issue that they campaigned on that they felt closure would be needed for, not only are we talking about a closure motion on a subject that never came up, but we're talking about a subject that this government spoke about at length and dismissed, rejected, opposed at every turn that we now have to be so offended --

Mr White: You brought it in.

Mr Stockwell: Madam Speaker, I say to the member from Durham, the suggestion is that this government brought in some kind of lottery. If it were this government across the floor, at least our history, our campaigns, our promises would have at least allowed some degree of latitude on our government's part because we had endorsed it. But you, in opposition, sir, opposed lotteries because they were a tax on the poor.

Mr White: But now you're opposing the very things that you brought in. You brought them in.

Mr Stockwell: Madam Speaker, a tax on the poor. That's what they said.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: So we in this House are left with the unenviable task of trying to debate a motion, a piece of legislation that you dismissed out of hand in the campaign and in opposition, and you now move closure on us who oppose it in some districts in this province. You won't even allow us the opportunity of debating the issue.

This is more than ironic. "Hypocritical" may be a somewhat harsh term, but considering the complete difference of view, the absolute and total change of this government's view on gambling, you'd hardly think that a government that had changed so dramatically in the course of three years on gambling and its effects on the poor and its effects on people who have the disease to gamble, its effects on all those Ontarians that they represented, you'd think they'd allow the opposition, those people out there, to have a fair and unfettered say about their opposition to your turnabout.

But here we are. Here we are today --

Mr White: It's your turnabout. How can you stand here and talk about "your turnabout"?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East, come to order, please.

Mr Stockwell: I think that Mr Broadbent's brother didn't go far enough when discussing the issues of the federal election with this member. He should have gone even a little further.

We here on this side of the House are now in the very awkward situation of having to listen to heckling from a government member who campaigned in opposition to legalized gambling. Now we must sit here and he heckles us while we're debating a closure motion for the institution of legalized gambling, which he opposed a few short months ago.

Mr White: I never did oppose it, sirrah.

1720

Mr Stockwell: That's a revisionist I see.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Who opposed it, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: As I hear the heckling, I will remark on the heckling.

There are some members across the floor who said they never opposed it. I can only say to those members, you were not listening very closely to the leadership of your party which you so gamely campaigned under in the last provincial election, the leadership of your party who on record opposed, let alone gambling -- and they opposed that in written form -- but opposed a simple lottery. Why? Because they said it was a tax on the poor.

The Acting Speaker: It would help if you would address your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: I'm always addressing my remarks through you, Madam Speaker.

You said it was a tax on the poor. We have revisionist history now from the member for Durham West -- not West. Durham --

Mr Tilson: Durham something.

Mr Stockwell: Durham Centre, the member from Drummond White. This is a revisionist. Now he becomes a revisionist suggesting this government did not in fact oppose legalized gambling. So we now in opposition are faced --

Mr Mammoliti: You're losing it, Chris. Go back to your notes. Tell him to go back to his notes, David.

Mr Stockwell: -- as I said before I was so rudely interrupted -- with the unenviable task of hearing a closure motion come from a government that was opposed to this legislation all through their historical life until today, or until very recent history.

Mr Mammoliti: Always the same argument. Go on to another argument, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I can go on to another argument. The member suggests I should go on to another argument. I say to the member across the floor, and through you, Madam Speaker, it is a difficult situation to be in to debate the socialist government in Ontario. The hypocrisy is at heights of incredible levels.

Now with reversals in policies simply laughter comes forward. Laughter. When they reverse their decisions on gambling, on insurance, on all the issues that they dealt with, they snicker. I mean, I just can't believe it. They're reduced to snickering about the fact that they, their members, campaigned on a series of issues, and with the reversals on these issues they leave themselves snickering as if it's some kind of joke that you've let down any person who ever voted for your party in the history of your party.

I don't know how you can treat it so cavalierly. I don't know how you can stand before this Legislature and be so cavalier about the hypocrisy of it all. Then in the situation we're in, to move closure on a gambling bill that you're supporting and you're muzzling opposition over to the extent that one of your members left your party, resigned from the House because he was so disgusted with your government -- they laugh; they think it's funny.

Mr Mammoliti: Who was laughing, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: Maybe not the member from Windsor, but certainly the member from Durham.

I just find it absolutely distasteful to sit here and see this as some kind of defence. It's a defence they offer us, a snicker. I ask you, Madam Speaker -- and I have a great deal of respect for you, because I know you take many of these issues far more seriously and think they're far more important than some others.

But there are many people out there who come to my constituency office who are ex-card-carrying members of the socialist party, the NDP. This is how bad, this is how low a level you have reached. I would never have expected card-carrying members of the NDP to come to my constituency office and ask me to defend their rights against you. Against you. They're asking me to stand up and stop legalized gambling against you, the party that they supported and had membership in. They never thought in a million years you'd be bringing forward, let alone moving closure on, legalized gambling. That's how low it's gotten.

So I say to these people, I say in my personal opinion -- I've not been on the record -- I have very little difficulty with legalized gambling, very little. None. I don't know if it shocks you or not. I mean, I don't gamble -- hardly ever. Never been to Las Vegas; never been to Atlantic City. I don't really find it that terrible a thing to do, to gamble. But the people who come to see me claim to have positions etched in stone by this government that would never allow legalized gambling, and I'm now their last hope to defend the things you suggested you stood for.

Mr Mammoliti: That's not true, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: That is very true. And you want to know the sad realities of the situation: I don't think they even know it, this government, this crew. I don't even think they know how mistrusted, disliked --

Mr Mills: Don't be so disrespectful. We're not a crew.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry. If a "crew" is unparliamentary language --

Mr Mills: We're a government.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: A crew -- I don't suppose it because --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I withdraw. A crew would be working together; I would never accuse them of working together, this crowd. The sad reality is, I don't think this crowd really understands the mistrust, dislike and concern out there in the public domain. I don't think they have any idea of the number of people in the province of Ontario whose sole purpose in political life now is to see you people removed from office.

Mr Mills: I can't stand it. I'm so popular in Durham East I can't stand it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East come to order, please.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Durham East is so popular he can't stand it in Durham East. Let's get that on the record as a matter of fact, because he's going to be really surprised how quickly --

The Acting Speaker: Will the member address the resolution before the House.

Mr Stockwell: He's going to be so surprised in 18 months how they've turned on him. He's going to be amazed how quickly they've turned on him. In 18 months, he's going to say, "They turned on me in no time."

The closure motions to the public out there, other than those directly impacted by the legislation before us -- they don't really believe or they're not as concerned about closure motions or legislation before the House unless they're directly impacted by the legislation. What the people out there are saying -- they're coming to me, phoning my office and clearly they phone --

Mr Mammoliti: You're always interrupting.

Mr Stockwell: You know what astounds me is they obviously don't understand that constituents phone your office. Now, look, I'm not surprised they don't phone your office. I'm really not surprised, because I know they've given up phoning a lot of their offices. Let me give you an example.

Mr Mammoliti: The member believes constituency offices should be shut down. He's got a lot of nerve. He's making me mad.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Yorkview, that is not appropriate in this House. The member has the floor; he has the right to express his opinion.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Will the members come to order.

Mr Mammoliti: He wants to close down his constituency office.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Yorkview, come to order.

Mr Stockwell: I have obviously made one of the View Brothers mad and I certainly didn't mean to do that. I certainly didn't mean to do that. Speak of the devil.

I was speaking just a moment ago about how disenchanted the electorate is out there and, of course, in a motion of closure, and it's very undemocratic, a lot of the people out there are very concerned about a lot of things this government's doing and probably closure motions are not at the top of their order.

What is on top of their order is a government that would discriminate the way they discriminated in a public ad that was discriminating against white, English-speaking males. I can't tell you the number of calls I had about that. I'm not kidding you. I got at least from my constituency office, Queen's Park, I'd say 100 phone calls on that one issue alone. Without a word of a lie, 100 phone calls on that one issue.

You know why? Because clearly if this government came in the next day and said they were withdrawing that ad, you know full well they had a significant number of calls to the Premier's office to make them make that kind of a decision and a reversal on such an important issue that they thought they had. But that's something that affects those people out there. That has made them really mad and they're mad because they think this government is discriminating against some of them.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Would the member make sure that he is addressing this resolution before the House.

Mr Stockwell: As I said, Madam Speaker, and I was referring this back to the closure motion, these are the kinds of issues that make people mad. The defence you get from them on reversals on public policy, the defence they have is a simple, "That was then and this is now," or a snicker or laughing. I just find it rather astounding.

Mr White: We're not laughing, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: The member from Durham's back. I thought I heard him; there he is, way in the back.

Now we have to debate closure on gambling. I guess I don't know who was opposed to gambling, because all those members across there right now seem to be fully in favour of gambling. I don't know when the conversion took place. I'd look to the cabinet. I can't believe the Minister of Housing was in favour of gambling casinos. I don't get any expression of acknowledgement, but I assume you were opposed to gambling casinos when you were in opposition, because it would seem to me to be a policy of your government and that you must have endorsed that policy. But you can't get them to say a word about it.

You look at the other two cabinet ministers. The Minister of Agriculture, I assume you were opposed to gambling as a card-carrying member of the NDP. I assume the Attorney General was opposed to gambling in your other life as -- I don't know the title; I'm sorry, I'm at a loss for the title -- a representative of a women's shelter. I assume that you were opposed to gambling when you were in that life. I can only make these assumptions. I know your Premier was opposed to gambling because he was on the record in the House here. I know the Treasurer was opposed to gambling; he was on the record in this House. I look around and I see the member for Peterborough. I can only assume you were opposed to gambling as a card-carrying member of the NDP.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I still am.

Mr Stockwell: You still are. Well, there's someone who is. I know the member for Victoria-Haliburton was opposed to gambling. He left the party.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Where is he now? Where did it get him?

Mr Stockwell: It got him in the same place that these people are going -- unemployed.

I ask, when did this conversion take place and why are you moving closure? Why are you trying to shut down the opposition to a public policy that apparently most of you don't agree with? Apparently, in your other lives, in your previous lives in opposition, as opposition members or --

Mr Mills: I bet two bucks on a horse. What's wrong with that?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I don't know about the member for Durham East, who says he is so popular in Durham East he can't stand it. I don't know whether he was opposed to gambling or not. Maybe he wasn't, maybe he was. Who knows with the NDP today. You don't know where they stand on anything, because if five years ago you had told anybody that we could be debating a closure motion on legalizing gambling supported by a socialist government, they would have said, "You've lost your mind." But here we are today debating a closure motion on a piece of legislation brought forward from a socialist government to legalize gambling when in opposition it said lotteries were a tax on the poor.

The ever-consistent member for Durham Centre, Drummond White, or the member from Drummond White, Durham Centre, has once again come forward and said lotteries were a tax on the poor but he's in favour of legalized gambling.

A very good article appeared in the Toronto Star, June 28, 1992, on gambling, and I quote, "We have to take into account the $2.2-billion dollar horse racing industry and it's 50,000 jobs to be killed off by casinos." This is an issue that should be dealt with by this government. You know why? Because in gambling, as in their deficit financing, as in their off-book accounting, as in their debt financing, they do things without any thought to the ramifications on the private sector or the people who pay the taxes. It's very clear.

They've increased taxes by $3 billion and they're shocked to find tax revenue is down. They don't understand that when you increase taxes, more people lose their jobs, more economy goes underground, so you deflate the amount of money you're going to get in taxes, which has exactly happened, and they can't understand why their deficit's growing.

So they've done this legalized gambling without any thought to the horse racing industry.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: So the member across the floor says, "This is why we have closure." You see, this is really beginning to bug me. This is bugging me. This is a democratic process, and the arrogance of the government members is astounding. Only because the government members are hearing from people who don't agree with their myopic viewpoint, their hypocritical pieces of legislation they bring forward -- they're embarrassed in public because they've flip-flopped on every major issue that's come down the pike. They can't do a budget without it being reviewed by the auditor, they're putting ads in the paper saying no white males need apply, they've got all this going on and they've got the arrogance to suggest, "This is why we moved closure, because we're tired of listening to people who disagree with us."

The fact of the matter is, 91% of the people in this province disagree with you, so you would be tired of listening to practically everybody. You're tired because practically the entire province disagrees with you on just about everything you do. So the arrogance of it all, saying, "This is why we moved closure, because we're tired of listening to people who have a viewpoint that happens to be different than our own."

We get very little time to debate during the closure motions. The least they can do is listen, because they've closed off opposition to the hypocritical piece of legislation they're bringing in that absolutely changes in history what their position was in previous years.

Mr Perruzza: Say something that's useful and we'll listen. Mr Speaker, it's all this political pap. It makes no sense and it wastes time.

Mr Stockwell: I make no sense? The member for Downsview has the absolute gall to suggest that an opposition member makes no sense? You have a government here that campaigned on a series of promises from Agenda for People and you have got the nerve to say somebody doesn't make sense? Clearly, he's never looked in the mirror. The man is a hypocrite on stilts when it comes to issues that affect this Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. Please. We cannot and will not tolerate accusing another member of being a hypocrite. Please reconsider those statements, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I will reconsider those words.

Mr White: And withdraw them.

Mr Stockwell: You know, it does frustrate me when I hear something like that from the member for Durham Centre.

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's my understanding that he has to withdraw that remark. I think there are some precedents in this place to back up my argument.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will continue reading this.

"The lost sales tax revenues, should people spend more of their money on gambling and less on other goods and services." This is the impact of legalized gambling. This is the impact of closure by this government, this socialist government, on legalized gambling, closing off the opposition's viewpoint to legalized gambling.

"The potential losses through corruption and fraud due to inexperience or insufficient regulatory personnel within the casinos themselves." Have you ever thought about how much money that could be?

"The escalating law enforcement costs which could accompany such facilities." They've admitted there's escalation in costs, except we just don't know how much it is.

"Considering these factors, it's far from clear what the balance sheet will look like in the end." If there's anybody who could lose money running a gambling casino, it's an NDP government. Take my word for it.

We know the Ontario government is cash-strapped, and we learned how cash-strapped it is on the last closure motion, by introducing photo-radar.

The introduction of photo-radar was clearly a move to generate revenue for the coffers. Yesterday, when they introduced the closure motion on photo-radar, was nothing more than a move to prop up the coffers for the Ontario government because they're running out of money and this Treasurer can never have enough of it.

"Instead, it's pinning its hopes on a roll of the dice. It's prepared to transform the face of gambling in this province in the full knowledge that even if it does win the jackpot, the gains will be minimal." So we have closure once more on casino gambling.

1740

I have a couple of other articles I want to read from. Thomas Walkom was absolutely your biggest fan when you were in opposition, another one who's obviously gone wayward with your reversal in policies and public policies, particularly gambling being one of them.

Mr McClelland: Used-to-be fan.

Mr Stockwell: Used-to-be fan. He was literally your biggest fan. He couldn't write anything but good things about you when you were in opposition, and now you're in government I rarely find --

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): He's just an opposition man.

Mr Stockwell: He's just an opposition man. Well, I don't know. I've seen opposition governments move into power and maintain their principles and their beliefs. You're not one of them, but I've certainly seen governments move into power.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Give us an example.

Mr Stockwell: All kinds.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Free trade, GST.

Mr Stockwell: I'll tell you something, there's an NDP government in Saskatchewan, as I recall, that got elected, Roy Romanow's government, and he isn't nearly as unpopular as you people are. He seems to have maintained a few of his principles.

Mr Mahoney: Clyde Wells.

Mr Stockwell: Clyde Wells, yes. He moved from opposition into power. He's maintained his principles.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Perruzza: Is that what it means to you?

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview is not in his seat. He's interjecting. He's out of order. Please, the member for Etobicoke West has the floor very legitimately, and I would suggest to the member for Etobicoke West to address the Chair.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I'll buy a used car from you, you're so principled.

Mr Stockwell: Look, I haven't got the stomach to listen to the Minister of Transportation as he caterwauls about anything after the song and dance he gave this House yesterday and his implementation of photo-radar on the premise that it's going to save lives. What a load of bunk that is.

If you are going to save lives with the revenue from photo-radar, put it into road work that will improve the roads that will save lives, put it into police so they can stop drunk drivers on the road and save lives. Don't take the revenue from photo-radar to general revenue and spend it on anything that you see fit and then tell me you're interested in saving lives. That is the biggest scam this government's brought down in this period of time, talking about saving lives as it skims $200 million out of taxpayers' money and not dime one goes to improve a road and not dime one to a single police department in this province.

When he gets into this saving-lives routine and this song-and-dance sop, it absolutely makes me sick. I don't want to hear the Minister of Transportation giving me any lectures about any revenue generator when you can't put a single nickel back to truly prove that you're interested in saving lives. You're interested in the same thing your Treasurer is interested in, and that's getting money.

Hon Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish you would call the member to order and ask him to speak to the motion that's at hand.

The Acting Speaker: Yes. The honourable member for Etobicoke West, the motion at hand, please.

Mr Stockwell: The closure motions are coming so fast and furious it's difficult sometimes to remember which one you're dealing with with this government. We're now into a two-day debate on two separate closure motions. The closure motion at hand, we're going to need a schedule to determine which closure motion we're on because this government has a plan to move so many.

Anyway, I said my piece on the Minister of Transportation. I want to hear no more from that minister. Until he starts earmarking some of that money for road improvements and police, don't give me this sop about saving lives. It's just talk, and you want the $200 million.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under 23(c), this is an issue which has already been decided. It is therefore out of order for it to be under discussion.

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

Mr Stockwell: I wouldn't want anyone to debate it either if my record was as bad as yours when it comes to spending money on road improvements and policing.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I look for direction from you and from the Chair of this place. When the loss of lives, the death of an individual, is referred to by one of the Conservative members in this Legislature as being sop, I look to you for direction in this matter, Mr Speaker, and I look for your good judgement to intervene. Is it appropriate for a member of this House to refer to the loss of a life on one our highways as being sop?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member for Etobicoke West, please address the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: Absolutely not a point of order. He clearly wasn't listening. I wasn't talking about the loss of life; I was talking about the arguments put forward by your Minister of Transportation with respect to him suggesting photo-radar was instituted because he wants to save lives on the highway. But he's going to collect $200 million, put it all into general revenue, not fix one road, not hire one cop and not arrest one person for drunk driving. That's what I was speaking to.

Hon Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask that you call the member to order and ask him to refrain from dealing with issues that have already been dealt with by the House.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I am doing my level best to get order in this chamber. Please, the member for Etobicoke West, refer to the motion at hand.

Mr Stockwell: I ask the Attorney General why she didn't stand on a point of order when the member for Yorkview stood up on a completely different subject than was being debated at this time. It seems to me that you choose to stand on your points of order depending on who's making the point.

Look, if they want to move closure on photo-radar and sell it as a program to save lives when it's a program to generate revenue, they can. But nobody's believing it. If they want to stand on this --

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: He mentioned my riding, he mentioned me. I don't recall standing up and --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, my apologies. I confused the member for Yorkview with the member for Downsview.

Now we are faced with a government in dire need for money, so completely broke they'd sell every fundamental principle they've ever held and legalize gambling in Windsor, along with photo-radar to generate a few hundred million dollars. You have absolutely corrupted yourselves because you've given up every principle that you ever held dear for a few hundred million tax dollars.

Not only is it insulting that we have to listen to the socialists now defend legalized gambling, after calling lotteries a tax on the poor, we have to put up with them moving closure, shutting down opposition members and those opposed to legalized gambling, when all they want to simply do is state the point of view that they once held so dearly close to their socialist hearts in the once bastion of the province of Ontario.

Yes, it's very frustrating. Yes, it's very difficult when this is the kind of government you're faced with, this kind of reversal on public policy, and the height of arrogance is the complete reversal of public policy and then a closure on the opposition because you're tired of hearing about your checkered past and your role reversals on public policy.

Yes, I'm frustrated; yes, 88% of the population of this province is frustrated. I'm certain my caucus is frustrated, as well as the Liberal caucus. The time has come to tell this government on closure motions, on changes to the rules, on government-run auto insurance, on all these plans they reversed on, on every closure motion they've brought forward, the hypocrisy absolutely reeks in here. I'm tired of listening to it. I don't want any points of order left. I've had it. I've said my piece.

Finally, the one thing I hear from constituents in my neck of the woods and in this province is that they would want my job for one day so they could stand here and do what I do, and that's tell them how sick and tired they are of this government.

Mr Mahoney: This will be a calm, reasonable approach, following the speaker -- I have a question, though, for the clerk, if I could ask, Mr Speaker, through you to the table. Have we received tomorrow's closure motion? That has to be in before 5 o'clock. Has that been submitted? I'm assuming we're getting one. We've had two in a row here.

I'm assuming the current House leader has decided that he has no ability with which to run this House and therefore the only way the NDP is going to do business is through closure motions du jour. I am just wondering if perhaps -- I don't know, maybe Bill 80 will be next. Maybe they've got the closure motion on Bill 80. I see the staff running out there to go it. Run a couple of copies, because I'd like a chance to read it.

This is what we're down to. This is the way we do business in Ontario.

1750

Mr Hope: Maybe the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it's true. It's really quite amazing. I've heard the speeches about principles. I understood long ago that this government and Bob Rae say: "I've got principles. If you don't like them, I've got others." I understand that. I understand that the principles are out the door, so now what we're dealing with is the redefinition of the New Democratic Party, and probably more than ever the term "new," I say to the Minister of Transportation, applies. I would say the word "new" applies in this case because you have redefined democracy. There can be no question about that.

What happened when you became the government? Let's go back to when we were the government and you were here in opposition. I remember the pin-up boy, Mr Kormos, who had the audacity to appear in a newspaper as the Sunshine Boy and was summarily dumped. I understand the Premier didn't like being embarrassed. Maybe Bob wanted to be in the picture but they turned him down. I don't know what the problem was.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: So Randy would like to be there? Well, whatever the reason, that was a new form of democracy: "We don't like what Mr Kormos is saying" -- the only true, old New Democrat, I might add, in this place. The rest of you, I don't know what you are. You're a cross between Chris Stockwell and Preston Manning. I don't know where to put you guys. I can't figure it out. Every day you come up with a new surprise.

The people in Ontario should understand that what we're debating today has been referred to as a closure motion. In reality it's called "time allocation," and what it says is you will have this long to object to the bill, it will then go to committee, the committee will have its rules laid down and it must deal with it within a specific period of time regardless of how many people in the province object to it, regardless of the fact that Bill 8, probably more than any bill in this Parliament, changes Ontario and sends us down another road, a road we've never been on, not a highway but a road toward legalized gambling as a standard, as a way of life, as a --

Hon Mr Pouliot: You of all people.

Mr Mahoney: Not me of all people. I brought Bill 92, you might recall, to at least get you to stop allowing kids to gamble on professional sports --

Hon Mr Pouliot: And what did we say?

Mr Mahoney: -- and you supported it. You supported it and I congratulated you at the time.

I saw the people lining up in the lottery office the other day to collect the $13 million out that day. I'm telling you I saw them on television, and three quarters of them were kids. Why the hell aren't you supporting it? Why aren't you going out there? Because they're still doing it. The law that you supported, my private member's bill, you have got to get your inspectors to enforce that bill to stop our young people from getting into a style of life of betting on professional sports.

My point, however, with regard to Bill 8: This is a major change for our society. I would just be delighted to hear the debate from the members opposite, were they sitting here. I could just hear the outrage and the shock at the thought of David Peterson or Bill Davis or anybody else instituting, horror of horrors, a gambling casino.

Could you imagine? There would be people lining up, we would have the poor camping in tents out front, we would have every single mother with her welfare cheque waving it and saying, "You're going to destroy my kids." You would be so sanctimonious that the whole province all together at once would throw up, and yet today you stand here and you promote unashamed, unabashed, with no embarrassment whatsoever, gambling as a new way of life in Ontario.

If the people of Ontario want that, they should be given an opportunity to come in and say so, not just the people of Windsor. The people of Windsor, you put a gun to their heads. They've got economic problems, they've got job problems, and you dangle this carrot out there. What else are they going to do? They need the employment, they need the construction, they need the taxes and they need the work. What else are they going to do? Instead of going to them with some kind of a comprehensive program that will help their community, you dangle a gambling casino in front of them.

You want to talk about new democracy, let's talk about the fact that the city of Windsor does not, under current law, have the authority to expropriate the land for public use for this particular facility, because, to the money bags walking in the room, a gambling casino is not defined as public works. So what do you do?

You put a piece in the legislation that says: "We're going to let you take their land away. We're going to let you devalue their land. We're going to let you expropriate it, and we're not embarrassed or ashamed about doing that. Hey, Ontario, no problem. You got something you want to do? We'll give you the power to steal people's land."

This is unconscionable. This is the New Democratic Party. I don't know how you guys sleep at night, generically. I don't know how you sleep at night when a municipality comes along and says, "Redefine a gambling casino as public works because we don't have the authority to take the land away." "Oh, okay, we'll just make an amendment." It's unbelievable.

What you've done is, you've just extrapolated your New Democratic principles all over the place. The Labour minister's left. What's going on in Bill 80? Another clear example of the government interfering in a democratically elected union constitution. It's unbelievable. The labour people are out there saying: "We don't understand this. How can the caucus support this?"

I see the House leader walking in. When he gets to the point where he's unable to sit down and responsibly make an agreement with my House leader and with the Tory House leader, and I sit in those meetings, because he can't make an agreement.

Interjection: It's impossible.

Mr Mahoney: It's not impossible. On that photo-radar, we had four speakers left, and we were done. We told your House leader that, four speakers and we were done.

Interjection: We've heard that before.

Mr Mahoney: That's the agreement we made with the House leader. He ignores that agreement, and he decides to bring in the hammer.

I say to the House leader, if you want to continue operating with the hammer, sir, you will do so at your peril. You people want to spend Christmas Eve in this place, God bless you, you'll be here, and we'll see to it, let me tell you that.

You want to apply your New Democratic principles to this place and think that you can stifle opposition and think that you can tell us that we don't have a right to demand full public debate on something as important as Bill 8, on something as important as changing the entire course of this province, you want to bring in closure on that, I tell you, sir, you do this at your peril and so does your government.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for debate on government notice of motion number 12. We will now proceed with the vote.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Charlton's government notice of motion number 12 be carried?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. We have a 15-minute bell.

I also want to remind members that we have a bravery award ceremony going on at present on the main staircase, if you could refrain from using it at this point.

The division bells rang from 1800 to 1815.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Could all members please take their seats.

We will now deal with Mr Charlton's motion, government notice of motion number 12. All those in favour of Mr Charlton's motion will rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Charlton's motion will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Daigeler, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), Poirier, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 63; the nays are 26. I declare the motion carried.

I want to remind all members of the awards being presented in the main staircase. Please refrain from using it at this time. The awards are now being presented.

It now being well past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 am of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1818.

November 17, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PARKDALE PAROLE OFFICE

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

EXPO 2005

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

TVONTARIO FUND-RAISING

SOCIAL CONTRACT

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

CANCER TREATMENT

WCB NEWS RELEASE

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

MEDIA BRIEFING

STATUS OF BILL

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 47

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

MINISTRY OF HEALTH SPENDING

CONDUCT OF POLICE SERVICES BOARD MEMBER

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

TUITION FEES

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

UNIVERSITY STUDENT SURVEY

NHL DISPUTE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

PETITIONS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION