Hansard Transcript 1993-Dec-02 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that persons with developmental disabilities are valued members of our society who require assistance from the provincial government in order to enjoy the quality of life, independence and community living that persons without disabilities take for granted;

And recognizing that there is a severe shortage of support for adults with developmental disabilities, including supported employment, alternatives to sheltered workshops, a variety of living options, family support services and parent relief;

And recognizing that institutions for persons with developmental disabilities are being closed before sufficient community support is in place for the discharged residents;

And recognizing that when youths with developmental disabilities turn 21 years of age, they are no longer eligible for children's support programs but can rarely be accommodated in support programs for adults because of the shortage of resources and services;

And recognizing that parents who care for adults with developmental disabilities in their homes require provincial government assistance to allow them to enjoy some of the freedom from child care responsibilities that most parents of adult children take for granted;

And recognizing that as the parents of adults with developmental disabilities grow older, they worry about who will care for their children when they can no longer do so;

And recognizing that the Ministry of Community and Social Services cut $1.5 million from its funding of sheltered workshops in 1992-93, then promised it would not execute a further planned cut to sheltered workshops of $1.5 million in 1993-94, but none the less reduced its 1993-94 transfer payments to community living associations by $1.5 million;

And recognizing that the 1993-94 Estimates for Community and Social Services show a $20.3 million (11.9%) decrease in the budget for community accommodation for adults with developmental disabilities;

And recognizing that despite new provincial funding of $21.08 million in 1993 for persons with developmental disabilities, there is still a crisis in support for adults with developmental disabilities;

And recognizing that possible cost savings have been identified in other program areas of the Community and Social Services portfolio, including:

-- social services fraud, misallocation and mismanagement ($630 million per year, or 10% of the province's social assistance budget, according to the Provincial Auditor);

-- payments to convert private day care centres to non-profit centres, bail out non-profit day care centres that are in financial difficulty and build new non-profit centres through the Jobs Ontario Capital program, even though many existing day care centres, both non-profit and private, have excess capacity (total expenditure: approximately $200 million);

And recognizing that in other portfolios, cost savings could be achieved by reducing health card fraud ($675 million a year) and reducing workers' compensation fraud ($150 million a year), to cite just two examples;

Therefore the government of Ontario should immediately undertake to reform the financing of support for adults with developmental disabilities, giving consideration to the following:

-- person-centred planning, whereby funding is allocated directly to each person with a developmental disability for that person and her or his family or guardian to decide how best to meet his or her needs;

-- improving the funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on schedule and the former residents of institutions can be ensured access to a full range of community support;

-- redirecting funds to adults with developmental disabilities from other areas, such as those mentioned above, where expenditure cuts could be achieved.

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

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Before speaking to my resolution, I would like to thank the many persons with developmental disabilities and their families, advocates and care givers who are in the galleries today. The delegation from Community Living Mississauga is about 80 people. Many other groups are represented too. These people went to great effort to be here because it is critical that we reform this government's financial support for adults with developmental disabilities. I hope the outcome of today's debate will not let them down.

The subject of my private member's resolution is one of many which, as the Progressive Conservative spokesperson for disability issues, I could have chosen to debate today.

Whether disabled persons are adults or children, whether their disabilities are physical, developmental or psychiatric, many of them face an uncertain future. Their lives could be a little more fulfilling with a little more support from other Ontarians, through our government. As a supposedly advanced and humanitarian society, how can we neglect the needs of persons with disabilities?

I realize that many Ontarians are experiencing hard times. Half a million of us are out of work. Even those of us lucky enough to have kept our jobs through this brutal recession find it hard to pay higher taxes and do without services we used to enjoy.

Similarly, the Ontario government is facing exceptional fiscal challenges. I know that as legislators, we can't just snap our fingers and come up with a few million dollars more for this health service or that social program. However, we cannot let hard times blind us to the fact that there are people who need support from this government simply to enjoy the basic rights and the simple human pleasures that most of us take for granted.

Moreover, there is something very, very wrong when we cannot support the vulnerable members of our society, yet we are not doing everything possible to prevent fraud, to manage our resources better and to eliminate programs that we simply do not need.

1010

Today we are debating the lack of support to adults with developmental disabilities. I chose this subject after a large number of parents contacted me because their children, who are approaching their 21st birthdays, are about to lose their children's services and there are no adult services to replace them.

This is not to imply that there are no problems in the support of children with developmental disabilities. On the contrary, cuts to special services at home, parent relief and recreational programs, to name just a few areas, have placed an incredible strain on families who have children with developmental disabilities. None the less, those children are entitled to educational services until they turn 21 years of age.

There are other supports too that are limited to children and cut off once those children reach adulthood. After a birthday that most of us celebrate as our coming of age, young adults with developmental disabilities are cut off from the social network they used to enjoy. No longer can they count on being with their peers during the day or learning new skills. No longer can their parents count on the daytime freedom to earn a living or pursue other activities.

Among the people who are present in the galleries today are Shawna McKitrick, a young woman with autism, who is about to turn 21, and her mother, Lois Mercer. Lois is a single parent who works as an early childhood educator in Hamilton. Her daughter, Shawna, currently spends weekdays in a children's group home in Maple called Kerry's Place. Shawna has made great progress in its program for autistic children. However, that home, like most, has a long waiting list. Kerry's Place will try to keep Shawna until an adult placement can be found, but her future there is unclear. Moreover, at the end of this month, Shawna's transportation funding from the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton will be cut off. That means her mother will have to get permission to leave work very early on Friday afternoons in order to drive to Maple to pick up Shawna. Lois may have to quit her job and go on social assistance to stay home and look after Shawna, who requires constant supervision in a structured environment.

Lois Mercer worked very hard to get a post-secondary education so she wouldn't have to rely on social assistance to support herself and her family. Are we telling her that the only way she can care for her daughter is to go back on social assistance again? Talk about counter-productive.

I could spend the whole hour allotted to this debate recounting more and more stories like that of Lois and Shawna. As Lois herself says, this debate is not about her daughter only; it is about every person with special needs.

Even if the parents' financial situation is such that they can keep their adult children at home, what happens when the parents grow elderly and can no longer care for their children?

I met with a group of older parents in Kingston who are facing that eventuality. They have already made many sacrifices to ensure that their children live in a loving, supportive environment where they can be busy and happy. These parents have never enjoyed the freedom from child care responsibilities that most of us take for granted once our children have grown up. Even something as commonplace as a night out or a short vacation is often impossible for them. Now that the parents' health is failing, they know there are few community support services for their children and they are trying desperately to prevent their children being placed in institutions.

The Ontario government has sadly failed these parents and their children. We have in place a policy to close institutions and redirect resources to community living settings. But what is happening? Closing institutions which are very expensive to run should free up money for community support. But if anything, the shortage of community resources is getting worse, not better. Whether the need is for a day program, a few hours of respite care for their parents, or independent living, far too many adults with developmental disabilities have no community support whatsoever. To me, this makes no sense. It appears that not all the money saved from closing the institutions is being rechannelled into community care.

I ask this government, where is that money going? Why are there not more community services for persons with developmental disabilities? I am sure the only reason for this lack of support is that a few thousand rather than several thousand families are affected. But the number of disabled persons in Ontario is rising as our population ages. We must come to terms now with how we are going to manage the challenge of supporting persons with disabilities and their families. This is no simple matter.

However, in my discussions with disabled persons, their families and supporting organizations such as community living associations, several people have raised the option of providing funds directly to persons with developmental disabilities and their parents or guardians. This way, the disabled person and his or her family can decide what support they most need. They would have more control over their lives. The care would be what they need, rather than what happens to be funded. Metaphorically speaking, right now we are trying to put round pegs in square holes and vice versa, instead of matching support to the individual's needs.

We also have to look at ways to redirect money from other areas to the support of persons with developmental disabilities. Even if we expend the existing allotment in a smarter fashion, it won't be enough. Obviously, a first target in government cost-cutting must be fraud, mismanagement and waste. We know there is much room for correction in the program areas of social assistance, health cards and workers' compensation. Also, there are many government programs and policies that are costly and unnecessary. For instance, in my resolution, I cited the payments to convert private day care centres into non-profit centres.

I will address some more additional points when my turn comes up later in the debate. For now, I ask the members of this Legislature to recognize that the lack of support for adults with developmental disabilities and their families has reached a critical state.

Applause.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the people in the gallery not to applaud. Only the members on the floor have the right and the privilege of applauding.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'm glad the member for Mississauga South has raised the issue of this government's support for people with developmental handicaps. I would hope the member would have read the public documents such as the annual estimates. These clearly show the Ministry of Community and Social Services has not only maintained its commitment but has increased it.

I would like to first address the member's concern about our commitment by first focusing on the bigger picture. The goal of this government is to continue to integrate people with developmental handicaps into the community, because it is the best-known way of improving the quality of their lives. Our plan and directions are based on the multi-year plan, which is now in its seventh year. The multi-year plan is a 25-year plan document that will see almost every institutionalized person with a developmental handicap living in the community. At the same time, we must do without the assistance of expanding tax bases.

This government has increased spending by almost $100 million since coming into office; in other words, our developmental services spending has increased just over 12% since we took office.

1020

Now I'd like to show the member for Mississauga South how we are wisely using tax moneys in carrying through with our commitment to people with developmental handicaps, and it can be shown in many ways.

(1) There are many people in older institutional settings, psychiatric hospitals, sheltered workshops etc. We are working closely with people with developmental handicaps and their representative groups to establish them in the community, again based on the multi-year plan.

(2) We are doing this despite the significant cost of maintaining two systems at the same time. While we are creating a community-based system, we still have to fund the old institutional-based system until all of the clients are moved over. In a time of extremely tight money, that we see fit to continue funding this changeover is proof enough of our support to people with developmental handicaps.

Without a growing tax base, we cannot throw money around as previous governments did. We have to work harder to better use the resources we have, and we have done that.

(3) This government has consistently found millions more to provide for the most vulnerable group in our society by tightening up the administrative and financial mess left by previous administrations. We are already doing what the member from Mississauga is recommending.

(4) This government is the first one to ever create a separate branch for developmental services that brings together operational and policy functions under one roof.

(5) This government is responding to the training needs of people with developmental handicaps by allowing the community-led committee on sheltered workshops to expand its mandate to look at all employment training initiatives.

This government has been driven by trying to find the best possible solutions within our means to find the ways to improve the quality of life for the vulnerable people in our society. As I read the resolution, which is clearly showing its support for the developmentally handicapped, I must say that this government has, because in the indications since 1990 with community-based agencies, in 1990 we were spending $488.9 million, and in 1993-94, the estimates are that $608.8 million is being spent. The depletion in the government institutions from $303 million in 1990 is now down to $286 million.

So the resolution may be wrong. It agrees in principle with working with the people with developmental handicaps. This government is showing its commitment and will still show its commitment. I know there are some groups out in the community that are opposed to the resolution being put forward today.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this morning to speak to the resolution put forward in this House by the member for Mississauga South. Since becoming my party's critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services nearly two years ago, I've been continually frustrated; frustrated by this government's inability to effectively manage the services for Ontario's most vulnerable citizens.

As the member's resolution states, there is a severe shortage of support for adults with developmental difficulties, disabilities, including supported employment, alternatives to sheltered workshops, a variety of living options, family support services and indeed parent relief.

The NDP government continues to promise community-based services through which each person will be provided with programs in their own community to meet their own individual needs. That sounds very good.

During the public hearings on Bill 101 last February, one of the deputants was Mrs Joan Rowe-Sleeman from Huronia Helpers, and I'm sure people in the gallery will know this lady. Huronia Helpers is a parent organization at Huronia Regional Centre. This is a schedule 1 facility with over 600 residents, 600 residents with varying needs. She said:

"There are indications that this process of change is like a riderless horse galloping off in all directions. The government is proceeding to close institutions and the residents are being reabsorbed into the general population, but there doesn't seem to be any real understanding of the degree of care needed for these residents." If I may interrupt that quote, that's the real crux of the matter. To continue:

"They are a most vulnerable group and we have seen little, if any, evidence that this group of severe to profoundly handicapped people has been considered realistically in policy planning." That again is the crux of the matter.

She went on to tell us: "We have...a group of people who can actually be said to be already in long-term care.... At the present time very few, if any, residents are leaving Huronia Regional Centre for the community. It would appear that their health requirements are so difficult that very few adequate and affordable placements can be found for them."

And she continued: "In the Metro area...there are 2,500 crisis situations...where aging parents," and some of them marched on this Legislature, "with developmentally handicapped dependants at home are in dire straits because of their own poor health. Their own age is making it difficult for them to care for their sons and daughters and they're actually frantic with worry about how they'll be taken care of."

Margaret Paproski, another person who many in this province know as an advocate and a long-standing advocate and president of the Federation of Ontario Facility Liaison Groups, also made a presentation during those public hearings on long-term care. The federation she represents speaks for the developmentally delayed, speak for groups of parents, relatives and friends of people who are living in Ontario institutions.

Mrs Paproski gave us some very revealing statistics about one facility in eastern Ontario, the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls. "Approximately 90% of the people there have been diagnosed in the range of severe to profound retardation; 85%" of the residents of "at that facility are over 30; 45% are over the age of 40; 6% are deaf; 46% have epilepsy; 16% have cerebral palsy; 33% exhibit severe behaviourial problems and 19% are non-ambulatory." Obviously, the individual needs of these people are very significant and very specialized. Individuals with such severe problems require a wide range of services, including specialized health care, physiotherapy, supported employment, respite care and family support.

Even with this poignant testimony that I've spent most of my time relating, the strongest commitment we've been able to get out of this NDP government is, and I quote from government documents, "Beginning within the next three years there will be a review of the two systems." So within the next three years -- no real time lines -- a review. "Long-term care and services for those with developmental disabilities will be reviewed to product a better-coordinated, efficient system that reflects the concerns of consumers, their families and providers." Doesn't that sound nice.

This just isn't adequate. It isn't just. It's an insult to the people who are here this morning, the developmentally delayed, their families and their advocates. The needs of these vulnerable people and their families are obvious and they're immediate, yet they are given little, they're promised little within the complete mandate of this government, its full five years in power.

On September 20, 1993, the minister announced with great fanfare the allocation of $21 million to the developmentally delayed. The purpose of this announcement was to show, and I quote from the minister's press release, "this government's resolve to support the most vulnerable members of our society during this time of fiscal restraint."

Let me share with this House some of the many things this province-wide, right across the province, $21 million is going to accomplish.

-- Funding community placements of residents from Northwestern Regional Centre, which is scheduled to close in 1994.

-- Initiating the closure of Oxford Regional Centre in Woodstock.

-- Proceeding with community placement from other institutions.

-- Funding special services at home.

-- Promoting development of community services.

-- Funding new and existing services for people living in two Simcoe county nursing homes.

-- Addressing the health and safety measures in five facilities.

1030

This is going to be a very, very busy $21 million. It's just a first step, a modest first step, to accommodate the magnitude of genuine, real needs right across this province of real people, some of whom are with us this morning.

This $21 million is being presented when other expenditure control and social contract outcomes are inevitably cutting services to those in need on a daily basis, and each of us in this Legislature is receiving letters to that effect.

I note also that the $21-million figure earmarked in the minister's announcement is remarkably similar to the projected decrease -- I repeat, decrease -- of $20.3 million in the budget for community accommodation for adults with disabilities which we find in the 1993-94 estimates.

As the presenter of this motion has said very well, there is a great deal of comparison with the $22 million that's been spent for very ideologically driven motives in the conversion of child care without one extra space, one extra subsidized space, one extra child being cared for in this province.

The $22 million that has been devoted to the conversion process in child care could've been directed to the needs of real people within this real community in this province. The people we are speaking about this morning, the developmentally delayed, could have begun to have a real reason to believe that their government had them and their needs on the front burner, but no, decisions were made otherwise.

This government must begin to take its responsibilities to the developmentally delayed very much more seriously. This government must begin to allay the fears and the concerns of real people who are supporting the vulnerable in our communities, the parents, the care givers, the advocates.

The adequate community services are just not there, and that is the crux of the matter. The community-based services must continue to be developed. They must meet real needs of real people and they must become a priority of this NDP government within its present mandate before the year 1995.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on this important resolution. I want to thank my colleague the member for Mississauga South for bringing it to our attention. This resolution calls on the provincial government to immediately undertake to reform the financing of support for adults with developmental disabilities by giving consideration to:

-- Person-centred planning, whereby funding is allocated directly to each person with a developmental disability for that person and his or her family or guardian to decide how best to meet his or her needs.

-- Improving the funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on schedule and the former residents of institutions can be assured access to a full range of community support.

-- Redirecting funds to adults with developmental disabilities from other areas such as those mentioned above where expenditure cuts could be achieved.

I will be supporting this resolution because the current provincial government's approach to dealing with the plight of the adults with developmental disabilities across Ontario has been lame, to say the least.

Unfortunately, the provincial government is taking that same lame approach when it comes to the closure of institutions without any thought to the needs of the developmentally disabled. I am disappointed that the current Minister of Community and Social Services has firmly entrenched his ministry's position to close institutions without any new data or rationale, with no recognition of the significant needs of people who have severe to profound intellectual disabilities, and no acknowledgement of any of the constructive recommendations proposed by the Federation of Ontario Facility Liaison Groups.

I share concerns expressed to me by the Orillia Association for the Handicapped about the minister's irrational plans to cut funding for in-home community therapy services and sheltered workshops like the ARC Industries in Orillia.

I agree with foster parents like Isabel Seguin, Margaret Smit of Orillia and Shirley Black of Brechin, who are outraged at the NDP government's plan to claw back a portion of the federal children's special allowance which is used to offset the cost of raising children in their care. This is another example of a provincial government policy that is outrageous, insensitive and irresponsible, and that is why I'll be supporting this resolution from the member for Mississauga South.

I will also be supporting it in an effort at reflecting the opinions of my constituents in Simcoe East, who recently responded to a questionnaire that asked, "Do you believe the appropriate support services are in place that would facilitate the policy of deinstitutionalization and allow developmentally handicapped persons to live with dignity in the community?" In response, 28% were undecided, 21% said yes and 51% said no, the appropriate support services are not in place to allow the developmentally disabled to live with dignity in the community.

I urge my colleagues to support the member for Mississauga South in her efforts at improving the funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on schedule and the former residents of institutions can be assured access to a full range of community support. Huronia Regional Centre is in my riding; the member for Ottawa-Rideau spoke with regard to the Huronia Helpers. I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I would certainly like to commend the member for Mississauga South for bringing forward this resolution today. I think it has provoked and will provoke some very important discussion around how we can best meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities.

Parts of the resolution are quite positive. They place a value on people with developmental disabilities. They affirm and encourage quality of life, independent living and full participation in community life. I think it's very important that we be mindful of the commitments in this kind of resolution.

Virtually not a week goes by when I don't hear from parents in my own constituency of children with developmental disabilities, including children with autism, and the monumental challenges that those parents face each and every day, sometimes 24 hours a day, even during their sleep, with children who wake up, who are hyperactive, who have demands that are not easily met; who need respite care and need more respite care, who need supports in their homes, who need supports in their community so that their children can live independently in their homes where they can receive love and affection and a nurturing environment. These are very important supports that parents of developmentally handicapped children require if they're going to continue to be able to keep their families together.

Certainly supported employment is important, living options, family supports, parental relief. The special services at home program needs to be a flexible one, it needs to be able to meet the needs of individual families and their children. Yes, sheltered workshops are important for those children who are unable to enter mainstream life, but on the other hand I think we need to encourage as much as we possibly can the integration of children into mainstream life.

One of the ways to do that is to improve access, access to child care, access to education, access to skills training and access to the job force, so it strikes me as a little strange that some members of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party would oppose Bill 79, our employment equity legislation, which strives to do just that sort of thing, to improve access to the workforce for disabled people.

There will always be people, young and older, infants and more mature people, who are unable to adjust necessarily to a competitive work environment, and we need to look a little more at how we handle children with severe disabilities. I know that many nations in the G-7, such as Great Britain, Italy, France and Japan, have made very progressive strides towards dealing with people with severe disabilities. I know that ARCH and PUSH here in Ontario would like to make the same kind of progress that has, for example, been made in the United States for people with severe disabilities.

1040

This government has already taken several steps, despite the economic constraints under which we're suffering, to integrate children and more mature people with developmental disabilities into the workforce, not only employment equity but also our reform of skills training, known as OTAB, which seeks to invoke the full talents and skills of the developmentally disabled.

In schools, we're no longer segregating children with special or exceptional needs. We're trying to integrate them into the regular classrooms.

Our reform of the social assistance system is notable in that one of the provisions is Job Link, which is designed to provide people who are currently on social assistance, on family benefits because they have disabilities, with opportunities to enter the workforce. If they are unable to work due to mental or physical disabilities, they still need options, options to participate fully in community life. The key to giving them the options is to remove some of the barriers and some of the discrimination that children with disabilities and their parents encounter when they seek to do so.

Child care is important too. We continue to reform our child care system to make it more accessible, more affordable, to add quality to it. It's important that children with developmental disabilities participate in these reforms as well.

Housing: we have a tremendous commitment to the construction of non-profit and co-op housing. In each and every one of these housing projects today, normally there are units for disabled people.

It's important that there be community supports for those disabled people if they're to have independent living: Groups homes, yes, where necessary, but encourage independence wherever possible, but provide community supports to those children and their parents where necessary.

We recently announced that we're implementing the Lightman recommendations. That too is important news for people with developmental disabilities.

Health care, reform of the long-term care system: That too is a very important initiative to confirm that when people are moved out of institutions the necessary community supports are there for them.

Just to close, in London, through the Coordinating Council for Children and Youth, we've done a good job, I think, of coordinating services for youth, but there's a lot more that can be done and should be done.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's a pleasure to join in the debate this morning. I too want to congratulate the member for Mississauga South.

Since the process of deinstitutionalization was started some time ago, we all, I think of all party stripes, have watched this with great sensitivity.

It makes sense. These people who at one time in our history we thought were not capable of independent living, were not capable of a lot of things, those of us who do not suffer from that developmental handicap have grown to understand that these people can be developed to their full potential and have to be developed to their full potential.

Probably the most heart-wrenching thing, though, as was indicated by one of the members in the debate, is that we as parents, if we're making our will or are making plans for our children in the possibility that we may pass on before they reach adulthood, have grave concern and go to great extremes to do that. Parents of these children, who will become adults, have that concern with them constantly, and as they grow old, it becomes an even more pressing and more demanding problem for them.

That's where government, of whatever political stripe, has to place great emphasis: on providing the services to ensure that those people able to live independently do so, yes, but also that you can relieve the minds of those parents who see themselves growing old and perhaps are not seeing the services being kept up by the government of the day in terms of ensuring that those young people or those adults will be secure.

I suggest to you that it really comes down to a matter of how you deal with the economic affairs of the province. It causes me some concern to watch this government; I hate to say this. They look at areas where the private sector could continue to operate -- day care is one that's suggested in the resolution -- and instead it wants not-for-profit, wants government to run it, wants government to fund it. I say to you, wake up. Let the private sector look after day care. Use the very scarce dollars you have to improve the system to provide the safety net for these young people and these young adults, to allow them to live independently, to allow them to reach their full potential and, most importantly, to allow their parents to feel comfortable that when they pass on or they become incapacitated, that the government of the day will have the funds sufficient to do that in an appropriate way.

I can only see one parallel to the concerns of parents as they grow older. Their concern must be equivalent to that of the parents of a schizophrenic. I know that is not related to this particular issue, but it's one that concerns me and one that has to be changed by this government. The parents of the schizophrenic don't know where their child is: He or she has been released from institutions; we don't institutionalize them any more. They're out on the streets; they're the street people of this province, the street people of this country. We have a Mental Health Act which does not require them to take their medication. That has to be amended. We have an OHIP plan which doesn't pay for the most recently discovered type of drug that can be taken, which is far more acceptable to schizophrenics.

It's things like that which cause parents great concern. I feel there's a parallel between that and the parents of people who have developmental handicaps. They in fact are worrying, they're waiting. They want to be sure that when they pass on or become incapacitated, their loved ones will be looked after adequately.

I suggest again that it's a matter of how you deal with your money. I suggest that the government of the day unfortunately is putting money into things that are better handled in the private sector, and that if it didn't do that, there would be funds available to ensure that each and every individual in Ontario and in Canada who has a developmental handicap would be able to reach their full potential and their parents would be able to rest easy, knowing that the government, which is using the taxes they pay, is using them properly, fairly and wisely to ensure that all of these programs that are available continue to be so.

I notice in the resolution that there are certain transfers that have been reduced. I always hear the Premier of the day, in fact this morning on Gzowski, talking about the cutbacks of the feds in transfer payments. Well, Premier, don't cut back transfers to your particular ministries, this one.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I want to say a few words in support of my colleague the member for Mississauga South, particularly regarding the improving of funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on schedule. I want to make clear to the government and remind it that there is a certain percentage of these residents who cannot be placed outside of the institution.

As the member for Ottawa-Rideau has pointed out, for the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls, that institution has been reduced, I would say, from the information made available to me, to the numbers now that basically have to be retained in that type of environment. It is an excellent building, in excellent shape, and the living standards there are extremely high. I would strongly recommend to the government that it look at that particular location as a location for the province of Ontario for those residents who are not able to go out into the community regardless of the money available.

1050

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I don't have much time this morning, unfortunately, because I think this is the kind of debate that should go on for a lot longer. I know some of my colleagues have already mentioned the multi-year plan and have already mentioned the special services at home review that has been under way for a couple of years. Even in my own community, Mila Wong from community living has been talking to me a great deal and I understand the situation entirely.

But I want to speak in my brief time to the particular resolution of the "therefore" at the end. Historically, we know that the idea was to hide people away. Anybody who was even slightly different was supposed to be locked up and not be a bother to anyone. Of course that reform has been going on. It took a long time coming, and it is still going on, we are still doing many, many things. Unfortunately, as with a number of other things, you can't do it all in a very short time, much as we would like to.

To have 600 people, as the member opposite says, in an institution is totally unacceptable; there's no question of that. and in the three years that we've been the government, that reform is continuing. Again, you can't take 600 people with no place to go; they have to have the support that's in the community. On that, we're very much in agreement.

But the government's job -- any government; I don't care which political stripe it is -- is to balance whatever decisions it has to make with the funding dollars it has. We have to deal with real people, as the member opposite said, people who need housing, people who need social assistance reform, people who need education, people who need health care, people who need all of those things, with the smaller and smaller dollars we're getting. Given the restraints, I think to have actually increased the budget in the social assistance reform for the developmentally challenged is a very good indicator of the commitment we have to this area. I wish we could do more.

On the resolution, focusing on the "giving consideration to" part at the end, "redirecting funds to adults" is the only part I have a problem with, because you can't just redirect to people with developmental disabilities; you have to redirect any savings you find to all kinds of areas and you can't just do it to the one. With the proviso that it's giving consideration to the three items she has mentioned, I support this.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): First of all, at the outset let me say I want to commend my colleague and close friend the member for Mississauga South. Both of us were elected on the same day in this House back in 1985, but we also were school trustees in different jurisdictions. Between us, we've figured out that we have about 35 years of participation with and support of community living associations in our community. I'm not surprised to see this resolution and the level of commitment coming from our critic responsible for disability issues, and I, as the critic for Community and Social Services, wish to put some points on the record.

Today we're going to hear a lot about dollars spent and dollars not spent, but really the issue is whether or not politicians in this chamber representing three different political parties understand what's going on in communities; whether or not this government or the previous government is committed or was committed to having listened to the needs of the disabilities community. If they had listened to them and understood clearly what they were saying, then we would have proceeded in an orderly fashion, building upon understandings of how we were going to make this a more caring, humane society where people with disabilities had an equal place and an equal standing in our society.

We as Conservatives believe we understood this fundamental right, that children who are handicapped should not be shunted away and hidden, that they had a right to be integrated into our school system, so it was our government that brought in Bill 82 and fundamentally worked on that principle. The philosophy of understanding and listening to what families were doing grew so that we started an understanding of a multi-year plan, that the role was not to hide people away in institutions. There is a role for some people in institutions -- don't get me wrong -- but far too many children were just put away there, and the promise and the understanding was that we would bring them back into the community.

But what we as politicians have to remember is that there were a lot of families who didn't put their children into institutions, who made conscious decisions that the most supportive, loving environment they could provide was in their home.

So why would we stop listening to those people and just stay focused on those people in institutions? We have stopped listening to those people, apparently, when we look at where the government is spending its money and who the government's listening to.

Frankly, I've seen some very terrible turns in the wrong direction since this government was elected. I want to run through these very quickly, because I've been the Community and Social Services critic and my colleague has been responsible for disability issues since this government was elected.

I recall when the whole multi-year plan was seized by a private meeting between Fred Upshaw of the union and Zanana Akande, the then minister. The differently abled community had to fight to get their rights back to all the ground they'd earned over the seven-year period leading up to that.

We've seen the reductions in sheltered workshops, because there's again that sort of union bias that nobody in society should be paid less than minimum wage. But did they understand exactly what was happening in sheltered workshops? No. The unions again are going to dictate to the community, to the families, just how their lives will be ordered.

We've seen supported living rules change dramatically, not only access, saying to families: "You can't pick who you want to come into your home and assist you with the daily living activities. Oh no, we've got to have somebody we choose to go in there." When that person has difficulty lifting an adult and throws his back out and goes on workers' compensation, now it's the workers' comp expense for that family. These are the kinds of things that are going on out there, and nobody's listening.

There are more issues. Long-term care reform: They were told from day one, "You don't count." Now, where are these people going to live? Family after family comes and visits us year after year. The parents are getting older. Their ability to care for a 35-year-old living in their home is getting difficult. We're not providing the supports. I'm watching a family where a mother now has to be hospitalized because of the care requirements of an older husband and a younger son or daughter with developmental disabilities. Are we listening to these families? Are we providing the funding? Do we have an awareness? No.

We've seen user fees being dreamed up now for families and a grab of the baby bonus money.

Ms Murdock: No.

Mr Jackson: Oh yes, you know there's a grab of the family allowance moneys for those persons under the age of 21 with the community living associations.

What I'm trying to say, because I really wanted to give the floor back to my colleague with her excellent resolution, is that government is moving off its commitment to these families and to these citizens who are differently abled. We'd better get back on track if we want to say we're a caring society and that we understand their rights to normalization, their rights to empowerment, and listen to families who are failing under the burden of these additional responsibilities.

We have to stop making promises to these families and to these individuals and start funding appropriately so they can live with dignity in our communities as we promised them. That is the philosophy of community living. That is the commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is the commitment of the member for Mississauga South, and I urge all members to support her resolution today.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): It's my pleasure to participate in this debate today. I stand in support of the resolution in principle.

I've met representatives from the Metropolitan Agencies Representatives' Council, from ARC, from PUSH, from People First, consumers who have shared their experience in the years that they have suffered from previous governments' terrible management of the huge institutions they built. Their purpose was to not allow disabled people to participate in society, and their history has been a disgusting one.

A lot of what I'm hearing today is a bunch of baloney and I find it rather disgusting. I'm very proud to say that our government has worked very hard with legislation such as the Employment Equity Act, the Advocacy Act. I've sat in committees where I've heard Liberal members and Conservative members working their darnedest to stop legislation like that from going through. Why are you now standing and saying you want to make sure disabled people participate in society when you have in fact stalled on this sort of stuff?

The federal government has cut transfer payments, and I see nothing except a lot of talk. I'd like to see some action. We're the only province that has actually proved itself by a commitment, by programs that are actually in place. I ask the Conservative and Liberal members to work with us, then, to help us stop the federal government cutting the transfer payments that in fact do not allow us to continue with many of the programs we need so that --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member's time has expired.

Mr Malkowski: But we have maintained social programs and maintained education and training opportunities for disabled people.

1100

Mrs Marland: I want to remind the members in this House that this is private members' business and each and every member has an obligation to vote to represent the people in their ridings and their constituencies. I hope for once we don't have a whipped vote on the government side.

I challenge this government, which has made the cuts to these much-needed programs, to look into the faces of these people here today. I challenge you to recall the 5,000 people who were on the front lawns of this building one year ago. I hope that this time your actions will be different. I hope that you will promise them this time that you will not disappoint them and you will not turn your backs on them again.

For the Minister of Community and Social Services not even to answer my question in the House and two letters about the predicament of Mrs Lois Mercer and her daughter Shawna is plainly irresponsible and uncaring. Is this the best this government can do, that it won't even answer the questions about people with special needs? I say, as I've said in this House so many times, that disabilities do not disappear overnight on a person's 21st birthday, that government's obligation to these young people and their families also does not disappear either. How can we abandon them? They need us now more than ever.

If it is the right in this province for a francophone family in Ontario to be able to drive the highways of this province and read the highway signs in French, then surely it is the right of persons with developmental disabilities and their families to drive the road of life in Ontario with the support they need.

Mr Winninger: Who wrote this?

Mrs Marland: This government is about to pass equal opportunity for employment legislation that a member has referred to. They are about to pass legislation on equal opportunity for employment.

To answer the question that is being asked in this House at this moment as to who wrote the speech: I wrote my own speech. I don't need anybody to write my speeches.

All I say is, at the same time that you're passing equal opportunity for employment, what about equal opportunity for persons with disabilities to survive on a daily basis? They need to have support for functions that others take for granted. What about equal opportunity to live independently? What about equal opportunity to live with dignity?

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Let us join our hands for once around this chamber and work together to achieve a solution. I ask you this morning to consider very carefully before you vote, that vote which will be taking place approximately an hour from now, after we deal with the next resolution that is scheduled for this morning. When that vote takes place this morning, I challenge each and every one of you to prioritize once and for all on the basis of human need. You can go and stand on any public platform in this province, for any political party, and defend prioritizing on the basis of human need first. I'm asking you to give the support for people who need it most.

Yes, we're in a depression; yes, we're short of money. And as the member for Sudbury said, there are all kinds of drains on government funds. I said that in my speech at the beginning this morning. We understand that. But in this time of recession, who do you think it hurts the most? The most vulnerable people in our society.

We have a moral obligation and a responsibility that I hope not one of us will turn our back on, and that is to vote in favour of this resolution once and for all. I ask you, when you do that this morning, for once not to listen to your whip but to listen to your heart and to your mind and, by voting to support this resolution, give hope to these people for a better future.

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

I want to welcome the people in the gallery who are interested in this resolution. The vote on this resolution will take place at 12 noon.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: In accordance with our standing orders, I would ask that the member for Cochrane North withdraw his statement during the interjections that my colleague's comments were racist.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry; I didn't hear that.

Mr Jackson: I would like to give the member the opportunity to rise in the House and withdraw his interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member care to comment?

Mr Wood: Yes. I was upset that other groups were being attacked to gain support for this particular group of people. I agree that this group of people needs extra money. I was upset over that.

The Acting Speaker: Would you care to withdraw?

Mr Wood: The other remarks -- I will withdraw if it upset Mr Jackson, yes.

Mrs Marland: On a point of personal privilege, Madam Speaker: I did not say that money should be taken from that program. I simply said that if that is the case, then this also should be the case.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of personal privilege. Orders of the day.

FEDERAL ELECTION PROMISES

Mr Paul Johnson moved private member's notice of motion number 32:

That, in the opinion of this House, the present federal government should keep its financial commitments to the people of Ontario with respect to its promises made during the recent federal election campaign.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member now has 10 minutes to address his resolution, and then each party will have 15 minutes.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My resolution today is comparatively simple. It quite simply asks that the newly elected federal Liberal government keep its financial commitments -- and I was very specific -- to the people of Ontario with respect to its promises made during the recent federal election campaign.

During election campaigns, many promises are made. Every time we go through the process of an election, whether it be federal or provincial, we know that promises are made. I know that members of the third party and members of the official opposition will suggest possibly in their comments that indeed the government of the day in Ontario didn't live up to all the promises it made during its election campaign. I would differ with that, if they should make those comments. I think we've done many of the things that we said we would do.

You might ask why I pose this resolution or ask this question or make this comment. Basically, I think the people of Ontario have been incredibly discriminated against by the recent Conservative government in Ottawa, and as a result of their policies, the people of Ontario are suffering now more than they otherwise would have had they been treated fairly and equally by the federal government that was previously in power and, to a great extent, removed from power.

1110

I want to note also that 98 of 99 federal seats in the province of Ontario are now represented by Liberals. We could debate whether that's good or bad, but what I want to say is that when the federal government now examines what's happening in the province of Ontario with regard to its economy, with regard to its fiscal situation, given the fact that it has such a great representation here in the province, it should certainly do things much differently than the previous Tory administration did. I think the people in Ontario recognize that they were discriminated against by the Tories in Ottawa, and that's why they to such a large degree sent the message to them in the province of Ontario.

What has that done? It's made it very difficult for this government, for this administration, to deal with some of the very serious financial and economic problems that it has to deal with. We know that this recession or depression in the province of Ontario, indeed in the country of Canada, has been very severe.

I know, as many of my colleagues do, that what the Tories did in Ottawa with regard to their policies, such as the goods and services tax, which, I might add, has encouraged an underground economy the likes of which we've never seen before; free trade, which decimated manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario; the dollar, which they allowed artificially to become more valuable than it should have been -- of course, there are two sides to that argument. I know that some people would like to see the dollar more valuable and some would like to see it less. In trade, we'd like to see the dollar somewhat less in value than it has been because that offers us some advantages here in Ontario and indeed in Canada.

Of course, the federal government has absolute control over the interest rates in this country, and that affects the province of Ontario. Those are things the province has no control over. It does not have control over the dollar. It does not have control over interest rates. It certainly wasn't the government that introduced the GST and it certainly wasn't the government that supported or endorsed free trade. However, all those things have impacted dramatically on Ontario.

What has that meant for us in the province of Ontario? What has that meant to our economy? It certainly has very obviously been very detrimental. People are concerned about taxes in Ontario, and I hear that daily; I hear that regularly, as I'm sure all members of this Legislature do. The reason we've had to deal with taxes in ways that we would prefer not to has a lot to do with the policies of the past federal government. Today we have to deal with all the problems that are associated with their policies and we have to do things that we think are necessary in order to maintain our services here in Ontario, so we've done some things that I guess largely have been unpopular.

Any time you increase taxes, certainly that's unpopular. When you ask the broader public sector to make a contribution to help reduce the deficit in a particular year, we know that's something that's not particularly popular. These things that we do are a result directly of the policies of the previous federal government.

What my resolution says is that the federal government of the day should keep its financial commitments. That's what we want them to do, because the previous government, because of its policies, has caused us, as I said, to do things that are not particularly popular. Now, on the notion that the new federal government should keep its financial commitments, I just want them to know that the provincial government has been the most efficient provincial government we've had in this province for 40 years. We've done things and we've reduced our expenditures in ways that no other government ever has -- out of necessity, I might admit. However, there were things that had to be done.

People are fed up with taxes. People are absolutely fed up with taxes. They don't want to see any more tax increases, but they don't want to see their services cut. The dilemma is, of course, that the revenues that both the federal government and the province are receiving right now have gone down dramatically.

Unfortunately, the federal government -- I say unfortunately because it takes some of the control out of the hands of the province -- receives all the taxes that it collects through personal income tax on behalf of the province, and it keeps them for an extended period of time. It's some time later, after the fact, that they send the money back to the province. It's very difficult for the province to plan, not knowing exactly what the amount of revenues it's going to receive is going to be. That certainly has caused a lot of problems for the province.

The federal government of the day, the Liberal government that was just recently elected, has said that it is going to create jobs. They were elected on the notion that they are going to create a lot of jobs in Canada, especially a lot of jobs in the province of Ontario. As I said, because of policies of the previous administration, we've lost a lot of jobs in this province and we want to get those jobs back.

I like to think that we could work cooperatively in a meaningful way with the federal government in order to create more jobs, but I also want to make it perfectly clear to all those people who are watching today, to members of the opposition, that right now in the province of Ontario, this government has spent 10 times what the federal Liberal government has promised to spend in the province of Ontario in order to create jobs.

We have had a great deal of success with that, maybe not the success we would like to have had, very frankly, because of the fact that the economy is as bad as it is; however, we continue to work to create jobs in the province. I want to say that for some reason that effort seems to have been unrecognized, certainly by the members of the opposition, and probably not communicated well to the people of the province of Ontario.

We are spending 10 times the amount of money that the federal Liberal government has committed through its promises.

We're very anxious to see the $400 million they have promised to spend in the province of Ontario with regard to job creation. If they do that, and if we work cooperatively, and certainly if we don't increase taxes -- our revenues are down dramatically and we want to maintain the services, absolutely, yet we know that as we examine these things, as we spend our money as efficiently as we possibly can, there's a great concern that some of the services that people have come to expect in the province are being eroded.

I want to ensure that all those financial commitments the federal Liberal government made before it was elected, as campaign promises, are adhered to, that they're complied with, that they're met. If they are, and if they work cooperatively with the province of Ontario, which as I said, has spent 10 times the amount of dollars, made probably 10 times the effort to create and maintain jobs in the province of Ontario, then surely more jobs will be created and the economy in the province of Ontario will improve.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm really pleased to join the debate. I was delighted when I heard that one of the backbench New Democrats had proposed a motion to hold the government to its promises. I said, "Finally somebody in the back bench is getting at that cabinet to make them do what they promised to do." So I was thrilled with it. Then I get here and I find that it has nothing to do with holding Bob Rae to his promises, it's the federal government, and that's fine. We can pass this motion. Next week it'll be something else. But I think the back bench should spend its time holding the cabinet to its promises. There's where you can be useful. I ran to get elected here in the provincial House. I ran to do something in the province. I love to blame other people. You can blame the federal government, blame the US, blame anybody, but we're here. We're here to deal with it.

I'd hoped, on the motion, that finally someone in the back bench would stand up and say, "Isn't it time we did what we said we would do?" The member across said "on the capital program." The people of the province should know that Bob Rae and the government promised this year to spend $3.9 billion on capital. What was the first thing that was cut? It was $300 million out of capital. That was promised. The $3.9 billion was promised to be spent on capital. The first thing they cut was $300 million. Surprise, surprise. That's the amount of money that will be put back in when the province agrees to participate in the federal program. We're playing with numbers here. I thought you would live up to your promise to spend the $3.9 billion. You're actually promising to spend $300 million less this year than you spent two years ago. So I would say, first thing, live up to that promise on your capital expenditures.

1120

I think the members will agree that in the Legislature I've always been focused on jobs. I remember when Bob Rae came back to the House in September 1991, more than two years ago, and said: "Jobs, jobs, jobs. That's our focus. That's where we will be putting our effort." That was the promise he made.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): And he had.

Mr Phillips: Well, a member hollered out, "And he had." I appreciate that. I hope everybody in the province gets a copy of the three-year report card on Bob Rae. I hope everybody gets it, because you should be -- ashamed may be too strong a word -- embarrassed by your economic performance. Yes, you've focused on jobs. There is a record number of people unemployed in the province of Ontario in 1993. We have lots of talk from the cabinet about focusing on jobs, but you get the document out, and you will find there have never, ever, ever been more people unemployed in the province of Ontario than in 1993, the year we're in right now. I know that Premier Rae loves to talk about things he's going to do, but nothing happens.

Mr Mammoliti: That's just not true.

Mr Phillips: The member says, "It's just not true." Look at the numbers. Look at the numbers, to the back bench. This is why you should be spending your time getting at those people, the cabinet.

It's fun to go after the federal government. I think that's great sport. I don't mind it at all. I'm not going to have any responsibility for what they do. If you want to run federally, resign, go and run federally. Let's focus on what Bob Rae can do and look at the report card for "Jobs, jobs, jobs." There have never been more people unemployed in the province.

You want a promise? The promise was that we would reduce the number of people unemployed. It is not happening.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Phillips: Social assistance: We were promised social assistance reform. The member across the way -- and the people probably can't hear it -- is barracking when he should be spending his time doing what I'm suggesting, and that is getting at the cabinet to do what they promised to do.

This resolution shouldn't read, "Get after the federal government," although you can do that if you want. It should be, "We, the NDP back bench, want our cabinet doing what they promised they'd do."

I would also say in this report card that I hope everyone in the province gets -- it's called the Ontario Economic Outlook, but it's the three-year report card -- you will find the social assistance case load never, ever, ever higher. We were promised social assistance reform.

I am one who believes that the people around social assistance desperately do want to work. I believe that. But your plans aren't working. We now have 657,000 people on social assistance: never a higher number. You add social assistance and unemployment recipients together and it is almost a million people in this province. At the height of the recession in 1982-83, it was half that, roughly 500,000. So if you want to be useful on these days, you should be preparing motions that say to your cabinet, "Do what you promised you'd do."

I must say I can't forget that at election time, I remember well things like -- do you remember this one? Yes, I've got it here, page 10 of the speech from the throne. It takes me a while, but here it is, "We will provide for a common pause day." Do you remember that one? Do you remember public auto? Do you remember, "We, the NDP, are the party that doesn't believe in casinos, that believes casinos are a tax on the poor"?

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: Well, one of the members across the hall is barracking again. But these are all promises that you made --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Mr Phillips: -- common pause day, the whole area of public auto, not believing in casinos. You've lived up to none of those promises. So, again, I had hoped that the motion from the member might have said, "We will live up to the promises we made."

I'd also say that there's something interesting on the pensions one. This is not a huge deal, but it's important. It says here on pensions, "Pension surpluses would belong to the members of the plan." Do you know what we've got before the House right now? We have a bill that will permit the government, the employer, to bypass something called the Pension Benefits Act, to not notify the teachers that you are planning to withdraw $300 million from the teachers' pension.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Did you know that?

Mr Phillips: The member nods his head over there, but if any private sector company ever tried to get an exemption from notifying the pension beneficiaries that they were withdrawing money from the pension fund, the NDP of old --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Conrad Black provision.

Mr Phillips: The Conrad Black provision, as my colleague says. That's exactly what it is: withdrawing money from a pension, and not only that, not even telling them, as the Pension Benefits Act provides, that you're going to do it. You do that by ramming a bill through the House that will allow you to exempt yourself from that provision.

I just say to the member that I realize we will see a series of these motions. I have no trouble supporting it, but frankly it's a waste of the House's time. It would be far better spent if the backbench members of the NDP could kind of get some courage, some backbone, and get after the cabinet to do what it promised to do, because you've got some control over that and this Legislature has control over that. That's where I'd like to spend my time, rather than these interesting but frankly non-productive motions.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm disappointed once again that we're wasting valuable time debating a resolution related to matters concerning the federal government of Canada. We're wasting the time with a resolution like this. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings is attempting to divert our attention from the very real problems facing the people of Ontario that were created by his own NDP government colleagues.

I also think that the member is doing a disservice to the people of his riding by talking about a matter that is completely out of his jurisdiction and really has nothing to do with this Legislature. The member is doing a disservice to those who elected him to bring their views and concerns to the attention of his government colleagues.

He should be exposing flaws in the policies, actions and initiatives of his government. He should be mobilizing public opinion against policies, actions and initiatives that his constituents feel are unacceptable. The member should be formulating and bringing forward alternative legislation and policies and aiding and strengthening policies and legislation by submitting amendments to bills and statutes.

When confronted with resolutions like the one we're dealing with now, and several others that have come from other NDP members, the people of Ontario have grown impatient with the activities they are seeing on private members' business every Thursday morning. They say, "What's the point of this nonsense?" They've grown so used to the silent demise of reality and the important private members' bills or resolutions that they just assume it's going to happen.

All of us know that private members' bills, important ones like my boaters' safety and education bill or my heritage day holiday bill, which do not have the active support of ministers will not proceed, even though they are overwhelmingly supported by all members. The people of Ontario have a right to object to this arrangement. There is something fundamentally wrong if legislative matters cannot stand before the representatives of the people to be enacted. The people of Ontario have a right to be outraged by this resolution we're wasting time on this morning. There are more important matters that people want us to deal with.

I've been talking about matters of public safety, like poor visibility on these concrete barriers on highways 400 and 401 that Mr G.A. Zylich of Penetanguishene notes are difficult to see at night or when there's fog or it's raining.

I'm referring to matters of importance to the many potential home buyers and realtors in Simcoe East who have contacted me about the Finance minister's December 31 deadline for pulling the plug on the extremely successful Ontario home ownership savings plan.

1130

More than 248,000 of these plans have been opened since the program was established in 1988, and of that number, 204,000 have been closed to purchase a new home. Approximately 48% of all home sales in the first nine months of 1993 were first-time home buyers. Rather than wasting time with this resolution, we should be debating the merits of renewing OHOSP, which costs $50 million annually, compared to the $2.6 billion the current government spends on non-profit housing subsidies each year.

In the same vein, perhaps we should be using this time to discuss the merits of replacing non-profit housing subsidies with shelter allowances. Independent studies indicate the average monthly subsidy would be $114 per household for a shelter allowance, compared to the current average of $942 a month to subsidize a household in non-profit housing. I would suggest that a shelter allowance program would help all those in needy target groups who wish to apply, especially Ontario's working poor.

Right now, unless a needy tenant receives welfare or family benefits, there is no help until a unit becomes available in a social housing project. Shelter allowances would allow tenants to remain in their current homes if they choose, close to families, child care, schools and workplaces. Not only that, but shelter allowances avoid the development of low-income ghettos which can occur in social housing projects that do not have a mix of incomes.

For those compelling reasons, we should be considering replacing the existing wasteful government housing regime with the more affordable and effective alternative of shelter allowances instead of debating this ridiculous resolution.

With resolutions like this one we are considering here today, a resolution that is pure nonsense and has nothing to do with the real issues facing the people of Ontario, I have to ask, do you honestly wonder why there is so much animosity out there against the provincial government?

We should be talking about Bill 47, which brought closure in. There have been five closure motions in the last two weeks brought into this Legislature.

I have a letter here from a Wayne MacIntosh in Orillia, outraged at the proposals of Bill 47: "We should not let this get on the books without a fight." He indicates it's nothing but a tax grab. He's unhappy with regard to the six weeks' processing time, and he indicates that it's unconstitutional. This was one that was brought in as a closure motion.

The social services report and the debate we had earlier today with regard to our developmentally handicapped: There is concern with regard to that, and I think that was a great resolution, one which brought out the many aspects of the problems with that.

When we look at other community social services, the minister, that same minister we were talking about this morning -- I have a letter from a Jim Russell at RR4, Coldwater, who is very unhappy with regard to the minister, Mr Silipo. He says, "It gives me very little satisfaction or advice on how to solve this problem." This individual wrote to the minister with regard to the concerns that he had.

These are the types of things we should be debating here. We should be talking about these issues.

There are many other issues, such as Hydro. I haven't heard much discussion since the minister announced the layoffs in Hydro and the downgrading of the Bruce plant.

The parole system, which my colleague Mr Runciman has been talking about: Why is this government not bringing forward a resolution with regard to improving the parole system?

We spoke last week with regard to the cancer problems that we have.

The Agenda for People: It is also interesting that we still have that around. The member is talking about keeping the federal government to its commitment financially. What commitment has this government kept with regard to the Agenda for People that was put out in August 1990?

Minimum corporate tax: What's been done about that?

Fair taxes for the working people: Do you know what they've done with regard to fair taxes for people? They've done nothing but add tax to the individual. It would be interesting for some members to note that in this province of Ontario, an individual making $17,000 a year pays over $1,000 in income tax. Why aren't we talking about these issues with regard to the government?

I look at some of the questionnaires that I've sent out which say, "Do you support the provincial government's proposal to charge motorists tolls on new or improved highways and bridges to pay the cost?" Do you know what the questionnaire came back as? Well, 36% said yes; 57% said no. The undecided was 7%. These are the things we should be discussing in this Legislature and should be talking about.

I wanted to put some of these on the record because last Thursday we dealt with a resolution to urge the federal government to abolish the Senate. Today we're dealing with a resolution urging the federal government to keep its commitments. The resolution we should be dealing with here is urging this government to keep its commitments.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm delighted to stand in my place this morning and speak to the resolution of my friend and colleague the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. What a timely resolution this is.

Last week -- no, this week -- I awoke and I saw Mr Martin announcing on the television a deficit of some $46 billion. Wow: $46 billion.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Ten billion more.

Mr Mills: Now, it's my understanding that $13 billion of that debt --

Interjection.

Mr Mills: Look, just a minute. Some $13 billion of that debt was accumulated in the last year of the federal Conservative government, who have now gone on to their Waterloo. They met their Waterloo, and rightfully so. The people of Canada spoke.

I never want to stand in my place again and ever, ever hear members of the Conservative Party talk about this government and its financial responsibilities and how it has managed the deficit. I never want to hear any of them say anything again. I never want to hear any neo-right wing, would-be Conservative mention anything about this government's handling. What has happened is that we have been decimated by the policies of the Conservatives in Ottawa. They've absolutely destroyed this province in ways it would take me an hour to think about.

I want to talk about the health care system. We are battling now in Ontario, trying to maintain our health care, and we are having an awful job with it. The reason we're having an awful job with it is because those scoundrels in Ottawa that the people have gotten rid of absolutely cut off all the payments and forced this province into the situation that we're in.

I want to read from the Liberal red book. I'm going to hold them to this, and I wait for the Liberals here to come up with their "son of red book" for their 1995 campaign. The federal Liberals say: "The Liberal Party remains firmly committed to the five fundamental principles. Health care must be universal." I say, "Hear, hear." "Health care must be portable." Hear, hear. It must be, they say, comprehensive, publicly funded and publicly administered. I, for one, will be holding those people to that, because two-tiered health care in the province of Ontario is absolutely akin to making me say things I wouldn't do. I can't stand this. This is what the red book says: "Liberals cannot and will not accept a health care system that offers a higher quality of care for the rich than for the poor." I say, "Hear, hear" to that. I'm going to hold the Liberals to that, this red book, and I hope that the transfer payments to this province will allow us in this province to maintain that sort of health care that these people preach and that they want to see.

It says in the red book -- and the son of red book is going to come, no doubt -- "A Liberal government will not withdraw from or abandon the health care field." I want to make sure they blinking well don't, because the Conservatives in Ottawa have made it so difficult for this province to manage not only health care, welfare and all the other things, with their decimation, their cutbacks -- I'm beside myself to even think that someone would stand in his place and criticize this government for our mismanagement of the fiscal responsibilities of this province when we were forced into that by those scoundrels in Ottawa who are long gone, who have met their Waterloo.

1140

Mr Bradley: I would, as I did last week, again mention to the government members that I think it does no service to this Legislative Assembly to debate matters outside of its jurisdiction and matters which have little impact on the Legislature. We are elected to this Legislature to deal with provincial issues, and I can't recall, as a member over the years, dealing in any significant way with federal issues.

I think it's very important for the sake of those who watch the political system to know that there are three levels of government and that municipal people should deal with municipal things, provincial members with provincial jurisdiction and federal with federal jurisdiction.

I can recall sitting on St Catharines city council when one night -- I think we were banning guns across the country -- one member of the council asked another, "What is Lincoln doing about this?" They said, "Lincoln is banning seal hunting tonight." None of those, of course, were within the jurisdiction of that municipal council.

The same can be said here. I think it's important that we, as legislators, deal with provincial issues, that we don't confuse the people out there to believe that somehow we have some jurisdiction over matters of a federal nature. There are a lot of topics, I think, that members could put before the House which would be useful to study and to debate, and this is not one of them. I think it would be much more important to look at the Agenda for People, the textbook for the NDP, and what it was going to do in terms of promises if indeed that's what you're going to deal with.

I look at "Tax Fairness For The Working Poor." People across this province are paying far more in taxes than they have paid before, far more in charges that are out there to various people in various levels of income. They must still pay them whether it's for licensing, whether it's for services they get from the government, so that has not been kept.

I always enjoy this one because I was in education. Under "Restoring Education Funding/Property Tax Relief" it says: "New Democrats propose raising the provincial share of education costs to 60% over five years, providing a solid base for a better education system and lifting some of the load of property taxes."

That's extremely important, and I know that the members of the top echelon of the teachers' federations probably said to people within their federations, "The New Democrats will be a good choice because they are going to, over a period of five years, fund education at the provincial level to some 60%." Of course, what's happening is that funding is dropping. I am afraid this is what you invite when you bring forward a resolution of this kind.

I go through and see "Relief for Farmers." Farmers are in dire straits across this province. They're not getting the kind of relief they should be getting from the provincial government.

"Driver-Owned Insurance": I merely invoke the name of the beloved Mel Swart, former member for Welland-Thorold, who chastised the government for not implementing government auto insurance. I'm not critical of the government for that because I don't think it probably would have worked well, but there's a promise that is unkept.

Job protection: More people have lost their jobs in this province in the period of time since this government has been in power than certainly I can recall in previous years.

In terms of pensions, "Pension 'surpluses' would belong to the members of the plan, not to employers," and we have a bill that's coming before the House which will in fact allow what you'd never want to allow Conrad Black to do with teachers' pensions.

We get into protection for seniors. Seniors have felt the wrath of this recession probably as much as anybody else, and their costs are greater.

In the environment, this is of course totally amusing because I see we have "Safe, Clean Water." The municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is way, way behind in its implementation. I just read one of the regulations that came out last week, and I'll tell you that if a Liberal government had put that regulation out, all hell would break loose in the environmental community. I read it very carefully. I know weasel words when I see them, and I read those very carefully. I know weasel words when I see them, and those were weasel words in that.

It says here that there's going to be clean air. Nothing has been done on the clean air program; you're into your fourth year.

"Preserving Agricultural Land": We remember how well agricultural land was preserved around London, very good agricultural land. When London wanted to annex it, of course the government acquiesced and promoted that.

"Improving Public Transit": The last I saw was that GO Transit, which is public transit, was in fact being cut back in terms of the service provided.

I could go through all of these things.

Ms Murdock: Go through all of them. I dare you to go through all of them, each and every one.

Mr Bradley: The member for Sudbury should get a chance to speak.

Look at tuition. You ran on tuition; you were going to abolish tuition. You have increased tuition every year to those students, and there are people right across Ontario who believed you when you said you were going to abolish tuition fees. Instead, students today pay far more than they ever had to pay before.

Look, you solve your own problems before you worry about municipalities or the federal government. That's your responsibility, that's why we're elected to this House, not to play these stupid games with resolutions that have nothing to do with the Legislative Assembly.

There are a lot of things you could list that this government hasn't done. That's what you should be working on, that's what we should be working on, not something that has something to do with something else.

I know the strategy. The Premier's brought in Murray Weppler now and he will advise you to blame the Americans, blame the federal government, blame the unions, blame the municipalities, blame everybody else but this government. If you want to find the problem in this province, look in the mirror, you members of the government side, and you'll find the problem.

Mr Mammoliti: Blame yourselves for putting the province into this mess. That's who you should blame.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Yorkview, order, please.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I am pleased to be able to stand here today in support of the resolution from the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

The member for St Catharines spoke with passion during the last couple of minutes that this House should not tie itself to resolutions with the federal government, but I disagree. I think the people of Ontario need an explanation. They need to know the reasons why this province has been forsaken for nine years.

I'm standing here saying that we want to work in partnership with the new federal government. There's not been one negative word from our members saying anything about the new government in Ottawa. We are hoping to work with them, but the explanation is to tell people why we have been devastated, why our needs have not been addressed.

I come from the riding of Niagara South, where there are some wonderful people like Vicky Laws from the community living association. There have been people in our galleries today, beautiful people from all over the province, and we have not been able to give them the moneys they deserve. There are people like Janice Gordon who live in Fort Erie who feed the poor. In the province of Ontario, people need to be fed. How sad that is. But it's because we've been hurt so badly in this province.

We talk about the new federal government's pledge, and I have a belief it will fulfil its pledge of creating jobs and the economy. I want to talk about an industry in Niagara, the shipping industry. So many people talk about the automotive industry, they talk about agriculture, but there is a shipping industry that has also been forgotten by the federal government. They have allowed ships to fly foreign flags and not employ people from Ontario and the Maritimes.

The former government had a Minister of Fisheries that was so interested always in demeaning women, and now we have a new deputy Prime Minister from this province, a woman from Hamilton, who I know is going to stand up for the issues of women in this country. I have faith in her.

But going back to the tale I'm telling you about St Catharines and the Niagara area with shipping, the rates are too high. This is a federal issue. They have to control shipping and get it going again, shipbuilding. This government built a ferry, the Pelee Island ferry in St Catharines. Yes, it created some jobs, but it's not enough.

We as a Parliament have to work with the federal government and bring jobs, make sure it keeps its commitment, make it aware of how much we've been hurt in the Niagara area. There shouldn't be a need for food banks, but the federal government created -- transfer payments: When I talked about the wonderful and beautiful people from all over the province from community living groups, do you realize that this government was not given $4.5 billion in transfer payments that we deserve? With that $4.5 billion we would be able to keep all our commitments to this community who needs the money so desperately.

1150

Members hold up a paper called the Agenda for People. They read the headlines on it. We have worked so hard to make that agenda happen, and also opposition members hold up papers that call us traitors because we broke contracts. We broke contracts in this province to save 50,000 to 60,000 jobs. The new Prime Minister kept one of his promises: He broke the helicopter contract. I agree, it was much too rich, but he put 1,000 people out of work the next day, including the good people of Fort Erie, where I have Fleet Aerospace. I only ask that the federal government keep its promises on job creation; remember the people that it just put out of work.

The member for Kenora is holding up "The Traitors." The traitors were the federal government --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Kenora.

Hon Mrs Coppen: -- the federal Tory government. The heroes will be the New Democrat government of Ontario.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Employees' unions put this out.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Kenora, please respect the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: You didn't put that out. Their union people put it out.

Mr Miclash: Unions. We didn't do that.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West. The member for Kenora. The member for Niagara South has the floor.

Mr Miclash: You think we have nothing to be upset about. Give me a break. Equalize gas prices across Ontario.

Ms Murdock: Oh, geez.

Mr Miclash: The member for Sudbury remembers that well.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kenora, I would ask you to refrain from interjecting.

Hon Mrs Coppen: A comment was also made a few moments ago about our commitment to eliminating tuition. I just had a constituent come into my office and yes, they are upset about tuition. Their daughter wanted to enrol in university: $6,000 for a working couple. They went across the river to Buffalo, New York, thinking opportunities were better there for their child's education. They were given a bill of $18,000.

Yes, I wish we could eliminate those tuitions. It would help an awful lot of working people let their children get educated.

Mr Miclash: Agenda for People, Shirley, what did it say? It said --

Hon Mrs Coppen: The Agenda for People. Keep reading the book over and over, because we have kept our commitment to people --

Mr Miclash: Tuition fees. You didn't eliminate the tuition fees.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kenora, I'm warning you.

Hon Mrs Coppen: I'll conclude, Mr Speaker. I started and I continue to want to work in partnership. I have not said any negative words about the new federal government. We are hoping to work with them. My purpose in standing in support of this resolution is to let people know how this province has been forgotten by the former federal government and how we are looking to work with the new government.

Their book is called Creating Opportunities, an opportunity for partnership with all of the provinces in Canada. If together with the new government we support this resolution, it can happen for Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: This has to be one of the dumbest things of everything that's come forward from the government side, to start asking other levels of government to keep promises that were made in a campaign. I don't know what happened over there when this took place, but can you imagine these people writing this motion in a back room somewhere, the government side?

"We've got nothing for private members' hour on Thursday. What do you think we should do?" And one of them said, "Why don't we write a motion that says the Liberal government that's just been elected should keep its promises?" And then some other person who's in the meeting, probably not there purposely but who showed up, said, "Well, you people, if we write that motion, the opposition might have a copy of the Agenda for People," and they all turned on that person and said: "We told you never to use those words in this House again. Don't ever talk about the Agenda for People. We don't want to hear about that. We want to talk about the federal Liberal promises and how they should be kept."

But the poor innocent soul, who probably wasn't a dipper before the election and just kind of fell into the job, said, "My gosh, we made a lot of promises too that we haven't kept." And then they said to this person, like the member from London just a minute ago said, "Oh, we've kept our promises." And then that poor little soul who fell into the meeting said, "Well, I just happen to have a copy of the Agenda for People here, and there's a lot of things in this Agenda for People that we promised the good people of Ontario we would do that we haven't done."

And everybody turns on this poor soul who snuck into that meeting and gave some salient points of view on why it's maybe not a good idea to throw rocks at glass houses, who said: "But minimum corporate tax; we didn't do that. And tax fairness for the working poor; my gosh, we've raised taxes on the working poor. Succession duties on estates of the rich and super-rich" -- remember the super-rich and the salad days of the 1980s, the super-rich? Well, there's no more super-rich. They got rid of the super-rich.

Speculation tax: at that meeting, the poor soul stood there and said, "Remember when we thought a spec tax was a good idea?" Gosh, that's gone by the board. But they've kept their promises. Don't let them tell you they haven't. They have.

Restoring education property tax relief to 60%: We still don't any money from the provincial government for education and you promised we'd get 60%, but you've kept your promises, we know that. This is just our imagination. This was a joke; they were kidding. People weren't taking this seriously. Yes, sure, people voted for them on this, but, "Nobody really believed we'd do it, did they?" No.

That poor soul in that meeting is really getting pummelled now by all the NDP, because we go to driver-owned insurance. "We promised the government would run auto insurance." Well, at that point they just slugged that person. "Will you be quiet? That's just a joke. We were kidding. People don't take those things seriously. We're socialists."

We move on to job protection. Job protection? The only thing you're protecting is their unemployment cheques. That's job protection to this government. Then there's training and adjustment.

Now we go to child care: 10,000 spaces over two years. They've abolished private sector child care. They abolished it. That poor soul in the meeting is really getting pummelled at this point, but that's not all. Remember eradicating food banks? Gee, I don't see any more food banks, and if I do, I'm only imagining them. They don't exist, because the socialists kept their promises, and now we've got to make sure the Liberals do federally.

We move on to protection for seniors, and then the environment. We know you've kept your promises on the environment, we know you did that. Some people are saying you didn't, but I'm saying, "You're wrong, because the socialists tell me they did keep their promises." Fifty per cent recycling on pop cans: We know it's 50% or 2%, one or the other, but you kept your promise. Safe, clean water: You kept your promise. Less garbage: You kept their promise. Saving agricultural farm land: I know you're saving agricultural farm land, keeping your promise on grade 1 farm land, because on that farm land you're growing garbage. You've kept your promise. Don't let anyone say you haven't.

And now, since you're so good at keeping your promises, since you're so forthright and honest and upfront with the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, you now have a higher calling, folks. You must keep those dastardly, dishonest Liberals in the federal government, who make promises and don't keep them and give all us politicians a bad name -- you've got to get them in line and make sure they keep their promises, just like you keep your promises.

Oh, to be so perfect, to be so pure, to be so full of horsefeathers.

1200

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): It's been said that the Liberal Party of Canada campaigns from the left and governs from the right. That's why we in Ontario, while looking with some approval at promises made by the Chrétien Liberals, do not entirely have faith that we'll see these promises realized.

What is really rather remarkable and hasn't, I believe, been pointed out, is the similarity in many respects between what the Liberals have promised and what the NDP government of Ontario has already delivered.

This is particularly remarkable in view of the fact that voters and media have both approved the Liberal proposals, as shown in the election results, while at the same time excoriating the government of Ontario for effectively practising what the Liberals are preaching. The media and the tendency to scapegoat in bad times are very powerful indeed.

My colleague from Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has already dealt with the jobs issue, which is at the forefront of both governments, and has pointed out that in Ontario we are already spending 10 times the amount that Ontario would receive if the Liberal government delivers on those promises.

Certainly in my riding I have seen the money coming in for infrastructure projects, which of course create jobs; for example, $2 million for fire safety improvements to the local seniors' home, and that is one of very many.

Drastic streamlining of expenditures promised, and rightly so, by the Liberal government have a familiar ring too, but Ontario has already incurred the hassles and opprobrium that come from actually doing it, to the tune of $8 billion this year.

The Liberals have promised to reduce the $4.1-billion consulting and professional budget of the federal government by 15%, and to reduce the size and budget of cabinet ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office. I hope they succeed, but they will have to do a lot more than that to equal our record.

Our cuts have been achieved with minimum job loss, unlike those now hitting in other provinces. Forty thousand jobs could have been lost in the public sector; thanks to the much-maligned social contract, it didn't happen.

The Liberals offer greater cooperation with other levels of government to reduce overlap and resulting waste. Ontario is far advanced in working more closely with lower levels of government to achieve just that. Disentanglement is well under way. We would value the closer cooperation with the senior levels which they are promising.

The very similarity of their expressed aims and what we are doing suggests that an enormous overlap in function between federal and provincial governments exists. They say they want to renegotiate federal-provincial fiscal arrangements to ensure the maximum degree of financial predictability and stability for each level of government. Let's do it.

I'm running out of time so I'll just have to say, can the Liberals bring themselves to acknowledge what we are doing and to learn from it and work with us? We welcome their help. Let us govern --

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, you have two minutes.

Mr Paul Johnson: I find it incredibly interesting for members of the official opposition and the third party to say that the resolution I brought to the House this morning was a waste of time. I think that the people of Ontario are very concerned about what happens in the province of Ontario with regard to the economy, their taxes, their services, and certainly how we manage our deficit and debt in the province of Ontario.

I also want to say that some of the members on the other side who said this was a waste of time have brought forward two resolutions which really are out of the purview of this chamber. Indeed, the member for St Catharines talked about the General Motors foundry closure. We don't have any control over corporations to the extent that he would like to think and so he raises that in this chamber and that was most inappropriate, according to what he said.

Let me say this, the member for Carleton brought in a resolution that wanted to abolish the Senate. I agree with him. I think it's the right thing to do, get rid of the Senate. It costs too much. I don't think it serves the people of Canada properly. However, he did bring it in. It is something that certainly is outside of the mandate of this Legislature. However, we do from time to time debate these things and indeed today we had that opportunity.

I want to say that the member for Etobicoke West didn't have the mental wherewithal, I guess, to understand that we had an opportunity to debate the economy of Ontario today, and what did he do? He talked about other things. I think that's most unfortunate, quite frankly.

So the members had a great opportunity here today to talk about the financial commitments of the federal Liberal government, which we all hope it keeps; however, they didn't do that.

ASSISTANCE TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time provided for private members' public business has expired. We will deal first with ballot item number 39 standing in the name of Mrs Marland. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Marland has moved private members' resolution number 33. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1207 to 1212.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Marland has moved private member's resolution number 33. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Callahan, Carr, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Eddy, Eves, Frankford, Grandmaître, Haeck, Harrington, Harris, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Klopp, Kwinter, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Marchese, Marland, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Offer, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Rizzo, Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Simcoe West), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Hansen, Hope, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), MacKinnon.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 51; the nays are 4. I declare the motion carried.

FEDERAL ELECTION PROMISES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 40 standing in the name of Mr Paul Johnson. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

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

The House recessed from 1215 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CROP INSURANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It came as a bit of a surprise to me when, earlier in the week, I was advised that there is what is called by the ministry the "re-engineering" of the delivery of crop insurance being carried out even as we speak.

In a letter sent to the people who used to sell crop insurance in the various areas around the province, a ministry official has indicated that no longer will there be any employees who will be selling crop insurance. Instead, these people who used to market crop insurance, who used to advertise about its good side, its benefits, and who used to take back from the producers who had concerns to the ministry the changes that might help improve the program -- we will no longer have that occurring.

Those people have been terminated. Just like last year when the government unilaterally terminated the contract or refused to renew the contact that ultimately had to be renegotiated, this year the ministry again unilaterally has told these people that they will not have work.

There are a number of problems with crop insurance. A number of producers want to speak to local representatives. No longer will that be possible. No longer will local people talk to local representatives. Now everybody is going to be made a government employee, and those government employees I know will not get out on the road and will not be in a position to talk directly to crop insurers.

Even though these people will have an opportunity of becoming yield collectors between the months of August and December, the service will not be the same, and crop insurance, I believe, will suffer.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): We are approaching that time of year when we gather with our families to celebrate the traditions of the holiday season. We're reminded of how fortunate we are to have each other, our health and the opportunity to share joy with friends and neighbours. As we look forward to enjoying our own festivities, it is important for those of us who possess such good fortune to reach out to help and share with those less fortunate than ourselves.

At this time of year we should be aware that local food banks need more help than ever this holiday season to keep the less fortunate fed. For example, food banks run by the Orillia Salvation Army and the Sharing Place have difficulty keeping their shelves filled.

Between November 1 and 22, the Orillia Salvation Army's food bank fed about 200 families and so far has received 200 applications for Christmas hampers. The Sharing Place is spending about $2,000 per month to meet its needs and has fed between 60 and 114 people each day it's been open.

We all have a role to play in ensuring the holiday season is happier for those in need. We can do that by donating non-perishable items to food banks like the Sharing Place. We can also do that by contributing to the Christmas Kettle Fund, donating food, clothing and toys to the Salvation Army or volunteering to help sort and pack Christmas hampers. In doing so, we can help those less fortunate experience the warmth and generosity of spirit that make this season special.

CITY OF SAULT STE MARIE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise proudly today to share with you and the House a logo recently developed by the Economic Development Corp in partnership with the community for the city of Sault Ste Marie. Today I would like to congratulate my community and our local EDC for the innovative and creative logo they have given to our city.

The logo incorporates simple representations of the outflow of Lake Superior, the northern sky and the Canadian maple leaf. The logo evokes a feeling of the multiseasonal change that happens in our area. The name, Sault Ste Marie, is accompanied by a smaller symbol of the city's geographic location at the hub of the Great Lakes.

"Naturally Gifted" is the slogan we have chosen, which best represents the talents and gifts we have in Sault Ste Marie. Good things and good people have come from our community, and this is what this new logo will represent. We are back on track in the Sault with our major industries. The Sault Greyhounds have been successful over the last three years. We've given Canada its first woman astronaut, Roberta Bondar. Some of the best hockey players in North America have come from our community: the Esposito brothers were two, Paul DiPietro, Ron Francis; even Wayne Gretzky played for some time in our city.

We also have had some of Ontario's more outstanding members of this place. I remember, for example, Art Wishart, John Rhodes and Russ Ramsay, and of course Steve Mahoney hails from Sault Ste Marie as well.

My congratulations to Sault Ste Marie, and keep on keeping on.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I appreciate the plug. I don't know if I'm now supposed to be nice, but congratulations to my home town, Sault Ste Marie; we're proud of it.

Yesterday in the House in response to a question by my leader, the Minister of Labour either was mistaken or made an error of some type, I'm not sure. The leader said:

"At a time when 27,000 Ontario businesses are facing WCB rate increases of more than 25%, employers have a right to be angry when they see continued examples of the mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board. Minister, why is the WCB's only response to its financial crisis and its mismanagement to raise the premiums for employers?"

The minister said: "The member...knows specifically that the increase, whether she accepts it or not, is 3%, and that the differences, and there are as many down as there are up, are the adjustments that were made in the classification system."

To correct the minister and the record, the facts are that of 219 rate categories, 67 or 31% went down, while 129 or 59% went up and while 23 or 10% stayed the same. Clearly twice as many went up as went down, which is totally contrary to what the minister said, and I would hope he would want to correct the record.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This summer the government introduced a 25-cent-per-litre tax on beer and wine made in brew-on-premises establishments. The tax is to rise twice more, so that by 1995 the total tax will be 38 cents per litre for you-brew beer or wine. Well, by 1995 there won't be enough brew-on-premises business left to tax. They'll all be gone and their employees will be on unemployment or social assistance.

It's already happening. At the three brew-on-premises establishments in my riding in Brockville, customers have been staying away in droves rather than pay an extra $12 a batch in provincial tax. One you-brew business is now up for sale and the other two have watched their sales cut in half since the tax was introduced.

These two businesses used to employ 11 full- and part-time workers. The owners tell me that by February, when sales are slow, they'll have to let everyone go. The owners will work alone behind the counter and leave the state to care for their former employees.

According to the brew-on-premises association, this tax has killed 186 full-time and 225 part-time jobs in just two short months. These are small business operators working a small niche of the beer market.

I urge the government to leave these owners be. Stop killing small business. Stop future tax increases to this sector and stop killing jobs.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): One of the most difficult challenges facing governments today is the issue of taxation and revenues. All across Canada from province to province we see governments struggling to find innovative ways to stimulate their economies, to create new wealth and to get people back to work.

Later today I will submit a bill to amend the Assessment Act to encourage economic growth.

Currently, when home owners undertake to make an improvement to their properties, they are immediately reassessed and their property tax increased accordingly. This has the negative effect of penalizing people for upgrading their own homes. It also encourages them to get improvements done without a building permit and drives them to the underground economy, thereby depriving the Ontario government of possible sales and income tax revenues.

The proposed bill would give Ontarians an exemption from any increase in property taxes as a result of making renovations and additions. I feel this would be an incentive for people to spend money that they otherwise would not have spent. We are talking about job creation at a grass-roots level, with more building materials being purchased, small businesses creating employment for more tradespeople and neighbourhoods benefiting from increased economic activity.

Stimulating economic activity is this government's first priority. The passing of this bill would be another step in the right direction.

1340

MURRAY WEPPLER

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have some news for the people of Ontario, in case they're not aware of it:

"Premier Bob Rae has hired his third communications adviser in a year." That's always known as a spin doctor.

"Murray Weppler, who has worked for two federal NDP leaders and former Ontario NDP leader Michael Cassidy, started working as Rae's chief communications aide on Friday."

He doesn't come cheap. "Weppler will earn a deputy minister's salary -- which ranges from $104,500 to $152,250 -- to help the government coordinate its communications strategy and cast a favourable light on government activities.

"The long-time party loyalist is the third person to act as Rae's chief communications aide in the past year.

"John Piper resigned last November after becoming tangled in" a scandal. "He was replaced by Montreal communications specialist Jean-Guy Carrier last spring....

"Weppler was a reporter at the Ontario Legislature in the late 1960s and started working as federal NDP leader David Lewis's executive assistant in 1971."

Was it Murray Weppler who arranged for the Windsor casino announcement to be made Friday at 3 pm, when the Legislature is not sitting, and when the Windsor Star, which has the most immediate interest in this story, will be unable to have the announcement in its final edition? Do we have another John Piper?

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEARNING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to tell this House and the people of Ontario about an experience I had yesterday evening as I made a presentation to the Royal Commission on Learning.

As you know, the Royal Commission on Learning has been charged with -- I will read directly from the propaganda it sent to promote its process: "The commission will reach out to, and listen to, everyone committed to quality education."

This House should be aware that the Royal Commission on Learning is not doing an adequate job of listening to the people of Ontario. At last night's public hearing, only four of the commissioners were present to hear deputations. Co-chair Gerald Caplan was not present. After his comments in the Ottawa Citizen that he is "certain there is no hope of drawing a clear message from the differing and often contrary views Ontarians hold about their education system," he has probably decided to give up hearing deputations.

To make matters worse, the commissioners were then divided into two rooms and I was forced to appear before only two members. They interrupted my speech during my opening remarks and asked if I'd be able to summarize my comments. I had taken a great deal of time to prepare my remarks to the royal commission because I felt, as a member of provincial Parliament serving a population of over 50,000 people, I had an obligation to pass on to the commission the many concerns and comments I had received from my constituents regarding education in Ontario.

To be interrupted during my introduction was certainly frustrating. Then to be given a mere 10 minutes was laughable. Stop the farce. Either give the people the time and opportunity to make their full presentation or admit that you have no intention of listening to the people.

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

Mr Tilson: Pretending to listen is worse than not even trying to consult.

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I've been rising in the House to remind members of the wonderful programs that this government has been introducing in the last three years. Today I would like to tie that in with the recent event in the town of St Marys in my riding.

The program is community economic development and the event was a community forum for display of services and informative workshops on the theme Focus on Financing your Community Project.

Seminar presentations highlighted the value of volunteers, successful fund-raising and understanding the emerging societal trends to better plan marketing campaigns.

In this information revolution, the organizations that were involved in this forum recognized that their contribution to the economy of my own community will be maximized by keeping abreast of government policies and funding access formats.

Jobs Ontario Community Action, designed to give local communities the resources and tools they need to undertake economic renewal initiatives, formed an important aspect in this community forum. This program can help communities help themselves by giving them greater control of their own economic development.

Carolyn Clark, coordinator and founder of Pro-Vision, a new company ready to help communities and volunteer organizations network and take advantage of government programs, put together an excellent project in cooperation with the St Marys Economic Development/Tourism Committee, and I am sure that the participating associations gained much from the first community economic development forum.

I hope more communities investigate this idea and take advantage of some of the new community economic development program pieces.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, as you know, traditionally the government announces tuition fee increases in the fall, usually in November. The minister would be aware that both the student community as well as the universities and colleges themselves are anxiously waiting to hear what the next increases will be. We know that since this government has taken office, it has increased tuition fees by some 22%.

Minister, can you tell us today what the tuition increases will be, and if you can't tell us today, will you make a commitment as to precisely what day you will be making that announcement before we rise?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I can't indicate the precise percentage of increase because that hasn't been decided yet. As soon as it has been decided, we will make a public announcement and the member will certainly be informed as soon as possible.

Mr Beer: I have been informed that in fact you and the government have made a decision that tuition fees are going to increase by 14% over the next two years, 7% and 7%, so that's 14% on top of the 22% that has already been implemented, for a total of some 36% increase in tuition fees by this government. Just to put that in perspective, that is over three times the rate of inflation during that same period.

Minister, at a time when students have, as you know, an impossible time in finding any kind of full or part-time employment to help pay their existing tuition fees, when it's very difficult to be able to plan for any kind of job, and when they see that the grants program has ended, how are you able to justify, in that climate, putting the burden of the increases needed for proper university and college funding on the backs of students? How can you justify any tuition increases this year?

Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, the member is wrong about a decision being made. I have not signed a cabinet submission to go to cabinet yet. I haven't signed a cabinet submission because the one that was presented to me was not one that I was prepared to sign. I've given some instructions to the ministry to redo the cabinet submission, so there's been no decision made.

I can assure the member that when we deal with the tuition question, it's not simply going to be a matter of dealing with tuitions. It's going to be a matter of increasing student aid to cover any increase in tuitions, having real student involvement in how that money is spent, dealing with the question of enrolment and increasing the amount of enrolment in our universities with the tuition increase, and also dealing with the whole question of ancillary fees.

Those are all going to be parts of the package, and it's not simply going to be a percentage increase in tuitions. I told him that before. It will be a comprehensive package that will reflect a lot of the concerns that students have expressed to us as we've consulted with them.

1350

Mr Beer: I at least recognize that what we've had confirmed is that there is something that is going through cabinet, and I would hope and encourage the minister to look at the kind of increase that is being proposed and also the package that he is contemplating.

What I want to make clear, Minister, is that all this is happening at a time when, through the expenditure control plan, you've taken $90 million away from colleges and universities, and through the social contract you've taken away a further $160 million. The only policy one can see on the part of you and your government is that whatever the needs of the universities and colleges are, those will be met on the backs of students and families through tuition increases.

As the minister has raised other parts of what he says will be a package that he's going to announce, and given the backdrop that the average student loan this year has gone up from some $3,200 to $5,300 and student debt has gone up also by a similar margin, Minister, can you tell us clearly then that you will put a cap on the non-tuition fees, that you will make changes to the Ontario student assistance plan so it will enable students to deal with whatever it is -- the 14% increase, 10% increase -- because we know you're going to have an increase. Will you protect the students of this province so that they will be able to go to the university and college of their choice?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I can indicate to the member is that there will be a comprehensive package, and some of the issues that the member has raised will be addressed in the package that I present to cabinet.

But I can also indicate to the member that when your critic for post-secondary education has asked questions, he's talked about the difficulties with the capacity in the college and university system and the fact that there's not enough capacity for the qualified students who have applied. We can't deal with that question unless we put more money into the system. There is no additional money for transfer payments, so it has to come from someplace, and obviously it's going to have to come from increased tuition. The member has to accept that.

I would also suggest that your critic says one thing, you say another thing and then your leader goes around the province and talks about an additional $2 billion in cuts in transfers. Now, what would that do to the students and the universities of this province? What is the Liberal position today?

Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Let the record show that there is no difference of opinion between myself, the member for Ottawa South and my leader.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. Would the member take his seat, please. I ask the member to come to order. New question.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question for the Attorney General. We have seen in today's newspapers and also have received excerpts from a report by Metro Toronto with respect to the special investigations unit and problems that have arisen as a result of Mr Howard Morton and his conduct.

Madam Minister, I know you're familiar with the problem, but just to underscore it, let me indicate that Mr Morton has spoken directly with members of a victim's family at least six months in advance of informing the other people who were involved in the investigation about the results from the investigation. Do you find that to be conduct becoming of his position in public office?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I have not had the benefit that the Toronto Sun has had and that apparently the House leader for the opposition has had of reading the report. I understand a copy was delivered to our ministry a little earlier today, but I have not had the opportunity to read that, nor has it been discussed by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. It is to be tabled at their meeting.

So it would be quite inappropriate for me to comment either on the content of a report I have not read at all or to make a comment on what the member reports is part of that. However, I would say to the member that certainly I take very seriously the allegations that have been made.

Mr Elston: We know how ministries work. As soon as the report came out in the Toronto Sun, all kinds of people would have been running around the minister's office, briefing her about this and indicating what in fact was happening. She would have had people down at the police services board who would have called back and told her what was in the report.

Let me just read this. It says:

"Mr Morton spoke to members of the Vega family and their lawyer several times. He told them on May 21, 1993, of his findings in clearing Constable Gallant of criminal wrongdoing and discussed their options including a civil litigation. Mr Morton did not inform the police force until October 4, 1993, of his findings. No reasonable explanation has been given why it took him so long to do this."

Don't you find it very, very difficult indeed to support this gentleman in his office? Will you ask him to resign?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Earlier this session, we had a very vehement discussion in this House about the presumption of innocence when people are accused or allegations are made against them. I would assume that the same would apply to people who work in government positions.

When I have received the report and I have reviewed it and I have had an opportunity to speak with the individual involved, then I will be able to make a decision. I certainly have no intention of making any pronouncement at this point in time.

Mr Elston: We have no confidence that the Attorney General will move at all. She has known there have been complaints lodged both by our party, by Mr Osler and others with respect to the operation of the SIU.

Indeed, it is clearly known that the SIU needs at least 20 people to carry out the job which has been assigned to it, and your ministry has allowed it but five. You have refused to provide them with the legislative clarification required for them to do their job and now you have indicated it'll take you a long time to read the report.

Will the Attorney General come clean with us today and indicate that she will totally revamp the SIU by providing the needed resources and by taking out of operation a chairperson who has obviously overstepped his lines?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am not prepared to make that statement at this time and I have explained why. I have also been very clear in this House that I share the concern that's been expressed by the opposition, by the third party and by many members of the community, as well as policing forces, that the current legislation does not do what was expected to be done; legislation, I would remind the member, that was designed and passed by his government.

It is not sufficient and we have made it quite clear that part of our job is to work with the SIU, with the policing community and with the broader community to try to work out, first of all, interim measures, because there need to be interim measures, given the length of time it takes to get any kind of legislative initiative through this place, and we will be proceeding to make the SIU more effective.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. The minister this morning announced the test results of the grade 12 English- and French-language writing programs. The panels evaluated the overall quality of student writing according to five categories: superior, strong, satisfactory, marginal and weak.

The panel evaluating the English-language results rated the overall performance of students enrolled in advanced-level English courses as, listen to this, Mr Speaker, marginal for day students -- marginal for advanced English -- and weak for night students; the performance of students in general and basic courses in our day schools as satisfactory; and the overall performance of French-language students as satisfactory. As the Minister of Education, I ask you, how do you justify such disturbing and unacceptable results?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, the member should make it clear that this writing evaluation was done in 1991 and was an initiative by this government to start building some accountability into a public education system that for all too long, by her party and the Liberal Party, had been left completely unaccountable in this province, and we're determined to change that. That's simply a reality.

I indicated this morning at the press conference, and I'm sure whoever was there monitoring the press conference for you told you, that I was not satisfied with the results. Two thirds of the individuals who participated in the results were satisfactory, but the fact that one third were not means that we've got some work to do. That's what accountability is all about, testing the system, looking at it, and making the results public so that the public knows the state of their public education system. Then it's up to the government and the boards and the profession to take the necessary steps to correct the difficulties.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Minister, I just have to advise you that we've been conducting these provincial reviews since 1987 and every time the results have been satisfactory or marginal -- since 1987. On April 21, 1989, Mr Richard Johnston, the former NDP Education critic, stated in response to the poor results of the provincial chemistry and physics reviews that, and I'm going to quote:

"It's time the minister stopped being so pleased. I doubt that many parents are pleased. It's time the minister acted upon the results that are confirmed in study after study and undertook a serious effort to remedy these problems."

1400

We can't afford to have an education system that graduates students that write at a "satisfactory" level. My question to the minister is this: Do you agree that it is time to introduce (1) a core curriculum based on internationally verified standards, (2) regular systemic testing, and (3), and I underline this, remedial programs to ensure that all children acquire a knowledge at a strong or superior level? Do you agree with that?

Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, the member should also realize that this evaluation was done before the Common Curriculum came in. Of course, now that we have a common curriculum across the province, it will take time to see the benefits of that curriculum work its way through the system. Let's be fair about that.

Secondly, she doesn't make any reference to the fact that this morning we also announced that the standards, and again an initiative from this government, will be released for grades 3, 6 and 9 in February of next year. That's very clear and a positive step as well.

The other thing we announced this morning was that the province-wide testing for grade 9 students in reading and writing that is happening this year is being repeated the following year. So this government is moving aggressively with national testing, science, writing and arithmetic and province-wide testing in grade 9, in a way that no other government has ever had enough guts to do, and we're doing it because we want to see the public education system the best system in the world.

Mrs Cunningham: I have to say that I did carefully read what the minister said this morning as a result of his statement and that's why I'm asking the question.

If Canada is to remain competitive in the tough economic times that lie ahead, it is absolutely essential that all of our high school graduates attain a high level of competence in all the basic skills -- not just a few of them; all of them, in every single grade.

If they are entering university without these skills, something is radically wrong with our entire system of education and the taxpayers' money is wasted. Universities are doing remedial testing. Therefore, they're spending more money trying to equip students with skills they should have learned in our elementary and secondary schools. We don't want a satisfactory system or a pretty good system, as the minister described this morning; we want an internationally competitive education system.

My question: The minister advised us today that these students were tested in 1991. I'm advising him that students have been tested in this regard since 1985. It's not new. They are now, these very students we're talking about today, post-secondary education students. I'm going to ask you, Mr Minister, if you will elaborate on your last answer, expand upon it, and tell us what immediate steps you are taking to make sure that this trend does not continue.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think I already indicated to the member that the Common Curriculum was released last February for grades 1 to 9. I think it is important to realize there is more testing and evaluation of our public education system going on under this government than has ever occurred in the history of the public education system, more than even in the 1960s, as some in the Tory party like to talk about.

We're evaluating. We've brought in the Common Curriculum. We've brought in the standards. There are more substantial changes to the system than have occurred in years and years and years because we're determined to improve the public education system for all of the students to make it the best system in the world.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to go back to the Attorney General concerning her response to the member for Bruce on the Morton affair. The minister in response said that she has not read the report. I wonder if the minister could just clarify for me if she's talking about the report that the member for Willowdale has called to be made public and called for your reaction to on many occasions. Is she talking about the report of the allegations, as were outlined in the Toronto Sun today, of Mr Morton counselling relatives of a man who was fatally shot by a Metro police officer? Is that the report she's talking about that she hasn't read? I wonder if she could clarify for us just what information is in her ministry around this contentious issue that she has not read yet. Could you do that, Minister?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'd be happy to do so for the member. The report to which I referred was the report that is being tabled today at the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board.

Mr Harris: Minister, you've refused to ask for the resignation of Mr Morton, saying I guess that you're waiting to read a report. If this report then is a report on the allegations, I would want to ask you why you haven't read it, given the credibility problem that SIU has, given the great difficulty that is out there among all the police officers and the lack of credibility of Mr Morton, which has been brought to your attention on many occasions by the member for Willowdale.

Could I ask you this: In many circumstances, when one has lost credibility and effectiveness, while waiting for the final determination on whether you're going to sack them or not, one would ask him to step down at least temporarily pending the investigation. Are you prepared to do that?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Again, I would refer to the fulminations of the opposition and the third party around the whole issue of presumption of innocence earlier this year. I think it is most inappropriate for the member to suggest that when there are allegations from one group of people, one should act without having a full ability to know what the issues are around the fact.

The member asked why I had not read the report. I had not read the report because I am not a member of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. The report was delivered to our office, as I understand it, late this morning. As soon as I have an opportunity to read that, to discuss the matters with the individuals involved and to discuss the matter with the deputy minister, I may be in a position to give a fuller answer, but it would be most inappropriate for me to make assumptions based on other people's reports of what is in a report that I have not read at this time.

Mr Harris: The member for Willowdale has raised example after example of problems at the SIU. He's raised the deficiencies of the legislation, which you today acknowledge and have done nothing about. It's not good enough just to point to the Liberals for bringing in bad legislation. You've been there three years now, you've had plenty of opportunities and it's been pointed out to you on many occasions that you should do something about it.

Secondly, in the absence of a job description, Mr Morton has obviously written his own, and it is obvious that it is not working. He is to be head of an impartial body, but clearly Mr Morton believes his job is much different than that. Given that when police officers are under investigation they are asked to step down, why is it that Mr Morton is not asked to step down when the investigation ought to be being made about allegations that he's lost his impartiality? Can you explain that double standard?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have a number of problems with what the member has said. There are some instances indeed where allegations against police officers require them to either step down from their jobs or to be suspended or to take on other duties. That does happen and there's no question about that. I would not be able to determine in this case, until I've actually seen what the situation is, whether that would be appropriate in this case, and I've made that clear to the member.

I would agree with the member, and I have not just said today in this House but I have said previously, that I share the concern around the lack of clarity in the legislation around the mandate of the SIU. That has also been identified by the director of the SIU. The director has been very clear about his advocacy for a much clearer mandate and much clearer rules of procedure. So we're not in disagreement with that, and I'm delighted to hear that the third party is prepared to support a legislative change that would strengthen the SIU.

1410

RECYCLING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it is on this issue right here.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Ah, the blue box.

Mr Offer: Minister, in less than three months provincial funding for the blue box program will run out. Yesterday, at Metro works committee, a proposal to expand the Toronto blue box program was deferred because of uncertainty in funding. I understand at that meeting it was indicated there is information circulating that any new financing program involving the private sector will not be ready in time.

Municipalities throughout the province need the assurance that this program, the blue box program, will not die this April. It appears there will not be a private sector financing agreement. If this is the case, will you commit today to extending the blue box funding program until such time as an agreement with the private sector is finalized so that this program doesn't die?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The Minister of Environment has already given the assurance that the government will ensure the financial stability of the blue box program. The government is sensitive to the concerns of the municipalities and I'd ask the honourable member, what information does he have that no one else seems to have that private enterprise is not going to cooperate? The industry has come forward with the Canadian industry product stewardship initiative. We are negotiating with them. Those are the facts. It would be helpful if the honourable member did not spread misinformation to the public and scare them in an unnecessary way.

Mr Offer: It would be helpful if the Minister of Municipal Affairs would watch some things that take place, such as what took place at Metro Toronto yesterday where this information was made public.

Without a funding commitment, you are putting the blue box program in danger of collapsing. You will kill this program. Municipalities cannot plan; confusion continues. The Ministry of Environment and Energy has put the ADM, Ron Clark, in charge of forging a new financial arrangement in place. Today I was informed that Mr Clark is going to retire January 1, in less than 30 days. No person in charge, no agreement, no plan: Minister, we need your commitment to maintain this program. Don't kill the blue box program. Will you commit today, yes or no, to maintaining this program?

Hon Mr Philip: The members of the opposition get up day after day and attack the blue box program. Now they want the assurance that it will continue. They like to have it both ways.

Let me give the assurance that there is no --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Philip: It would be interesting to know what their policy is. They're the only party I know of that can make headlines by saying they finally had a policy, as the Toronto Star had today.

Let me assure the member that there is no basis whatsoever to his claim that a funding agreement will not be ready. There is no basis. Read my lips: There is no basis to your statement.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have another --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Dufferin-Peel with his question.

Mr Tilson: I have another question for the minister of dumps. Mr McIntyre told the Metro works committee yesterday that the estimated planning costs for the three dumps could cost as high as $280 million, and that's excluding expropriation.

To continue to loan the IWA obscene amounts of money on its attempt to buy off opponents of the three farms destined to become superdumps -- Minister, can you tell the House how the IWA intends to pay back this enormous loan that the province of Ontario is giving the IWA?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): My understanding is that the figure the member has used is a figure of developing and of building the dumps over a period of the 20-year life expectancy. If you look at that figure, it then can be put in perspective. I think the IWA will manage that, and they've answered questions on that already.

Mr Tilson: My understanding was it's preliminary consultant work and other work up to the dumps and that it excludes expropriation. That's the problem.

There's no question that with all of these amounts of money, it's going to be a substantial amount of money, whether it's pre-dump or after-dump, and I submit that the facts Mr McIntyre has given are the pre-dump figures. You will give to the IWA more than some ministries of this government are given as an operating budget. All of the following ministries have smaller operation budgets than the money being given to the IWA: Consumer and Commercial Relations, Citizenship, francophone affairs, Intergovernmental Affairs, native affairs, Northern Development and Mines, women's issues, Board of Internal Economy and Labour.

Can you not see that the exorbitant amount of money being spent by the IWA could be put to much better use if we could be exploring all of the options that are available to us to deal with our waste problem and not simply continuing to throw more money into a process that is going to add to Ontario's burgeoning debt?

Hon Mr Philip: The members of the Conservative Party like to attack the blue box program, the 3R program, all of which reduces the garbage that will go into a dump site.

The ownership of the sites and revenue are open to discussion, and indeed David Crombie is working on a set of proposals in this regard.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. We all know that sexual harassment happens in the workplace. We are now, as a government and as a society, encouraging women to speak out. They have to speak out in order to change things, to let people know they have the right to work without harassment. Yet often when this happens, women are fired.

Women take their complaints to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and what do they find? A two-year wait. Minister, this is unacceptable. What is being done to get rid of this backlog?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): Yes, my colleague is absolutely right: This is unacceptable. We do want to make sure that people who come to the Human Rights Commission are served and that their cases are heard in a timely fashion. That is why we brought about a task force to eliminate the backlog that we have inherited. That backlog is almost resolved and the cases before it have been complete.

We are now still giving a priority to our older cases, but we also realized that we did not want to create a new backlog. So in the process of resolving the other backlog, what we did was to set up a new initiative called the early settlement initiative that would make sure that cases would be settled prior to six months. We now find that of all the new cases in this fiscal year, 66% of them have been completed before six months, and 66% of new cases is quite an outstanding, remarkable achievement.

1420

Ms Harrington: I do appreciate that changes are being made. I want to just reiterate that a two-year wait is too long. We know that justice delayed is justice denied and people's lives and jobs are permanently affected. We need that new action. Are there other new actions that you can tell the women out there about that are being done to stop this backlog?

Hon Ms Ziemba: It's very timely that the member has asked me this particular question, because we have done a number of new initiatives to make sure that we do not have a backlog in the future.

Of course, there's been a whole review of our enforcement procedures, a whole review of making sure that the staff are well trained and that the clients become the first, primary source of our desire to make sure that client service is there. The staff training has been very fundamental in making sure that changes have come about.

There have been new mechanisms for quality assurance, improvements in technology and a whole new accountability requirement. I could go on and on with a list, but the Speaker is shaking his head not to go on and on, so I will not but to say to you that our commitment as a government is to make sure that human rights issues are dealt with in a timely fashion and that justice is served.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you will know that your own amendments to Bill 50 would have allowed the Ontario Medical Association the flexibility to meet its obligations under the Social Contract Act, using the same principles as any other group which is required to meet the Social Contract Act.

While that very bill is waiting for third reading in this House next week, we've learned that you refused yesterday to consider any of the proposals of the Ontario Medical Association to meet its social contract obligations in a planned and coordinated way. We'd like to know why you have refused to consider the OMA proposals and substituted your own solution instead.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): It's always difficult to answer questions that are phrased in such a way that you don't agree with the premise of the question. Let me remind the member and the House that this government asked everyone who is paid by the taxpayers to share in reducing their incomes in order that we could contain provincial finances. We wanted to negotiate that in a way that would both protect services as well as protect jobs, and that's what Bill 48 did for the broader public service and the direct public service.

With respect to the Ontario Medical Association, we have a framework agreement with them as to how we can work cooperatively, and as a result of that, we negotiated long and hard through June and July and reached an agreement on August 1. The OMA then asked us to pass a regulation that would see every OHIP payment reduced by 4.8%, and Bill 50, the member is correct, encompasses the ways of implementing that agreement.

That agreement was elaborately ratified and made plain to all members of the profession before ratification. Now, in the middle of November, the OMA has come back and said that it wants the province to legislate a mandatory nine days off. That was suggested in June and that was refused in June.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: Nine days off for doctors does not protect services, does not in fact meet the requirements of the social contract and impacts in a very disruptive way, as I don't have to tell the members, on all the other health care services. So that was the reason that we said no in July and that we are saying no in November.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister's interpretation is clearly a one-sided one, because the Ontario Medical Association clearly wanted to meet its social contract obligations, which it had signed with the government under the framework agreement, along with the flexibility to ensure that services were preserved.

Because of the decision that the minister took yesterday, the medical association will not have any way of knowing when its social contract obligations are met, or of ensuring that the clawbacks which she's insisting upon are made equitably, or that the doctors' Rae days are coincided and coordinated with the hospitals' Rae days, or that patients are informed about those Rae days. The OMA simply will not know.

Her unilateral decision will further disrupt access to medical services across Ontario. I'm asking the minister why she won't work with the organization, which she calls her partner, to ensure that medical expenses meet the social contract targets and that access to services is not deteriorating.

Hon Mrs Grier: I signed the agreement with the Ontario Medical Association on August 1, and I believe that agreement, as did the OMA then, meets our social contract targets.

Mrs Sullivan: You have not met one paragraph of that agreement.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: What it does, for the members of the House, is that it caps the amount of money that can be spent by OHIP.

In response to a request from the OMA, we implemented a regulation that means that every time a doctor bills OHIP, that bill is reduced by 4.8%. That will both maintain services and reach our targets under the social contract. That's what the social contract was all about.

It's this opposition that suggested that we merely slash expenditures, without ensuring that we maintain services. To us it is critical that we protect medicare by maintaining services. That's what I believe we achieved in our agreement with the OMA.

CASINO LEGISLATION

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I wonder if the minister could tell the House whether it's just a coincidence that we're ramming through Bill 8 in third reading today, when the court case in Windsor resumes on Monday, or whether there's some machiavellian plot to get this thing passed before the court case resumes.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I hate to disappoint the member, but I believe that we have been dealing with the bill for quite some time now. We've had lots and lots of debate on it, and I would say that it's about time we get on with it. That's exactly what we're doing today.

Mr Eves: I take it, by that non-answer, what the minister really is saying is that there indeed is a plot to get it passed before the court case resumes in Windsor on Monday.

Minister, why are you taking away land owners' rights under the Expropriations Act of Ontario and backdating the date of expropriation to January 1, 1993? Why are you doing that and why are you taking away these people's legal rights?

Hon Ms Churley: I believe the member for Parry Sound has heard an answer to this question time and time again in committee of the whole. I believe that the amendments in fact do not amend either the Planning Act or the Expropriations Act. He knows that. They simply hold these sections in abeyance, as is done in many bills that have passed in this assembly. He knows that.

I believe all these amendments do is give effect to the purpose of the bill as set out in the title. That's simply what is happening here. The city of Windsor asked us -- and we have worked closely with the city throughout this whole process -- to include these amendments, and we have done that.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question today is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. We have seen a long scenario of trade agreements and discussions and different things from the federal government, from the previous government. We've seen their free trade agreement and their financial policy. It has completely decimated. or attempted to decimate, the industrial sector of this province. If it wasn't for the efforts of this government, it would have.

Then I have a number of concerns also from constituents of my riding who abut the Great Lakes on Georgian Bay. We have a situation where we're concerned about the fresh water and retaining that fresh water and keeping it for the betterment of all of us.

Then today I see that the new Prime Minister of this country, the Honourable Jean Chrétien, today announced that he reached an agreement with the US and Mexico on a series of measures concerning NAFTA.

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

Mr Waters: He announced his intention to proclaim NAFTA on January 1, 1994. My question is, does his agreement satisfy Ontario's concerns over NAFTA?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Let me answer the question very directly and say that, no, it doesn't satisfy Ontario's concerns, and express deep disappointment on the part of this government that the federal Liberal government is proceeding with proclamation of NAFTA. It fails to deliver in any way on the campaign promises that the federal government set out during the election.

1430

There was an indication that there would be a tough new deal negotiated with respect to the definitions of subsidies and dumping. In fact all we see is a continuation of the process that was established under the free trade agreement.

There was an indication that we were going to get new declarations on the security of our water natural resource, an important natural resource. In fact, all the joint statement does is say that there's nothing that compels you to export it. We all know that if any large amount of water is exported, it immediately becomes subject to the rules of NAFTA and the FTA.

With respect to energy, there's been nothing gained there.

We are tremendously disappointed, and we see this as really --

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

Mr Waters: On the last issue, Madam Minister, the issue of energy, the federal government today made a declaration on NAFTA and energy security. Will Canada's energy security be secure under NAFTA?

Hon Ms Lankin: In the opinion of this government, no. I had a discussion, along with other ministers of trade, with Minister MacLaren this morning in which he outlined the details of the federal government's statement on this. The bottom line, the most important sentence in all of the federal government's unilateral statement on this, is that the government interprets NAFTA as not requiring any Canadian to export any given level or proportion of any energy resource to another NAFTA country.

What he went on to say is that they also interpret NAFTA, however, to place on the federal government an obligation to service customers in a proportionate way if there's any energy shortage.

I asked the question at the time of the minister, could he please tell me what was the difference between a requirement and an obligation? I didn't get a satisfactory answer. There's certainly an indication, an immediate indication, from the United States, an admission from Kantor's office, which says that the United States has no doubt that Canada will continue to be a fully reliable --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- energy supplier as it provides for Canadian energy security and that the energy provisions of NAFTA are clear and that our countries will be consistent with their NAFTA obligations.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her reply.

Hon Ms Lankin: In fact our energy is not secured by the unilateral statement.

SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND LEARNING-DISABLED

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, I've had several discussions with both you and your staff concerning the future of the Sir James Whitney School for the deaf in the city of Belleville.

In a letter written by you on November 17 of this year to the parents, teachers and students, you state emphatically, "There is no plan to close any of the provincial or demonstration schools." Minister, there is still concern that your letter doesn't totally clarify the future of Sir James Whitney. Will you expand on this and the commitment you made?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I guess I'm not entirely understanding what the member's asking. I've stated in estimates and I've stated in writing that we're not going to close the school.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Give an unequivocal answer.

Hon Mr Cooke: Well, he quoted the letter. It sounded pretty clear. Anyway, once again, we're not closing any of the provincial schools, period.

Mr O'Neil: I appreciate that answer, and I hope I don't ever have to come back to you to have you do something that you've said you won't.

Minister, let me be specific. The pupils, the parents, the staff and the key stakeholders are concerned about what plans you have concerning basically (1) the elimination of programs and (2) the possible transfer of the Whitney high school program to another provincial school, thereby leaving it strictly as an elementary school. I wonder if you would give us the same confirmation on those two points as you did that you will not close that school.

Hon Mr Cooke: What we have indicated is that there is a team of people who are reviewing the provincial schools. We're looking at all the --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cooke: I believe it was very clearly outlined in the letter. That's no surprise at all. This was announced quite some time ago, to take a look at how we can improve the provincial schools. That's the only thing that's going on, but we're not looking at --

Mr O'Neil: The high school.

Hon Mr Cooke: When we say we're not closing the school, we're not closing the school, period, the high school or the elementary school.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. We have a major problem in Ontario with the special investigations unit. I've listened to all of your answers, and when we talk about the problem with the investigations, we can go ahead and we can hire more investigators -- that's easy -- but that's not the problem.

The problem you have is that Mr Morton, the director of the unit, will not complete investigations unless he is able to take a statement from the officer. You yourself know, as do all of the lawyers in the Attorney General's office, that you can't compel a statement from a person who's in the place of an accused. You can't compel a statement from someone who is going to be charged. So your dilemma is that as long as Mr Morton is the director of the SIU, you can't complete any more investigations. What are you going to do about that?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member is quite right that part of the issue is the inadequacy and the conflict, frankly, in the Police Services Act around the compelling of testimony of a police officer, given the police officer's particular position in our community and the particular powers and authorities we grant to them and need them to be able to exercise and their rights as individuals under the Charter of Rights. That is a conflict, and that has been identified again and again not only by the police community but indeed by us.

There are many instances in police investigations where an investigation by a police officer of another citizen is unable to be completed because the person they wish to interview may have received legal advice not to discuss. In those cases, those investigations remain open.

One of the issues that has arisen between the police community and the Attorney General's ministry is the great difficulty that is faced when, as is often the case in police investigations, those investigations by the SIU remain open in the absence of full information.

Mr Harnick: Why is it that when someone is accused of a crime, the police can investigate and prosecute that person without taking a statement from them, but when it comes to a police officer who is being investigated, why can't you complete the investigation and enter into a prosecution without taking a statement from him? Why is a police officer being singled out as a person who has to be investigated differently from any other accused person? That's the fallacy with the whole SIU procedure, and that's the fallacy with Mr Morton being the director. You're trying to do something that at law you can't do.

You can commission all the reports you want. You can go out and commission reports from a dozen and one people.

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

Mr Harnick: But to compel someone to give a statement is contrary to the charter.

Now, I don't want a repetition of my question as your answer, as you just gave me. Tell me something, what are you going to do?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would say to the member that he has, in his question, made suggestions that I did not make. What I said was that someone may be accused of a crime and a police officer may not believe that there are reasonable and probable grounds on which to lay a charge, and therefore the investigation remains open in the absence of information. That is the same in the SIU's instance. Obviously, if the SIU is convinced that it has reasonable grounds on which to lay a charge without interviewing the police officer involved, it will do so. It is exactly the kind of issue that arises in many police instances.

I would say to the member that I agree with him. We need to clarify the law, we need to strengthen the law and to work with the police community to find a way in which we can deal with these issues. That is certainly my objective and something I have been working towards ever since I became the Attorney General.

1440

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Madam Minister, I have a question about a project that is causing a lot of excitement in our area because it provides an opportunity for the kind of cooperation we're looking for among the several levels of government as well as the private sector.

It involves the Agnes Etherington Art Centre in Kingston, which would provide for us the kind of regional art gallery that we've needed for a long time. In fact, the plan for the expansion of the art centre is one of a kind. The regional art gallery will combine additional exhibition areas, storage vaults and public spaces with new facilities for the academic programs in art history and art conservation. The university's art library and visual resources will also join the above facilities. This singular combination of facilities will be unique in Canada, Madam Minister. I would like to know from you what kind of provincial assistance would be available for a project like this.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I appreciate the question from the member. I met recently with the museum director for the Agnes Etherington Art Centre, along with Dr and Mrs Bader, who are key supporters of that museum as well, and I'm certainly quite excited at the prospect of what the expansion of that museum can mean, not only to Ontario's cultural infrastructure but also to the health of the economy of the Kingston area and eastern Ontario.

My ministry has been meeting with them also, to try and assist in the development of an application through the Jobs Ontario Community Action program, and we're also of course looking at the museum from the perspective of whether it might be an appropriate infrastructure development to include on our wish list with the federal government as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. The standing committee on resources development has been undergoing hearings, under time allocation imposed by your House leader, on Bill 80. As you know, Bill 80 is a bill that affects the unions in the construction trade and in fact provides the OLRB and this government with the ability to override the constitutions which have been democratically and duly passed by those unions.

To say the least, while we disagree on many aspects of the bill, one thing that I think you must agree on is that there's a lot of dissension within the trade labour movement over this bill. We've heard speakers come in on both sides of the issue, and frankly I think you're leading to a potential civil war in the construction trade union movement, caused by you, Bill 80 and this government.

In an attempt to try to at least settle things down, will you agree to an amendment that I will be putting in committee that will in essence say that the involvement of the Ontario Labour Relations Board should be on a complaints-driven basis; that when a parent union decides that a trusteeship or any other kind of interference in the local is to be invoked, it should be allowed to do so; and that if a complaint is filed, it will then be heard by the OLRB.

Will you agree to that amendment here today, to try to bring some peace to the trade labour movement in the construction industry?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member should know better than to try and get a member of the House or a minister to undermine the work of the committee that's sitting in hearings. He also should know that the legislation doesn't override the constitution. I can't understand his understanding or reading of the bill, if he's taken a look at it.

Yes, it's an issue that does have some differences of opinion in the construction trades. I think also it's a mistake, a very unfortunate mistake, to make the kind of inflammatory remarks we heard from the member, that we're going to start some kind of revolution if this legislation is passed.

What the member across the way doesn't seem to understand is that some of the things the legislation is trying to deal with are part and parcel of trying to put workers as well as companies on a level playing field, of trying to see that we have a piece of legislation that protects workers and that we can get the maximum agreement on.

That's exactly what we've been able to do up until this point in time in that, and we have never backed away from the fact that there are differences of opinion over the construction labour bill.

Mr Mahoney: I want to take exception with this minister claiming that my rhetoric is creating the problem. I'm reading from a Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario document presented by Joe Duffy. I believe Joe carries a card for the NDP even yet today, and by Pat Dillon. It is these people who are saying --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You're fearmongers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Downsview.

Mr Mahoney: "The primary concern on Bill 80 revolves around the issue of the sanctity of the constitution." It is these people, the very people who put you in office, and I think regret it today, who are asking that you instruct your backbenchers on the committee that you, the minister, are prepared to support an amendment that will say that the involvement of the Ontario Labour Relations Board should be on a complaints-driven basis.

Mr Mahoney: You will bring some peace to the labour movement in the construction trades. You will at least give them some sense, while you ram this bill down their throats --

The Speaker: Will the member please place a question.

Mr Mahoney: -- that you've listened to them. Will you, sir, never mind the committee, support the amendment?

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to assure the member across the way that I have every bit as much respect for Joe Duffy as does the member and that I always listen to them, but I also make it clear where I stand on an issue and why we're doing something. I don't try to hide from that. I don't try to appeal to one side or the other. I try to get as fair a position as is humanly possible and that's exactly what we've done with the legislation.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would request that you review Hansard and the times and take note of a five-minute question and answer. I don't think that's very fair. I had a very important question. I'm asking for unanimous consent of this House to ask my question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the member's point of order. The member may wish to note that today we exceeded the norm and had a 14th question. It would have been even better had we had a 15th question. The last exchange did take a bit more time than what previous questions and answers had taken, and all I can do is to continue to urge members to use as short a time as possible in both posing the questions and responding. But I do note that today we had a better day than we normally do in terms of the number of questions that were on the floor of the House.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This is a point of personal explanation, Mr Speaker: Yesterday, Hansard attributed a comment to me that could be construed by the member for Oakville South as being inflammatory.

This morning, prior to coming in here, I had a discussion with the member for Oakville South and I made clear the position of what had happened. The member for Oakville South and I have travelled on committees. We are good friends, remain good friends, and he is very pleased to accept my explanation of that remark.

I rise in my place today as not only having corrected that confusion with the member for Oakville South, but I stand in my place today to go on record as publicly withdrawing that remark if it's conceived as being somewhat inflammatory, which it wasn't.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Durham East, I appreciate his rising on a point of personal explanation, and indeed the member seems to have resolved the difficulty.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In regard to the comment you made about the length of questions, I too would appreciate you looking at Hansard because I can tell you, sir, that I was keeping track. The question and answer on NAFTA took eight minutes, and the question and the Health minister's answer was seven minutes. So don't be saying that my question took longer; I took five minutes with a question and answer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat. As part of my normal routine I review the time sheets every week. At any moment, if a member would like to take a look at the time sheets to learn of the amount of time used in questions and replies, I'm more than happy to share that information.

PETITIONS

SALE OF LAND

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold $450 million worth of land without public consultation; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold the Whitevale golf course, the Seaton golf course, 195 acres of open space in Pickering, 1,355 acres of agricultural land in Whitby; and

"Whereas the government now plans to sell $500 million of our finest jails at the very time of a weak real estate market;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government to halt its sale of golf courses, open space and jails until the Legislature has had an opportunity to review the policy."

I affix my signature to this petition.

1450

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): This is of particular interest to the members from Durham where the dump site's going. I have my friend the member for Durham Centre here, unarmed.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold $450 million of land without public consultation;" -- it's a fact -- "and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold: (a) the Whitevale golf course; (b) Seaton golf course; (c) 195 acres of open space in Pickering; (d) 1,355 acres of agricultural land in Whitby; and

"Whereas the government now plans to sell $500 million of our finest jails at the very time of a weak real estate market;" and I would note those four land sites are all in the dump area in Durham where all this problem is.

"We, the undersigned, call on the government to halt its sale of golf courses, open space and jails until the Legislature may have an opportunity to review the policy."

This is signed by hundreds of constituents in Ontario.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition on very much of a similar point and also of concern to the members from Durham, I'm sure.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold $450 million of land without public consultation; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold," among other things, "the Whitevale golf course, the Seaton golf course, 195 acres of open space in Pickering, 1,355 acres of agricultural land in Whitby; -- contrary to policy I've seen the NDP be in support of -- and

"Whereas the government now plans to sell $500 million of our finest jails at the very time of a weak real estate market;

"We, the undersigned," and there are many, "call on the government to halt it's sale of golf courses, open space and jails until the Legislature has had an opportunity to review the policy."

I affix my name to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This petition is from Cedarview Community Church in Newmarket from Pastor Paul Hilsden and 371 of his communicants and members of that community.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

Submitted and affixed with my signature.

SALE OF LAND

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): This must be an epidemic because I have one as well. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold $450 million of land of the taxpayers of this province without public consultation;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has also sold the Whitevale golf course, the Seaton golf course, 195 acres of open space in Pickering, 1,355 acres of agricultural land in Whitby;

"Whereas the government now plans to sell $500 million of our finest jails at the very time of a weak real estate market;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government to halt its sale of golf courses, open space, agricultural land and jails until the Legislature has had an opportunity to review the policy."

This is signed by many constituents and I'm affixing my name thereto.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal governments should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Leo Jordan's private Bill 46, An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (RE-EMPLOYMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (RENGAGEMENT)

On motion by Mr Morrow, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 129, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 129, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): Yes, I do. The bill amends the Workers' Compensation Act to alter the basis on which compensation for future loss of earnings is calculated.

RACE TRACKS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE PARI MUTUEL

On motion by Mr Eves, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 130, An Act to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act / Projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur le pari mutuel.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement, Mr Eves?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Very briefly, the purpose for introducing this amendment is that it basically reduces the rate of parimutuel wagering on the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario. I believe that during the Bill 8 committee we heard many witnesses appear before the committee, including the government's own Coopers and Lybrand consultants, all of whom said that it is about time the province of Ontario addressed the issue of the excessive rate of taxation on the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario.

The original rates of taxation were established when horse racing was the only form of gaming permitted by law in the province of Ontario. Since then of course we've seen an abundance of lotteries, Sport Select, bingo, charity casinos and now the province of Ontario getting into the casino business itself. Everybody seems to be in agreement that it's about time these rates of taxation were adjusted.

I believe that the Ontario Jockey Club's race tracks across the province lost some $7 million this past year. There was some $40 million, I believe, in round figures, extracted by the province of Ontario in taxation. It's about time that we bring our levels of taxation on the horse racing industry, which employs anywhere from 25,000 to 50,000 people, depending on whose estimates you use -- in any event, that's a rather significant amount -- into line with other jurisdictions in North America, and that is the purpose of the amendment.

1500

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

On motion by Mr Rizzo, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 131, An Act to amend the Assessment Act / Projet de loi 131, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation foncière.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement, Mr Rizzo?

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): The purpose of the bill is to provide an exemption from property taxation under the Assessment Act for alterations, improvements and additions made to residential and commercial properties.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXTENDED HOURS OF SITTING

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 21:

That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on December 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): This is simply the motion under the standing orders which will allow us, during these last two weeks of the regular defined calendar session, to sit past 6 of the clock and to sit till midnight in our attempts to finish as much of the legislative agenda as we can before the end of the calendar year.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On behalf of the Liberal Party, I rise to indicate that of course we'll be supporting this, but just to bring to the attention of some of the individuals around this House, while this was noted originally in its form here as part of the standing orders as an emergency provision, it has become, by tradition, the norm for us to schedule our business now till 12 o'clock at night.

While there has been a considerable amount of discussion around a good bit of the debate for things like throne speeches and budget speeches and very little time offered for those, we have as a result had to resort to extending some of the debate on other of the bills so that we could make our presentations on points of principle and observations on other of the legislation in a more all-encompassing manner than might obviously be necessary if we had more general debate time on such an important item as the budget and the throne speech.

We are supporting this, but I rise again, as I have on several other occasions, to indicate that I believe that this ought only to be an emergency provision, that it ought not be the requirement for us to sit from 6 o'clock till 12 o'clock as though it were a part of our normal business activities, because I really, in my own mind, do not believe that we get either good debate nor do we get provision of sensible understanding of the legislation which is going through here. It is my view that sometimes when the clock runs late the eyes start to become smaller, that hearing gets poorer and in some cases people miss what would otherwise be seen in the light of the strong sunlight hours of our days here much more clearly to be perhaps mischief in the making in public policy.

So while I support it and understand the necessity to extend the hours so that we can carry on with more business, I alert the members as we do this that we still are not to take for granted the fact that all is well with all the pieces of the legislation, that just because they are ordered for debate between the hours of 8 and 12, for instance, they are less important than other legislation. Everything that we do here is extremely important, although I note that as we go into these late-night sittings few of the members regularly attend to hear the debate around what will in my view be several very important pieces of public business.

I regret that I have to say that, but I think I must observe reasonably and honestly for the people who are watching this proceeding that this has occurred as though it were the usual event of the day in this place when we get to extended sittings. So we look forward to seeing the agendas. There is a very comprehensive series of discussions under way now by the House leaders, but I want to advise some members that they are not to take for granted that everything will go through here without us observing the errors in what we believe to be the way of the New Democratic Party in this province.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): We have a motion in front of us this afternoon to extend the hours of sitting from 6 pm to 12 pm for what is the remaining time on the parliamentary calendar.

I was involved in the negotiations which formulated this section, which gave the government the right to extend the session primarily during the last two weeks of the sessions in order for it to finish up its unfinished business.

One of the problems that we've run into is that it has been the practice of this government not to respect the parliamentary calendar. So in June the sittings, as you may remember, were extended well past the June deadline, into July and in fact into August. We now have another example of the government extending the sittings past the calendar date, December 9, when this place was supposed to rise in recess or prorogue.

The negotiation that took place when we undertook to revise the standing orders was that the government was given this right to extend the hours from 6 pm to 12 pm on eight legislative days coming near the end of the session on the basis that it would keep good faith in meeting the dates of the parliamentary calendar. This government has not demonstrated any good faith in keeping to our parliamentary calendar.

They might argue that that was as a result of delay tactics used by opposition parties. On the other hand, that has been the case in this legislative chamber since its inception, and in fact the opposition only has delay as its tool.

I would say that if I go back into negotiations with the House leaders or with members of other parties to revise the standing orders in the future, I would put on the table, from the opposition standpoint, that the government should no longer be given the right to bring forward this motion in the last two weeks, because the whole idea in having a parliamentary calendar was to allow MPPs to plan when committee sittings could take place, when we could go out and deal with bills which had been referred to committee and other matters referred to committee, and to get back to our constituencies to take care of local matters, which we have to do from time to time. Therefore the whole idea in giving this right was in fact that the government would live with the termination date as determined by the calendar.

Having said that, I want to also say that we did make a mistake when we drafted these standing orders, and that was the very form of this motion or the right to debate this motion given to the opposition parties. I would prefer, quite frankly, that if we are going to have a government which is going to live by the calendar, I would view that what we have to do in the future is give some discretion to the Speaker to extend the session rather than have that as a unilateral decision on the part of the government House leader. If we are to transfer to the Speaker the discretionary decision as to whether or not the session can be prolonged, then I think this motion should be given as a matter that the government House leader could trigger the extended hours just on notice to the opposition parties or to the Speaker, whichever was most appropriate.

Therefore, it's not in our interest to extend this debate. We only believe that the standing orders will have to be looked at again in the near future. We do not hesitate in sitting late next week and this evening in order to deal with the legislation before we rise, but we do wish this government, for once, would keep to the parliamentary calendar which was negotiated between all three parties during the late 1980s.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any further debate? Are you ready for the question?

Mr Charlton moves motion number 21. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1510

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before I call the next order, I believe the three House leaders have reached an agreement with regard to the first order, Bill 8, that we will commence the debate on that item now; that the debate will be limited to two hours and five minutes --

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): More restrictions.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- this is an agreement between the House leaders -- that five minutes will be available to the minister for her opening statements; that each of the opposition parties would have one hour on this debate; and that we would then end the debate and move immediately to the vote on third reading. I seek consent for that agreement.

The Deputy Speaker: It was agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I assume somebody's getting the minister. The parliamentary assistant's here. Are you going to do the opening? It's very short; you only have five minutes.

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

On behalf of Ms Churley, Mr Duignan moved third reading of 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 / Projet de loi 8, Loi prévoyant la réglementation des casinos par la création de la Société des casinos de l'Ontario et traitant de certaines autres questions relatives aux casinos.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I understand the minister will be here very shortly and maybe she will conclude some of the remarks that I have to make.

Again, I'd like to go on record and particularly thank all the members of the committee who participated in the public hearings, whether they were held in Windsor, Sault Ste Marie, Toronto or, indeed, in Niagara Falls. We had a very lively discussion and anyone who had a brief was heard at these particular hearings.

I want to thank the members of the opposition for the very constructive suggestions made to improve Bill 8. Indeed, we've listened to the members of the opposition and we have accepted a number of their amendments to the bill.

Again, I want to thank all the people who participated in the public hearings for bringing forward their suggestions on changing and amending Bill 8. The public hearings demonstrated there was indeed wide support for Bill 8 in the province.

I understand the minister has now entered the chamber and is willing to conclude my remarks.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, I apologize for being late. I got caught in a scrum out there. You know how long they take.

I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank a whole bunch of people who have been involved in this process. I certainly want to thank my parliamentary assistant, the member for Halton North. I believe that without his assistance we wouldn't be finally here today for third reading of this bill. He did a very good job in the committee and certainly carrying the whole bill through the committee process.

I also wanted to thank the opposition critics, who at times were very positive and at times somewhat negative, but I believe overall displayed quite a knowledge of casinos and were quite helpful to the whole process.

I'd like to thank all of the people who came out through the committee process and spoke to us. I believe that many of the comments you made were quite instrumental in some of the changes that we made, and we appreciated your coming out to speak to us.

I certainly would like to thank the three members from Windsor, who have been supporters of this project from day one and have worked very closely with us to make sure that Windsor was always consulted throughout the process.

Last but not least, I'd like to thank the members from the project team which was formed shortly after the announcement in the budget, who have worked very hard to gain knowledge and to pull this project to where it is today. They've worked day and night, sometimes seven days a week, to bring us forward to this extent, and I want to say how much I appreciate the work they have done.

Today we're going to hopefully vote and pass third reading on this bill. I believe the input that the members gave has been very important to the progress of bill. I believe this casino will be good news for the city of Windsor in a whole variety of ways that we have mentioned.

I would now like to close and again thank everybody. I look forward to hearing the final comments from the opposition today.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The minister says she's interested in final comments. She tells us that we're finally going to vote on this today. We're going to vote on it because the government has time-allocated it. They're forcing it through.

I think this is a dark day for Ontario. We are going to change the entire face of this province by creating casinos. Some of the articles in the press would lead one to believe that there already are thoughts in the government's bellows and their dark rooms of creating either a larger casino in Windsor or further casinos around the province.

I don't think this government has even taken a look at the tremendous impact this is going to have on charitable organizations such as Big Sisters, Big Brothers, any type of charitable organization that requires fund-raising by reason of, perhaps, the existing lotteries that we have. I don't think they've even looked at that. In fact, this is going to place them in very serious jeopardy.

Many times in this House I've said the Big Sisters, in looking at their financial statements in my community, show $147,000 through Nevada tickets. You can bet that once the first slot machine is installed in Windsor, and the many thousands after that in places around this province, that $147,000 will no longer be there. That very worthy cause, and many others, will be denied the opportunity to achieve their ends by volunteer efforts from people who work very hard to try and help out the cash-starved government in terms of looking after these operations.

I say shame on the minister. I say shame on this government. What you're doing is turning on your very principles. You're taxing the poor. These are the people who are going to be in those casinos; those and the people perhaps over from Detroit. I'm not sure that we want to attract necessarily what's happening in Detroit. The whole opportunity that's given to the casino provisions is in fact to make it even greater and larger than it was to start off with.

I have to say to you that this bill is going to have a devastating effect on this province. We won't see it at first. We won't see it perhaps for the first couple of years. But I guarantee you that this is taking a turn in the road that is going to have devastating effects on this province.

There are people out there who have spoken out against this bill. There are people out there who have said that this is not the approach to take in Ontario. Yet despite that, the government is pressing on with the bill. In fact, they've time-allocated it so that we're prevented from debating it further.

We also are waiting, and I'm not certain whether the announcement has come down yet, as to who is going to be the successful bidder on this project. It's been determined or at least speculated in the press that it will be one of the four or five large casinos that occupy places like Atlantic City and Las Vegas. Well, I don't think the people of Ontario are necessarily interested in having people here who are going to be on a Las Vegas or Atlantic City style.

1520

One just has to take a trip to Atlantic City to see exactly what's happened to Atlantic City. You don't dare stroll anywhere outside of the boardwalk lest you wind up being mugged. If that's the type of situation we want to create in the city of Windsor and in other places, other communities that are fine, upstanding communities in this province, then that's what we're doing by this type of legislation.

I have to say on behalf of the residents of my community, many of whom have spoken to me, that they are totally opposed to this type of legislation. They're totally opposed to this type of taxation, of gathering revenue. They're totally opposed to the fact that you're taking away from volunteers, as I said when I started, those people who have worked so hard in bingos, in selling Nevada tickets and so on. They're taking all of that away. That voluntarism will fall by the wayside and they'll be beholden to this government.

I certainly hope that the machiavellian attempt by this government will not have strings on it, so that when funds are sought by these very worthy causes in our province, they're not told, "Here's what you've got to do to get it. You've got to come begging," or you've got to do this, or you've got to follow this rule, or you've got to follow that rule. If that's what's taking place here, then I would suggest that's absolutely outrageous. I guess we'll have to wait to see if that in fact is what does take place.

The minister, I note, has delivered her oration on the bill. I hope her parliamentary assistant is in the House, because the minister has left.

I'm going to end where I began: This bill is going to be revisited in about two years, and I think the people at that time will see just what kind of devastating effects this type of enactment, this type of public policy, will have on this province.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I think the most shocking thing about this whole exercise is the time allocation that's been forced on us this afternoon. There's no question that the House leaders have come to an agreement, but at every step of the way we've reached a time allocation process; a time allocation when we've had concerns from the horse racing industry, the police, charities, all kinds of groups that have protested through petitions and presentations to committees and put reasoned arguments forth that perhaps the government not only is wrong in doing what it's doing but hasn't properly researched the process.

It's a sign of desperation. I know exactly what this government has done. This government has looked at other jurisdictions and has for some reason come to the conclusion that everybody else is getting into gambling, whether it be in Quebec, whether it be in the US or whether it be the province to the west of us, Manitoba, and therefore that it's time that we got into gambling, notwithstanding the general philosophy of the New Democratic Party in the past with its comments with respect to gambling and lotteries. There's no question, I suppose, that this government could look at the Progressive Conservative Party with respect to lotteries, but I do remind the members, because this is your last chance to rise up from that hierarchy of the New Democratic Party which has put forward this philosophy of saying that the solution to your woes is gambling casinos.

There's no question that you can look to statistics in the United States of where revenue has been successful. One such state, I believe Central City in Colorado, opened up a gambling casino in 1991 and it did increase tax revenues. So there are facts that tax revenues increased. I'm sure that's what the government is looking for, although I have yet to see reports tabled to show exactly why it's doing this, what the philosophy of doing this is, specifically when we have a former Attorney General who made a very complex report to the federal government in his days as a law student -- albeit a law student, but it was a complicated report and a very detailed report -- which said that every jurisdiction in the world that has introduced gambling has had great problems with respect to gambling and other social costs, whether it be the compulsive gambling problem or the criminal problem. Every jurisdiction has had this.

So the statistics given, for example, of Central City in Colorado, where the casinos opened in 1991, show the tax revenues were increased, but at the same time, I emphasize -- and this is just one jurisdiction -- the city debt ballooned four times due to higher policing and other municipal costs. It ended up being a loss.

If the whole concept of this process is not to give people necessarily what they want, and I have yet to hear of the issues that have been put forward by our party and others in opposition, why not hold a referendum on this topic? It is a very contentious subject. Why not have a referendum? Well, this government seems to see fit that it shouldn't have one.

I will say that Ontario's casinos that are being planned are coming at a time when the United States is suffering from a glut. In other words, the whole concept of putting this casino in the Windsor area is to encourage Americans to come across the border and gamble, and hopefully to shop and to buy our wares, notwithstanding the fact that our taxes, federal and provincial, would preclude them from doing that.

There are more Canadians, more people from Ontario, going across the border to shop than there are Americans coming across our border to shop. There may be other reasons why Americans come to our side, but it's certainly not to shop. So that is a fallacious argument, that Americans are going to come over and improve our economy from buying our wares, buying in Ontario and buying specifically in the Windsor area. I don't accept that argument.

The other issue is that because of the type of product we're going to have in the city of Windsor, that's being proposed in the city of Windsor, it's going to encourage Americans to come across our borders to gamble in the province of Ontario, specifically in Windsor.

When I have listened to what is being planned for the city of Windsor, the type of facility that is being planned, and compare it to that in the United States, why would they come? Why would the Americans come? Not even that: Why would they still not go to Nevada? Why would they still not go to Atlantic City, with all of the glitz and the entertainment and other matters that surround gambling? Why would they not do that? There are people in this province now who like to gamble, there's no question. Are they going to fly or drive to Windsor when they can get package flights to Las Vegas and Atlantic City at much less cost? Why would they do that?

I think that's the major criticism we in the opposition put forward with respect to this whole plan: that it hasn't been planned out. It's a desperation move to obtain revenue for the woes of the province of Ontario. I simply say to you that it hasn't been thoroughly planned out and it will be a tragedy if you spend all of this money and it doesn't accomplish what you want it to do, and in fact turns out to be worse.

Not only that, but it adds to the woes of the city of Windsor, with police problems and other social problems that you will not have the revenue to deal with. The police from Windsor have commented that they are gravely concerned about the projected police protection that's going to be required in Windsor as a result of gambling casinos.

At the same time, casinos are legal in 20 states now -- Colorado alone has 100 -- and yet, as I say, Ontario hopes to draw many Americans as customers. At the same time, of course, there are all the individuals who are bidding in Windsor to have the US connections.

So I can tell you that the planning process has much to be desired. Not only that; as I say, the fact is that casinos, whether you look at Atlantic City or Colorado or other places that have casinos in the United States, have a sorry record of causing crime and corruption, ruinous gambling addiction and untold social costs within these other jurisdictions.

The government of Ontario first announced the creation of casinos in last year's budget, and I remind you of the philosophy of the government, the philosophy of the NDP. There was an uproar in their caucus. Now they've all been whipped together, with the exception of the people like Mr Drainville, of course, who's gone off to other things. But there's no question that people like Mr Drainville objected publicly. In fact, I believe he resigned from the government on this issue alone, saying that the Rae government had no mandate to launch gambling casinos. This is what is being said by the charities, by the agricultural community, by the racing community and by others in this province: that you didn't have the mandate to do what you're doing.

1530

To quote Bob Rae, the Premier of this province, at an earlier time: "Casino gambling is like most forms of gambling. It's just another tax on the poor." I will tell you, it's a sad moment, particularly when we have insufficient debate in this House, when we're being allowed a limited amount of time to speak on this whole topic.

Editorials and the media have come all across this province condemning the government for what it's doing. The churches and other religious institutions of this province have expressed their concern with respect to the whole issue of the morality. The agricultural community has expressed the projected number of jobs lost in related activities in the agricultural community, whether it be in feed or horse racing. Horse racing has spent a considerable amount of time trying to persuade this government that you are proceeding the wrong way, that it's going to be devastating to the agricultural community and devastating to the horse racing industry.

The big question, I submit, is the question of crime and all the related matters that come with gambling. Jurisdiction after jurisdiction, whether it be in the United States or any other jurisdiction in the world, have clearly put forward facts that express concern on this topic.

As one columnist in the media once said, "Has Bob Rae married the mob?" I don't know. It certainly seems to be the question that will continue to be raised at the public hearings into casino gambling. The Windsor police chief said organized crime has already set its eyes on Windsor, which is the home of Ontario's first casino. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Ms Churley, says, "Oh, there won't be any problem; there's no problem with respect to gambling casinos, there's no problem with respect to crime," notwithstanding the warnings of the police chief of Windsor and the police chief of Peel region. It is a sign of desperation.

In July, a Washington DC official mentioned that his city was thinking of approving casino gambling as a way to raise money, that the idea was seized on with such enthusiasm that it had become a priority and a city official offered to give 70% odds that the proposal would become a reality. That's the sign of a similar desperation. When you're in bad times, you turn to gambling. What a strange philosophy for a government to take. When you're in bad times, when you're going into debt, you turn to gambling, you turn to something that has had great social problems, whether it be for the compulsive gambler or whether it be for crime and all the other related matters. What a strange philosophy. What a strange way to raise money.

If you'd come along and said: "The people of this province like gambling. We have taken referendums throughout this province, we have consulted, and the people of this province like gambling" -- I would have hoped that the first thing you would have done was determine how you're going to implement it, not just say, "We're going to have a site in Windsor and we're going to have four other sites around this province at specified sites," and you haven't really said that yet. That's been sort of a rumour, but it's predicted that you will. What a strange way of going about it.

There have been no specific studies tabled by this government other than the references that the members of the opposition have put forward about other communities, other jurisdictions where problems have existed. What a strange way, to go about and simply say the bright idea of raising money is to have a gambling casino. There has been no discussion that I know of, no concrete proposals to deal with what we know is the guaranteed problem of the compulsive gambler.

Your government, the NDP government, when you were in opposition was gravely concerned with the whole topic of the compulsive gambler. You said there aren't enough institutions around our province to deal with the compulsive gambler, yet you're now going to do something that's even more extensive, the gambling casino, and you're not dealing with that topic. You know it's going to come.

When you put statistics forward about the tremendous amount of tax revenue you're going to make for this province -- and you may well, although somehow I doubt it, if you're going to have a gambling casino across the border in the United States. Aside from that, the aboriginal peoples are introducing gaming into Ontario. They're holding conferences. They held one in August: "Announcing the Union of Ontario Indians Gaming Conference and Expo: An introduction to gaming in Ontario, training, suppliers, financing structures, jurisdiction, security systems, management systems, economic and social impacts."

There are all these other areas of gambling. Do you really think you're going to have the monopoly on gambling? I believe there's still going to be a whole pile of people in this province who are going to say: "What a joke. Who's going to go down to Windsor? I'm going to get on an airplane and I'm going to go to Las Vegas where I'll have all kinds of better facilities, better hotel facilities, better entertainment, better glitz." You may say that's a bad thing, but that's what people are doing. I have a lot of grave concerns.

There are other members of our party and other members of the opposition who wish to speak, so in concluding my remarks, I will only say that I am dismayed at the way this government is ramming it through. The member for Parry Sound I believe is quite right. Why are we doing it today of all days, when we know there's a court action coming up in Windsor to expropriate land? What a strange, suspicious thing to do. The whole plan is suspicious, and I would recommend that members of the government rise up against your masters in the front row and vote against this bill.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I too want to rise in opposition to this bill. We're dealing with third reading, unfortunately. It's very unfortunate, because I think there's a lot of debate and discussion that could have gone on further to this to provide information to people about the consequences of the Ontario Casino Corporation Act passing.

It is interesting that the government, first of all, is dealing with this today. I suppose they have it within their power to deal with it any day they see fit, but it is most discouraging to see that it is being rammed through today so they can avoid some rather embarrassing circumstances that will arise in terms of a court case on Monday.

In addition to that, I notice they have delayed the announcement of this until 3 o'clock tomorrow, Friday afternoon. If you think of it, the Windsor Star is the newspaper which is most affected by this. There aren't many newspapers in Ontario, members should know, that send somebody to cover Queen's Park. Many of us live in communities where there's very little coverage of Queen's Park unless it is done through Canadian Press or through Thomson newspapers or one of the other chains.

The Windsor Star takes the time, whether one agrees or disagrees with what's written in the Windsor Star over the years by the columnist or the reporter. The Windsor Star and the Ottawa Citizen and it used to be the Kitchener-Waterloo Record and the London Free Press -- there are very few that now send reporters to Queen's Park to cover the important events that might be taking place here.

I find it unfortunate that they would wait until Friday afternoon at 3 o'clock so that the story, by the time it appears in the Windsor Star on Friday -- in this case it's going to be Saturday -- will be a stale story. I would have thought, with the coverage of this particular issue, that the people of Windsor would want to be able to read about it in detail as soon as possible after the announcement was made.

Some people may think it's a minor quibble. I say it in the context of not many newspapers covering the Legislature, and this discourages newspapers even more, I think, from covering what happens in this chamber as opposed to perhaps the federal chamber.

In terms of this bill itself, I've had the opportunity to speak on certain other aspects of the bill. I've quoted some things about the bill from I think reasonable authorities. The member for Brampton North has made several compelling arguments both in this House and in committee. I was talking to one of my constituents, who is in the municipal field, who was saying he had a chance to watch the member for Brampton North the other day speaking at some length on this legislation and was very impressed with the detailed knowledge he had of the issue as the Consumer and Commercial Relations critic of the Ontario Liberal caucus and said he made some excellent points that should have been taken into consideration.

1540

My great concern is that this is going to continue to happen all over. I was just glancing through the clippings we get. An article today talked about casino gambling. I think it was by Robert Sheppard of the Globe and Mail, and I thought he made some very, very good points about this, points that have been made in this House before.

But let's face it, just as with photo-radar, it is largely a bill concerned with getting revenue for the government. I understand the government's need for revenue. That is what this is seen as. This is seen as a panacea in terms of getting more revenue for the government. It's seen as a painless way of extracting funds from the constituents, because people obviously don't want to pay tax.

I thought what was most revealing was when my colleague from Brampton North was able to get some information about a meeting that took place. The OPP, by the way, went out to investigate this government leak once again. Instead of investigating crimes, they were sent on a chase after members of the opposition and anybody in government who might have been prepared to leak this.

What the document said -- everybody looked at a lot of different things about it. One thing I remembered was that the professor from Nevada who's the all-time expert on this said that you're not aiming at the high rollers with this in Windsor; you're aiming at people who don't have much money, people who are down and out and want to take a chance and sometimes will win. Sometimes they'll win.

But that is what the New Democratic Party has stood against all of its life, and that's important, because the reason people are disillusioned is that they may have said of the other parties: "You know, the Conservatives and the Liberals, we've seen those people in power. They have moved their positions around and we kind of expected that, but the NDP was always a party of principle."

I say this in a very serious sense. If there's one thing you could count on the NDP for, you thought, it was that it had principles. You might not agree with them, and I didn't agree with some of the policies and principles enunciated, but one thing is that you could count on them to live up to those. That was the tradition of the old CCF, the predecessor of the NDP. That brings a smile to the face of the member for Chatham, because he would remember and is reading some of the statements made by those people in years gone by.

I would have thought that the NDP would stand foursquare against casino gambling, which was really geared to the lower-income people.

I must say it is very attractive to try to make some money out of casino gambling. As long as you're the only game in town, you find out that you can be somewhat successful. When you're no longer the only game in town -- and you won't be for long -- then you don't make an awful lot of money.

I thought Robert Sheppard in the Globe and Mail, under the title of "Profitable Gambling? Don't Bet On It," made a good case, and I thought Tom Walkom had made a good case. They write all kinds of articles, I understand that, but he says here -- I'm going to quote this, because I think it's extremely important. It's written on the eve of this bill being slammed through the Legislature. He writes as follows:

"A year ago, when Ontario pronounced itself ready for casino gambling, the government said it did not want any 'Las Vegas-style casinos' in the province.

"But when Consumer Minister Marilyn Churley announces the big winner of the casino sweepstakes -- tomorrow, I'm told, in Windsor, the site of the new facility -- she will be choosing from among four of the biggest gaming operators in the United States.

"Smaller, more local proponents have been swept aside in the selection process. The four finalists all own huge casinos in various US cities as well as within a couple of garish blocks of each other on the Las Vegas strip.

"What's more, the proposed new Windsor casino -- a $200-million-or-so hotel complex with about 75,000 square feet of floor space -- will rank right up there with the biggest of the Vegas showcases. That is, until some new kid on the block comes along.

"This, of course, is the very nature of gambling: in for a penny, in for a pound. Before you know it you've got bigger and bigger casinos, and usually a reduction in the high standards that were set to govern the operation in the first place.

"Quebec is discovering this universal law of the gaming business as well. No sooner had the doors opened on its $95-million casino and gourmet restaurant last month on the old Expo site in Montreal than the province was announcing a $75-million expansion and the likelihood of a second wagering palace farther down the St Lawrence at the Manoir Richelieu resort.

"The government said the Montreal casino is being expanded because it is doing so well. (How could it tell that after only a couple of weeks?) But the real reason is that the big tourist operators were telling the government that one casino is not enough to attract the serious gambling crowd. And of course the government saw its own cherries lining up in a row, in the form of increased tax revenues and a skim of the profits.

"This same sort of boom (and bust?) took place when riverboat gambling made its comeback in 1991, in Iowa of all places. Examining this phenomenon, Globe and Mail reporter John Saunders reported on the town of Fort Madison, which thought it might get a piece of the action from the riverboats now plying the upper Mississippi. So it spent $2.6 million, most of it borrowed, to build itself a fancy dock for the Emerald Lady.

"This worked for a time, until the neighbouring states upped the ante. Good-natured Iowa had set strict rules about drinking and betting limits. But when others didn't adhere to these rules, the riverboats just raised anchor and moved to more convivial harbours.

"It is hard to imagine a similar chain of events not taking place in Ontario. The provincial government says it is contemplating only one casino in Windsor, a special case because of its poor economy (though six other sites have been considered). It also says it will have strict rules about alcohol and entertainment on the premises, as well as about workplace standards and hours of operation.

"But what happens to all these good intentions if a more free-spirited competitor opens up across the river in Detroit? Already a couple of Detroit businessmen are proposing a similar high-stakes casino on land owned by a Michigan native band to get around the state's anti-gambling laws.

"Even if this tactic doesn't work, it is hard to see Detroit's city fathers just sitting back and watching their entertainment industry wither while Windsor puts up the neon. If Windsor is going to have a casino, Detroit will have one. If St Catharines, then Buffalo. Bet on it. (Though this tit-for-tat could well keep each city's pimps and petty crooks on their own respective sides of the border.)

"Pretty soon there will be casinos and slot machines within a couple of hours' drive from all the major cities in southern Ontario (and Quebec). Then you won't have a tourist draw any more that will add to the local economy. Your gamblers will be mostly locals, betting their hard-earned pay while the house -- the quick-handed Las Vegas operators -- takes its money and runs."

That's my concern. That capsulizes, I must say, my concern about these casinos. Eventually, they're just going to be after the local people, the people who don't have much money. All of us who have gone into corner stores and watched people buying the lottery tickets know that many of the people buying the lottery tickets are people who don't have much money. They're spending $20, $30 and $40 on lottery tickets because they're desperate, because they want to make it in one big chance, and that's who the gambling operators prey on: those people. I'm very concerned that's going to happen in Ontario.

You can always sell this. If you come to any community and say, "Look at all the jobs," a lot of people will fall for it immediately. That's an easy way of doing things. But I think you have to look at the long-term effects, and I think you have to look at the case as well that once it's established, it won't be torn down.

This is the chance to stop it. Once it's in operation, it's very hard to take away. It's easier to withhold the candy from the kiddies than it is to take the candy back from the kiddies, if you ever have to deal with children in any case.

I know as well that the argument is very valid about organized crime following casino gambling. Wherever we've had casino gambling, we've had organized crime establish itself. That's not what anybody wants to see happen to their communities.

If governments want to put forward programs and expenditures, they should be prepared to tell the people about them; that if the people are acquiescing to those or agreeing with them, then there's a tax assessed for those purposes. If people can see they're getting value for their money, they are prepared to pay that money, but all we're doing here is essentially putting a tax on the poor and those who are addicted to gambling.

1550

If we think that alcoholism is bad -- it is -- there are also people who are involved in another addiction, and that is addiction to gambling, where the paycheque ends up going on the casino tables out there, around the roulette wheel or where the poker game is going on, the blackjack games. I am extremely concerned that this is the case.

We've had petition after petition in here, some of them from the former member for Victoria-Haliburton, Dennis Drainville, who felt very strongly about this particular issue. Whether one agreed with him or disagreed with him, I think one could say he had certainly a great deal to say about this issue. He even brought in from Nova Scotia an individual from the Conservative caucus who had left the caucus over the same issue.

You can be assured, members of the assembly, that with casino gambling, slot machines will be right behind. People will be putting even more of their money, not into something productive, not into buying the products of Hamilton and St Catharines and Sault Ste Marie and Cambridge and other places, the products produced by workers in this province, but rather simply throwing their money down on the table or into a slot machine and hoping that somehow they're going to strike it rich.

That is not good public policy, in my view. It is not good long-term policy. It will generate for the government, in the short term, a good deal of cash which the government can then use to try to allay its debt. But we must also look at the medium and long term in dealing with these issues.

I'm going to be very interested in the comments that will be made by the member for Brampton North, who has carried this issue for the Liberal Party, both in this House and very ably in committee. He's had a few amendments. One amendment that sticks in my mind that was so important and so reasonable was the amendment that called for the government not to have to assume any of the debt which would result from a failed casino. It was wise counsel and I look forward to the wise counsel of my colleague from Brampton North, Carman McClelland, when he addresses this House later this afternoon.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to participate in this third reading debate very briefly this afternoon, because there are other members of the Legislature who would like to get their comments on the record.

I think we have to understand, first of all, as I tried to point out in question period this afternoon, the reason why we are debating on third reading, in a time allocation motion, Bill 8 today, it being December 2, 1993. The reason why the government is shoving through this legislation today is because it happens to be the last day that the Legislature sits before the celebrated court case in Windsor resumes on Monday, December 6. Numerous government officials have said as much, even though the minister couldn't bring herself to admit that in the Legislature this afternoon.

Why is that date so important to the government? one may ask. The reason why it's so important to the government is that one of the government amendments to the bill in section 19 is that it's going to dispense with subsection 10(2) of the Expropriations Act of Ontario in its application to the Windsor casino site.

Now, the minister says, "We're not amending the Expropriations Act." She's quite right. That would have been the honest, upfront way to deal with the situation. But the government chose to sort of sneak around through the back door, not wanting to amend the Expropriations Act but still wanting to take away individual property owners' legal rights. So what they did is they proposed to amend a bill called the casino bill. They're amending that bill and they're putting a section in it that says, "We don't care what section 10 of the Expropriations Act says; we don't care what legal rights these people had when this expropriation procedure started" -- pardon?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): If elected, you will shut it down. Make that pledge.

Mr Eves: No, no, no. You see, now the Minister of Transportation interjects, "If elected, will you shut the Windsor casino down?" Again, the government members have totally missed the argument that the opposition members are making about these amendments. We're not arguing against the casino in Windsor. We're not even necessarily arguing against casinos. What we are arguing against, the point we are making, is that we are against a government that comes along and strips away somebody's legal rights, and they do it knowing there's a court case that's going to resume on Monday morning and, heaven forbid, the city of Windsor might lose or the city of Windsor may have to spend more money. They may have to actually pay what the property's worth. Isn't that a terrible thing?

That's what the Expropriations Act is for. We're not living in a state here where any dictator can come along and take somebody's property and not pay them fair market value. We happen to live in a democracy. People have legal rights. When you take or steal their property you have to pay for it. It's called democracy; it's called rights, something that apparently this government doesn't want to understand with respect to this particular piece of property on this particular issue. That is what we are ticked off about over here.

People -- I believe 18 individual land owners in the city of Windsor -- are going to have their property expropriated despite the fact that the property isn't zoned for a casino; despite the fact that the current zoning bylaw in Windsor says you can't even have a bingo hall on this piece of property; despite the fact that there is no official plan in the city of Windsor that permits a casino here; despite the fact that sections 34, 37 and 38 of the Planning Act say you have to do all that to legally do it; despite the fact that section 10 of the Expropriations Act says those 18 land owners have the right to be reimbursed for the fair market value of the property the city is taking from them; despite the fact that the city hasn't zoned the property for the use for which it wants to use it; despite the fact that section of the Expropriations Act says those land owners have three choices as to the date they pick -- they pick -- at which their lands are to be evaluated, this government's saying, "We're taking away all those rights from those 18 land owners because we made a deal and we don't care if it's legal or not under the Planning Act, we don't care if it's legal or not under the Expropriations Act; we're ramming this thing through this afternoon before the court case resumes, because the city might lose its court case if we don't." That's what this is about.

I want members over there to understand what this is about and what they're doing because I don't think they do understand. The comment from the Minister of Transportation obviously indicates he doesn't understand. He thinks we're against the casino in Windsor. No; we're against a Gestapo tactic ripping away somebody's property rights retroactively. That's what we're against and that's what he apparently is prepared to vote for.

I can't believe that the party of Elie Martel is going to stand here today and retroactively strip away somebody's rights under law. I can't believe that is happening.

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think all members of the House listened to the member of the third party very carefully, and to make reference to Gestapo-type tactics etc is very unbecoming to a member of the calibre and experience of this member of the House.

Mr Eves: I'd be happy to withdraw the word "Gestapo." "Dictatorial" perhaps is more appropriate. "Fascist" perhaps would be a better word as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Parry Sound, you came from a good to a bad, a bad to a good. You did it so well.

Mr Eves: Okay, Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word "fascist." Dictatorial, is that suitable? Dictatorial.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): That's pretty good. Draconian.

Mr Eves: "Draconian": That's an even better word, I guess.

Mr Elston: Machiavellian.

Mr Eves: They didn't like "machiavellian" this afternoon. Anyway, that's what this debate is about with respect to section 19 of the bill.

Why won't you let these people have the rights they already have under section 10 of the Expropriations Act? All it requires is for the city to pay them fair market value for the property on the date on which the city served them with notice under the Expropriations Act. That's all you have to do. What's wrong with that? Don't you want to pay these people fair market value for their property? Is that what this is all about?

We ask these questions; we don't get any answers from the government. I think we all know why this legislation is being proceeded with today, and hopefully we know what the government is doing to these people, because that's what the government's doing to these people by amending section 19. It's interesting that that language wasn't in the original bill as drafted.

1600

Another very important issue that opposition members have had with respect to Bill 8 as it is drafted -- and there again, a lot of people are under the misconception or apprehension that this bill is just about the Windsor casino. It is not. This bill is about establishing casinos anywhere in the province of Ontario at any time, now or in the future, and it will be used for any other future casinos established in the province. There is only one small section, I believe, section 19 in part III of the bill that I was referring to, that deals specifically with the city of Windsor. The rest of the bill, the overwhelming majority of the bill, deals with nothing but casinos anywhere in the province and how they are to be implemented and effected by any government in the future.

Another section that my friend Mr McClelland made an amendment on, and I'm sure he will speak to it later, was with respect to asking the province of Ontario, or Ontario taxpayers, to pick up the tab for any operating deficit or liability that any future casino may have in the province of Ontario. It's interesting to note that throughout some rather lengthy hearings with respect to this piece of legislation, the government was asked on numerous occasions if the Ontario taxpayer would ever be liable for the operation of a casino in Ontario now or in the future. The deputy minister said unequivocally, "No, never"; the assistant deputy minister said unequivocally, "No, never"; the parliamentary assistant said in this House, in committee of the whole, "No, never." It's funny, but they wouldn't accept the honourable member's amendment to put that into the statute. Pardon us if we are a little bit leery over here on this side of the House.

Finally, after asking in committee, in committee of the whole, in question period, in second reading debate, I asked the minister in the House one day that pointed question and she finally eked up enough courage to say: "Yes, that might happen. That is why we will not accept the amendment. The Ontario taxpayer may be on the hook in the future for some different type of casino operation that we may want to implement at a future date, where the province itself would run the casino or would have a different operation agreement with whoever was running the casino." We may in fact, as Ontario taxpayers, in the future be on the hook for any operating losses, liabilities or deficits of a casino somewhere in the province of Ontario.

It's easy to say that casinos will always make money, but that isn't the case. Anybody who's ever been to Las Vegas knows that some get bigger and bigger and others die and go bankrupt and lose money. The more you have in the province of Ontario, the more likelihood that there will be at least one somewhere that will lose money. If you ask the Ontario people if they're in favour of casinos if they might be on the hook themselves for any losses, I think you might get a lot different answer as to whether or not they want casinos, if they thought they might have to pick up the tab for any losses.

That brings me to another subject. During the committee hearings and during committee of the whole, we on this side of the House asked the government if it would not entertain the thought of putting whether or not casino gambling is to be legislated in the province of Ontario out to referendum, either on a province-wide basis or on a municipal basis. In just about every other jurisdiction in the western world where there is a casino, the public in that jurisdiction has been asked whether it wants it or not.

Even in the United States of America, the country that this government quite often is not too complimentary about, even there their idea of democracy apparently is a lot more benevolent than here in the province of Ontario. For example, in the state of Michigan, the people in the Detroit area have been asked four times whether they want casino gambling. In just about every state where they have casino gambling, the people have been given the opportunity to decide for themselves, either on a municipal or a state-wide basis.

Now the minister says, and she said in debate several times, that this is Canada, that this is different, that we don't believe in referendums. That's funny. Her Premier and all the other premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada and every political party in Canada of the traditional three, it seems to me, participated in a nationwide referendum and spent millions upon millions of dollars finding out what the people of Canada thought about the Constitution. But the minister says her government doesn't believe in referendums. I find those two things a little bit inconsistent. They believe in referendums when they want to have them, but they don't believe in referendums when they don't want to have them.

The minister says the people of Windsor are 1,000% behind this project; there's no doubt about it. Then why won't you ask them? Why won't you give them the opportunity to have their say? I wonder if the people of Windsor would entirely be in favour if they thought they might have to pick up the tab if this thing loses any money. I think you might get a different answer than if they don't have to pick up the tab.

There were a lot of concerns that were brought out by various members and by numerous interested members of the public who appeared before the hearings all across the province. The member for St Catharines, I think, alluded to a few of them earlier. One of them is getting enough protection to keep organized crime out of the operation of casinos. We have heard all kinds of statistics and information about New Jersey-style casinos, for example.

Despite the fact that Coopers and Lybrand, the consultant that the government hired at some quarter of a million dollars to do the background about the economic impact of casinos on the province of Ontario, seems to think that New Jersey is the mecca and the be-all and the end-all --

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Oh, New Jersey.

Mr Eves: -- that's what they said -- of how to control casino operations, it seems to me --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Have you been on the boardwalk?

Mr Eves: Yes, I have been on the boardwalk, and I'll tell you one thing: I don't want to see that happen to the province of Ontario. There are a lot of people who appeared before the committee who don't want to see that happen to the province of Ontario either. I wouldn't be too proud, if I were Coopers and Lybrand, of New Jersey's track record in keeping organized crime out of casino operations. If that's the model for the province of Ontario, we're in deep trouble indeed in this jurisdiction.

We even raised questions in committee about some of the witnesses that Coopers and Lybrand had relied upon as so-called expert or professional witnesses, some of whom, it would appear, if the names are the same, may have some very direct involvement in organized crime indeed. But they couldn't seem to answer those questions in committee or didn't want to answer those questions in committee.

Hon Ms Churley: You never listen, Ernie.

Mr Eves: I did listen. I'd be more than happy to get out the Hansard of that particular day in the committee, which we had to get, by the way, by a freedom of information request, because the information was not too readily forthcoming from the ministry.

We have a list of all the consultants that this government has employed and how much they have been paid with respect to the casino gambling legislation in the province of Ontario. They range generally anywhere from about $9,000 to a quarter of a million dollars. Two firms have made at least a quarter of a million dollars out of this: Davies, Ward and Beck, barristers and solicitors, and Coopers and Lybrand.

1610

We had a rather interesting and somewhat I presume embarrassing incident for the minister when she was asked in the Legislature on several occasions about the role of one Dr Eadington with respect to the casino project. Initially, I believe -- I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm paraphrasing here -- she indicated that Dr Eadington was just one of many people they were consulting about casinos in the province of Ontario. Well, that's true. He is one of many, because there's two pages of all the consultants they paid, most of whom would average about $25,000 a pop.

Then she said, in a response to a question asked by my leader, that Dr Eadington wasn't paid. We were led to believe that he was doing this out of the goodness of his heart: He was trying to help out the province of Ontario, advise them about casinos.

Now we find out that Professor William Eadington, of course, professor of economics, director of the institute of gambling and commercial gambling at the University of Nevada -- and of course this is the government that said we'd never have a Las Vegas-style casino: never, never, never in a million years. "Not us. Not the NDP government in the province of Ontario." Guess who the final four are, one of whom will be announced conveniently tomorrow, Friday, when the Legislature isn't sitting, at 3 pm? How forthright and honest and direct of this government to do this on a Friday at 3 o'clock, conveniently after the day we ram this down people's throats, conveniently three days before the court case resumes, conveniently so we can take away all these people's property rights.

To provide information regarding the casino industry, major firms in the industry and their management policies, particularly regarding social issues, Dr Eadington was paid by this government $24,800. So he wasn't doing this out of the kindness of his heart after all: He got 25 Gs stuck in his back pocket to do it. Not only that, but he was to provide information for the team choosing the finalists, and ultimately the successful bidder, on the casino industry, major firms in the industry and their management policy.

Boy, you should see minutes of a meeting that we asked the minister several questions about during question period at which Dr Eadington was present as the consultant advising the government. You should see the list of the nine proponents and his summary or his presentation documented in the minutes of the meeting as to what he thought of each of the nine proponents. Surprise, surprise. The final four were all huge Las Vegas-style casinos.

Mr Bradley: Not Americans.

Mr Eves: Oh no, not at all. There was, I understand, at least one all-Canadian bid that I understand was quite decent. However, Dr Eadington didn't think that was appropriate. This of the government that said: "Never, never, never will we have a Las Vegas-style casino in Ontario. That's not what we want. Absolutely not."

Who are the final four, I ask the members of the government, if they're not Las Vegas-style casinos? It'll be very interesting to see who in fact gets awarded this tender, if that's what you want to call it -- this proposal, this bid -- tomorrow at 3 o'clock.

One has to wonder whether it might be Harrah's casinos. Dr Eadington, you may be interested, has a long-time history of advising and being on the payroll for Harrah's casinos. Won't it be a big surprise if they become the successful proponent at 3 o'clock tomorrow? The person whom the government has relied upon for its advice has worked in the past closely with Harrah's as a consultant and has been paid by them, has been paid by the government of Ontario to advise them. Won't it be a tidy coincidence indeed if they happen to be the successful proponent? I can't believe that even this government would be that foolish as to allow that to happen, but we'll have to wait in suspense until 3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon to find out if they're that crazy or not. We'll find out. We'll see tomorrow at 3.

I'd like to raise one other issue and then I will give the floor -- I'm sure the members will be happy to hear that -- to other members. Another issue I would like to raise is the issue about the impact of casino gambling in the province on the charitable casino and charitable gaming industry in the province. I would like to talk a little bit about the societal costs that this is going to help magnify and I would like to talk a little bit about the impact of casino gambling on the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario as well.

First of all, let's deal with the horse racing industry. The horse racing industry, when it started in this province, had a monopoly on gaming or gambling in the province, because it was the only form of gambling that was permitted by the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time that horse racing became prevalent in this province, the province set different rates of taxation on different types of parimutuel bets: 9% on triactor wagering, 7% on other forms of parimutuel wagering at race tracks, be they harness or thoroughbred, in the province of Ontario.

That was fine when they had a monopoly, but times change. As different forms of gaming, such as lotteries -- and we have more lotteries now than we'll ever need coming out our ears -- became more prevalent, as charitable institutions started getting licences for charity casinos, bingos etc, as the province of Ontario came out with its own Sport Select form of gaming and now as the province of Ontario today, whenever we hold this vote, moves into casino gambling, the horse racing industry no longer has a monopoly. As a matter of fact, it's been reduced to about 27% of the gaming industry --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Offtrack betting.

Mr Eves: -- including offtrack betting, I say to the Minister of Transportation, in the province of Ontario. What used to be 100% is now 27%.

Again, virtually every other jurisdiction in North America that has the same set of circumstances has recognized that they are going to put the horse racing industry out of business in their jurisdiction and have therefore reduced, dramatically in most cases, the level of taxation on the horse racing industry because it is unfair.

I might add that the province doesn't bother taxing its own forms of gaming. Are they going to tax themselves at the same rate they're taxing the horse racing industry? I don't think so. The horse racing industry would love to have the same rate of taxation that casinos are going to have in the province of Ontario. I mean, if you ask them that, where do they sign? They'll sign tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, or today if we can get them down here quickly enough.

A very comparable jurisdiction in this regard is the state of New Jersey, which has all these different forms of gaming that are now going to be introduced into operation in the province of Ontario. They have reduced the rate of taxation on parimutuel racing to 0.5% The effective rate in the province, even after you take into account some money that's returned to the horse racing industry, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5%, the second highest in all of North America.

There are 25,000 to 50,000 people employed by the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario, and despite what the government may think, they're not all wealthy horse owners. The overwhelming majority of them are agricultural jobs in nature, and you people are going to put a good number of them, anywhere from 9,000 to 18,000 of them, out of work if you don't do something about this unfair right of taxation. I'd ask you to address that problem.

The other two issues I mentioned are the effects on society of increased gambling in the province of Ontario. We had many groups that came before our committee talking about what the effect is already with respect to gaming and gambling addictions in the province of Ontario and across Canada. There is not one single treatment centre in the province of Ontario. The province of Nova Scotia has, I believe, somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a dozen to a dozen.

Mr Owens: Oh, come on, Ernie. Don't go down this road.

Mr Eves: That's true.

Mr Owens: Gambling did not start in September 1990.

1620

Mr Eves: The honourable member says: "Don't go down this road. Gambling did not start in September 1990." No, it did not. I say to him, you are going to exacerbate the problem. The people who came before the committee said there already is a problem there, and you are going to magnify it many times over. What are you going to do about helping the people whose problems you're helping to create?

It is estimated by the gambling addiction foundation that approximately 5% of the people who gamble in casinos become addicted to gambling. The government is creating a problem. They want the money. The very least they can do is help address the societal problems they're going to help create. That's the very least they could do. There were many amendments moved in committee to have a certain percentage, even as low as 1%, of the moneys coming into the province directed towards gambling addiction. The province refused.

There were amendments moved to let the municipalities share directly in the revenue from casino gambling. It's done in almost every jurisdiction in the world that has casino gambling, but not here in the province of Ontario where the greedy provincial government is going to scoop up all the money for itself and isn't going to allow the municipalities to share in the revenue.

Mr David Winninger (London South): They get transfer payments.

Mr Eves: "They get transfer payments," he says. Ask anybody who's in municipal government what they think of the recent transfer payment record in the past few years.

You're creating all kinds of societal problems. You're creating all kinds of economic problems. The very least you can do is let the municipalities share in the revenue. That's the very least you can do for them.

Hon Mr Pouliot: "As the government, we shall shut down casinos."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, Minister.

Mr Eves: The Minister of Transportation stepped out for a few minutes. He obviously missed the last 15 minutes of my remarks. I haven't said that at all. What I've said is, we don't believe that you have thought through what you're doing with respect to Bill 8. You certainly haven't thought through what you're doing with respect to taking away people's rights under the Expropriations Act and the Planning Act of Ontario. That's all we ask, that you consider these concerns of numerous people who have appeared before the committee.

We are proceeding headlong into casino gambling. By tomorrow at 3 pm, like it or lump it, whether we've thought our way through this whole thing or whether we haven't, whether we're doing it right or whether we're not, whether we're going to prohibit organized crime from participating or not, whether we're going to take care of the problems we create in society or not, whether we're going to let municipalities share in the revenue or not, whether we've had an open bidding process and we're actually going to select the best proposal or the ones that had the inside information, we're going to get this done. We've got to get it done before Monday morning, because the court case resumes and the city of Windsor might lose. That's what this is all about.

The government has proceeded in a very unthoughtful, haphazard and hasty manner, in my opinion, with respect to Bill 8. It could have been done much more effectively, it could have been done much more thoughtfully and they could have addressed many of these serious concerns that witnesses have appeared before the committee and advised the Legislature about.

However, they've decided to do this. Somebody decided it might be a good way to make money, just like photo-radar, so we're going to do it. We're going to time-allocate it and invoke closure so we can get it passed as quickly as possible and get that money coming in to Pink Floyd as soon as we can.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'm very happy to participate in this debate, although it is a limited debate because of yet another time allocation closure motion on debate. What is it, the sixth or seventh in a two-week period of time? The government is deciding yet again that debate is not something it wants when it wants to do something.

I want to talk about this policy a little bit because many, many years ago, I guess it was 11 or 12, I used to work with the former MPP for Riverdale, a gentleman named Jim Renwick, a fine member of the NDP. I was an intern in this place. He has, unfortunately, passed away, but I think if he were in the House today, he'd be embarrassed at his party. He'd be embarrassed about his party doing something like this, because I can remember him espousing views that would've called this a tax on the poor -- nothing more and nothing less.

It's unfortunate to see the once-proud NDP come to what it has, I guess a meagre shadow of its former self, its principles left straying behind it as it moves forward trying to do something. I'm not sure what it is it's trying to do, but it once stood for --

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Trying to collect their deposit in today's by-election.

Mr Murphy: That's what I gather. The member for Brampton North says they may be trying to collect their deposit in today's by-election, and that's quite possible. It's quite possible that they'll get 15% of the vote, although I'm not prepared to bet on it.

I have a particular concern with this policy of casino gambling, and that relates to the issue of policing and policing costs. I think in any reasonable study -- and I've seen a few on this issue -- the result of this casino is going to be a substantial increase in policing costs for Windsor and the area around Windsor. There is little or no doubt that because of the criminal activity associated with casino activity -- the member for Durham East shakes his head, but show me a casino where that isn't true, where they haven't had policing costs increase as a result of associated criminal activity.

What we have seen is that this government has failed to provide any assurance, for example, to the municipality that it is going to pay for the additional municipal costs of policing. In fact, my friend the member for Brampton North moved an amendment to that effect and the government voted against it -- a very sensible amendment. The municipalities are saying, "What about our extra costs?" The government is saying, "Trust us." I think we should look to some of their supporters who worked for them pre-1990 to see whether that level of trust is appropriate.

I also think about the issue of trying to ensure that the taxpayers of this province aren't put on the hook for the failure of a casino. My friend from Brampton North moved an amendment in committee to say that the taxpayer should in no way pay for the failure of the casino, and the government, to no one's surprise, voted against that amendment as well. I think that's unfortunate.

I think too about the failure of this government in announcing this policy out of the blue, reversing itself on yet another issue of studying, for example, the impact on charities, on the horse racing industry. In my riding, I can think of the many charities that do bingos and other charitable activities for those purposes. If casinos expand across this province, I can see that have a very damaging impact on those kind of activities which assist many charitable organizations, obviously in Windsor, but especially in my riding where there are many groups that depend upon that kind of funding to continue to thrive.

I think what we've seen is a government that has failed to fulfil the principles it got elected on, and because of the fear, I guess, the concern that this engenders in it, it's trying to push this through now, because it doesn't want to face the attack it's going to get and is continuing to get from its own supporters.

It's not just me and it's not just the Liberal Party that are saying this. I read a book recently, quite an interesting one, called Giving Away a Miracle. This is written by two long-time NDP supporters, George Ehring and Wayne Roberts. Their criticism of the NDP is more stinging than anything I could come up with. They say it was giving away a miracle. I think that's what we see in this casino gambling idea. There was a miracle of people who said, "Maybe we're going to see the NDP do what they say they're going to do." Again, and unfortunately, as we've seen elsewhere, the many supporters of the NDP are going to be disappointed, and on this issue they're disappointed again.

I appreciate the opportunity to express my concern with what the government's trying to do on this one, and I just hope that maybe we'll see a deathbed conversion and they'll listen to some of the fine proposals and amendments to this bill proposed by the member for Brampton North. Thank you very much for allowing me to participate.

1630

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm glad to have this opportunity to speak on the third and final reading of Bill 8. I wish, however, it was not the third and final reading; I wish this government had had the foresight to listen to the majority of the people in this province and withdraw this bill.

This is not legislation that is supported by the majority of people in this province. Before I vote on anything that is of significance on behalf of the constituents in my own riding, I try to assess what their opinion is on any major matter. In fact, as part of my householder last fall, when this legislation was first proposed by this government, I did a questionnaire on the subject of gambling, and the results of my questionnaire are printed in my householder of this spring. These responses were not a surprise to me, but they obviously confirm the fact that this government simply is not listening on the matter of casino gambling in Ontario, as it is not listening on many other significant matters for the people of this province today.

On the subject of gambling in my own riding, in answer to the question, "Should the provincial government legalize casino gambling," yes was 31%, no was 59% and undecided was 10%. On the second question, "Should the provincial government legalize video lotteries or video slot machines," yes, 18%; no, 66%; undecided, 16%.

As the member for Parry Sound has very eloquently spoken this afternoon, he has addressed some very major areas in this debate, and I commend Mr Ernie Eves, the member for Parry Sound, on a very complete comment covering the subject of what happens everywhere else in North America before a casino is introduced. When he talks about the fact that everywhere else they hold referendums, there has to be some irony that this province is selective, as he said, on when they will agree to referendums or not.

There are thousands upon thousands of people in this province who are concerned that this government is going ahead to legalize casino gambling. Not only have many members on this side of the House in the official opposition and in our Progressive Conservative caucus tabled petition after petition with thousands of signatures on it, I reconfirm that many members on that side of the House, the government members, have also tabled thousands and thousands of signatures on petitions opposed to casino gambling in Ontario.

I recognize that these members, sometimes by choice, will choose not to represent their own riding constituents. That is their choice. It certainly would never be mine. And the moment that we, as elected members of this Legislature, choose to vote on our own behalf rather than on behalf of the constituents who send us down here to be their ears, eyes and voice at Queen's Park, that is the moment at which we all would lose our individual credibility. I say to every member on that side of the House today who votes in favour of Bill 8 in another hour and a half and who has tabled petitions on behalf of their constituents: You are betraying those very constituents who elected you to this place.

It is a very serious matter when the people in the ridings around this province lose their representation because the people in the Legislature don't vote to represent their concerns and their opinions. That's when the whole system falls down, and these members will find out how far they will fall when the next election is called in this province.

I think one of the best summations on the pros and cons of this debate about the criminality that may or may not be associated with legalized gambling in the form of casinos in this province is contained in a letter that I have on the letterhead of the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board. This letter was written by the executive director of that board, Frederick Biro. He wrote the letter at the direction of the board in response to a resolution passed by the Peel regional council. The letter is addressed to Emil Kolb, who is the regional chairman and chief executive officer of the regional municipality of Peel.

In this letter Mr Biro is talking about what was learned during the public hearings on this bill. Part of the debate of course evolved around what was really going to happen in Windsor: Was there a concern in Windsor about the impact the initial casino would bring?

I'm just going to read some of this letter because it says it far better than I can, from a totally non-partisan body.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: If anybody questions whether the region of Peel police services board is non-partisan, you'd better look very closely at the people your government has nominated -- some nominations in the midst of great controversy, I might add. You made the appointments to the Peel regional police services board, so if you do not accept the fact that this board is non-partisan, that's your choice. The fact is that the appointments to this board are made and reappointed by this government.

In this letter Mr Biro says, talking about the subject of the Windsor police report: "This division of opinion between the Windsor Police Service and the casino project staff added credence to the points made in the board's resolution about the lack of clarity about the source and amount of funding for increased policing. I would point out that this division of opinion continued during the recent public hearings held in Windsor by a committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, well after the minister's response to the board in May of 1993."

The board in its resolution went on to say, "Issues such as the potential increase in criminal activity and cost to local agencies and municipalities remain unresolved."

In response, I would bring to your attention comments made by Dr William Thompson, professor of public administration, University of Nevada at Las Vegas. Speaking of the inevitability of continent-wide casino gambling, he said: "It's going to be within a day's drive of everywhere. Bad public economy is the end result. As long as you have gambling within reach of everybody, gambling no longer becomes a tourist draw and your gamblers are your locals, and there's no economic growth if all you're doing is spreading the money around the local community. As a matter of fact, there's probably a drain on the local community."

That quotation was in the Globe and Mail on September 7, 1993, and is included in this letter. It begs the argument about what benefit there is to any community to have legalized gambling.

1640

The unfortunate thing is that when I served on the committee, I learned first hand that the municipalities around this province think there's going to be some income for them. All the money from these casinos is going into the general revenue fund. It's not flowing to the local community, and the costs for the protection of the local community fall on the local taxpayers through their property taxes.

"So too," the letter continues, "would comments made by chief of police for the Windsor Police Service, Mr James Adkin, who stated in August 1993 during the casino bill hearings that there is evidence of organized crime activity bent upon infiltrating the city's planned casino. He said bluntly that 'Organized crime is a concern.'" That was in the Toronto Star, August 18, 1993.

So here is the chief of police of Windsor trying to tell this government that there is a concern about organized crime in the city that it has chosen to introduce legalized gambling.

"While the board recognizes that Ms Churley committed publicly the day before Chief Adkin's comments that 'there will be no mob' involvement in the Windsor casino, it appears the chief of police of Windsor does not share that confidence. Nor would the experience of other jurisdictions support the minister's prediction.

"For instance, the Quebec government, at the advice of its police community, recently opted to keep private operators from maintaining video machines in casinos to protect against the infiltration of organized crime. You may also be aware that published reports state that American firms with organized crime links have successfully placed video gambling machines in those maritime provinces where it has been legalized."

The concerns go on and on. If we're talking about who these operators are, which we're going to find out about tomorrow -- as the member for Parry Sound said, you don't even want to make the announcement of who the operator will be. You don't want to acknowledge the fact that of the four operators who are on the final list, there are still operators in Las Vegas who are going out of business because of the reduced interest in legalized gambling.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member's time has expired.

Mrs Marland: Madam Speaker, I am totally opposed to legalized gambling casinos in Ontario.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate the opportunity of providing some closing comments for the official opposition with respect to Bill 8 and the debate that has ensued around it both in this place and indeed across the province in communities and, doubtless to say, in homes as people deal with what I can only say is a difficult and contentious issue.

Let me say at the outset that I have experienced or witnessed a range of views and range of opinions even within my own caucus, as you would expect. Indeed my friends, as I talk to them, provide a range of opinion with respect to the appropriateness of casino gambling and the impact it might have on the province and the communities where casinos will be situated.

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: Having said all that, the issue that really troubles me the most about all of this is the fact that in the context of the debate, the controversy, there are people who get caught up and say, as we've just heard from the member from Chatham, "I've heard enough," when in point of fact they haven't really heard any of the argument put forward at all.

Let me pick up a little from where the member from Mississauga left off. She was not talking about Windsor per se or the casino, but rather the difficulty in dealing with some of the fallout where casinos are located and asking the question, will resources be in place to deal appropriately and adequately with the fallout that will obtain from a casino being established in the community?

I want, by utilizing the time we have available left to us after the time allocation motion has been put in place limiting debate on this, I think very sadly limiting debate, to refer to a couple of amendments that were either put forward and defeated by the government or, alternatively and perhaps more importantly, never given the opportunity to be discussed.

One deals with the issue that in fact --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr McClelland: The member from Chatham and the member from Mississauga are bantering back and forth right now.

It's a very important issue. That issue deals with policing in a community that hosts a casino. I, on behalf of our caucus, introduced an amendment that read basically as follows: "Any law enforcement costs, as determined by an independent body," and there are some previous parts of the bill that set up a community committee, "incurred by a municipality in which a casino is operated under this act shall be borne in full by the province of Ontario." Any costs incurred as a result of a casino operating would be borne by the province of Ontario, paid for from the revenues generated by the casino.

Everybody said it sounds reasonable. The city of Windsor said: "We like that. Obviously, we accept the fact that there will be some costs associated with it." It became an issue of debate as between the chief of police and the minister and the project team. The minister, who's coming in at the present time, said: "That's all right. We're going to resolve that. We want to assure you, sir," she would say to the chief of police, "that we will monitor the situation and we will deal with it appropriately."

The minister is a woman of honour and has every intention of doing that; there's no doubt in my mind. But it becomes a contentious issue in a community. How do you resolve that? Perhaps you look at some model whereby determination can be made independently, the proceeds paid for out of gross revenues from the casino, and everybody comes out a winner in that respect.

But what's troubling about this aspect, and it's illustrative of the whole way this legislation was handled, is the government basically said, "No, we're not interested," for whatever reasons. "We don't want to talk about it. We've heard enough," as the member from Chatham might say, "and we don't even want to debate that particular idea." It may not be perfect -- in fact, it may not be workable -- but the point of the matter is that they didn't even want to talk about how we're going to appropriately fund the infrastructure costs and the policing and services costs for the community of Windsor. We wanted some sort of assurance for that city and, might I add, importantly, for other cities where casinos will be operating in the not-too-distant future.

Let me digress for a moment and talk about other communities where casinos will be operating. The parliamentary assistant has throughout the course of this debate said, "At this point in time, the government has no plans on proceeding with other casinos." I would ask him, and have asked him on numerous occasions: Mr Duignan, will you remove the qualification "at this point in time"? He, being a man of honour, won't do that because he knows, I think, in his heart what's going to happen. What's going to happen is we're going to get this legislation in place and it will be a different point in time and the government will have different plans. That's exactly what's going to happen, and I have a fairly high level of confidence in saying to you today, Madam Speaker, that as we go into what I think will probably be an election in the spring or early summer of 1995, there will be four or five other locations throughout the province of Ontario that will be put on the shelf or brought into the casino action, so to speak.

Your government, the government of the day, the NDP government, will say, "Vote for us and you'll get a casino," and will make it an issue that will hold out the promise of economic renewal and economic vitality for some communities. I hasten to add that in many cases it will provide significant benefit to a community. I think any reasonable person will accept that this probability exists in most cases.

I have grave concerns, however, about how we're going about doing this. It seems to me that you have to be either all in or all out. Putting aside for a moment the debate on the appropriateness of casinos, and I have some misgivings about it -- let's put that aside for a moment. Presuming we're going to go with the model that we're going to go with in Windsor for the time being, my position quite frankly is this: If you're going to allow it to operate, allow it to operate unfettered in terms of the private sector running the business. Control it, monitor it: There are many models by which that can be done. Indeed, the legislation has set up a commission to monitor casino gaming and other charitable gaming throughout the province: well thought out, I might add. Give credit where credit is due in terms of the government setting up that commission to deal with that responsibility that is part and parcel of establishing casinos.

Having said that, let's look at the practical operation of the casino. Let me take you back to the presentation made by a representative of the business improvement area from the city of Windsor. I believe it was Mr Orman who came in and said to the committee having hearings on this matter, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs: "Let's get real. Let's wake up and be realistic about this. We know you're going to go ahead with the casino and we're going to have it situated in a specified location in the city of Windsor. But at the same time you're putting on these constraints and you want to kind of sanitize it a little so it's a little bit more palatable for the people who are opposed to it. Don't be naïve. Don't think for a moment that we're not going to have competition state-side."

1650

In point of fact, there are already proceedings in place to establish a casino in Michigan, in the city of Detroit. Whether that comes to fruition or not, I cannot speculate. My suspicion is that it will happen. It may in fact happen in a more timely fashion than we've seen in Windsor, given some previous experiences that I think we can draw on in terms of the private sector enterprise and operation in the United States and elsewhere.

What I'm saying, in short, is this: I think we have clouded much of the operation of the casino by trying to have this government-private sector mix that I don't think is going to be workable in the final analysis. It may. For the city of Windsor and for the people and the proponents who have done a tremendous amount of work, and the expectations are there, I wish them well and I wish them every success. But I think they're starting a little behind, a couple of strikes behind as they step into the batter's box, so to speak.

If you're going to do it, allow the private sector to bring the expertise and run with it unfettered by the government in the context of the operation. The way you market it, the rules of operation internally for the casino: I think some that the government has established are quite naïve. But the government has chosen to keep its fingers in it. I understand why they're doing it. They want to sanitize it and say: "Hey, we're in charge here. It's okay, don't worry. We'll take care of your interests."

But what interests will they take care of? They'll certainly take care of the interest of drawing off revenues. Let's face it and revisit this fact. This was driven not by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In fact, senior, very senior -- and if I identified any more than that I think I would identify the individuals -- people conceded to myself and to some of my colleagues that senior people in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations didn't know about this until after it was announced in the budget. So what was the genesis of the casino project?

The genesis of the casino project was revenue, treasury, not Consumer and Commercial Relations. After the fact, after the decision had been made to go out and do it, Consumer and Commercial Relations was then charged with the responsibility of packaging it and selling it politically. That's the way all governments operate. That's the reality. I have no quarrel with having it that way, but I think it speaks volumes about where this is coming from.

In point of fact, the minister charged with the responsibility -- on the face of the evidence it became apparent -- really didn't know what was happening with this project and would respond to the project team rather than leadership coming from the government.

It seems to me that you can go back and look at models that were established in 1975 when the then Conservative government sat down and said: "We'd better do a very comprehensive analysis and figure out how we're going to do this if we're going to get into the business of establishing a lottery corporation. Yes, there will be some political downsides to it. We canvassed all of that and asked, how are we going to do it? Let's look at the picture and map it out up front."

What did we do here? We made the decision out of treasury to generate revenue, plunked it over to Consumer and Commercial Relations, to a minister who at one point was opposed to gambling in her own community when she sat on municipal council -- very interesting. Now, as they say in the business, suck it up and run with it, because that's your job, that's what you're being paid to do, even though you don't really believe in it. You've got to tough it out; that's the nature of the business. So you kind of straighten out your shoulders and say: "We'll carry it. Off we'll go and we'll do it."

The minister did that, did her job and her responsibility, as charged by her collective bosses, I suppose. Then she went out and hired Coopers and Lybrand, paid them a lot of money, some quarter of a million dollars, to commission a report. During the process of looking at the mapping of where we're going to go on this, I asked the following question of the authors of the report: "How about the downside impact? How about the impact on the community in terms of the socioeconomic impact on the community, the policing costs, the infrastructure costs and so forth?"

"That wasn't within our terms of reference," came the response. In other words, one could infer from that that the terms of reference from the government were, "Go out and cooper up a report" -- no pun intended -- "come up with a report that tells us the best-case scenario and gives us all the positives in terms of establishing a casino from a marketing point of view," an important part of dealing with this issue.

But it seems to me that you do that first before you make the decision. It also seems to me that, in fairness, what you do is you say: "Give us the other side of the coin. Tell us, if you flip the chip and it comes down the other way, what the downside costs are going to be." That wasn't part and parcel of the report the citizens of this province paid for. The people paid some $250,000plus for a report that only told, if you will, half of the story. I find that not only problematic but somewhat offensive. I think that was wrong. I think it was wrongminded. It did and will do in the long term a disservice to the people of the province and, moreover, will do a disservice to the people of the city of Windsor and the successful proponent, whoever that will be tomorrow when it's announced in Windsor, because I think it'll have created a false set of expectations without rounding out the picture and giving a balance.

We had some other amendments we talked about. One of them that I'm going to deal with quite quickly, and I hope cleanly, was the amendment some people referred to that was introduced by our party that suggested that at the end of the day the taxpayer should not be held responsible for any of the deficit or liabilities that might be incurred in the result that happens.

The assurances were given: "Trust us. It won't happen." Then I thought perhaps one of the most ironic and perhaps even absurd arguments -- and he's a great guy and a good friend -- was when Mr Duignan, parliamentary assistant, the member for Halton North, said, "Look, you people made mistakes in the past and we want the right to make the same mistakes all over again."

It seems to me that the member for Wilson Heights stood in his place and said: "Yes, I'm willing to admit that we made mistakes and I was part of the process that made a mistake with respect to the SkyDome and the debt incurred. We want to ensure that doesn't happen again." The response again from the parliamentary assistant, who is representing the government, was: "We want the right to make the same mistake. In fact, we want the right to make sure that anybody else down the road can make the same mistake, even if we don't, as we develop casinos elsewhere."

It's just totally absurd in terms of the logic that was presented by my good friend. It just made no sense. I think the reason was he was told, "Hey, look, it's not a bad idea, but we can't go with it." For whatever reasons we'll never know and the people of the province won't know.

In fact, I suspect that there was some discussion within the caucus or within the leadership of caucus at cabinet that said, "Can we deal with this in some way?" They probably got some advice from somebody, whether legal staff or whatever, who said, "You shouldn't go with it and don't go with it." They thought, "We can bite the bullet politically." At the end of the day it provided a good opportunity for the government House leader to say: "See, the opposition is holding this bill up. They're holding it up on this one amendment. We can use that, play it out a little bit. Then we can bring down a time allocation motion, hammer them over here," as the government House leader likes to do almost on a daily basis now with the time allocation motion, "and then we can sort of wash our hands of it and say it's okay, they were holding us up" -- on a very reasonable amendment and, I suspect, an amendment that was supported, at least in principle, by a goodly number of his caucus colleagues.

Clever, I suppose, from a tactical point of view, but I'm wondering, in terms of the interests of the people of the province of Ontario, if it wasn't perhaps a large cost to pay to be able to rationalize or justify yet another time allocation motion. I suppose only time will tell on that, but I think the absurdity of course was when the government said, "We want to make sure that happens, but we're not prepared to commit in writing to that very point that the taxpayers should not be held responsible."

Madam Speaker, let me jump ahead a little bit, and I want to deal with this in a measured, thoughtful way. Your predecessor in the chair the member for Carleton East, as he assumed his role sitting in the chair, stood and asked the member for Parry Sound to withdraw a comment with respect to section 19 and the amendments that have ensued as a result of that.

For the viewers and the benefit of those of us who are involved in this debate, let me just remind all of us that section 19 is the section in this legislation that says effectively that the Expropriations Act and the Planning Act or certain provisions of those acts don't apply with respect to the lands in question where the permanent casino will be built in Windsor.

Is that such a big issue that the member for Parry Sound would say what he did? The answer is, in short, yes, it is. I say this in a measured fashion, that I understand exactly why he said and used the kind of language he did. I will say this as dispassionately as I can, because I hope that maybe in so doing some of the government members will listen. The House leader is here and I appreciate the fact that he is paying attention to what's being said here. I appreciate that.

1700

What happened in section 19 is this. Section 19 said to a group of people who own land, 18 individuals, and one individual involved owns some 40% of that land: "Because it's expedient and because we want to do it, we want to bypass your legal remedies that you've had. It's uncomfortable for us to have to deal with it. There's no certainty that we're going get the land in the time lines that we want without some measure of aggravation, and we don't want to have to put up with that."

But I think what happens is this, as in all things in life, and boy, I'm guilty of it from time to time: You slip on a little thing and you compromise yourself in maybe telling part of a story or part of what's happening and it becomes easier the next time. You know, stories get bigger as they go on down the line. I wouldn't suggest that anybody else has ever done that, but I'll admit that from time to time I've been guilty of that and I have to watch myself. I've got a seven-year-old boy who picks up when daddy isn't telling the whole story or sanitizes it a little bit. It's a human failing that we all have.

But my fear is that the government has begun to do something that'll become easier the next time and easier the time after that. What they've done is they've said that this project is more important than an individual's or a group of individuals' rights. It's not just about the Windsor casino project; it's a principle that I think people in all parties fundamentally believe in and believe in profoundly.

What troubles me and quite frankly defies any answer that I can come up with is how some of the people who sit over there, whom I know personally, can say, "Yes, I know, but I'm going to vote for it anyway." They're the type of people who used to fight passionately and sincerely for individuals who they felt were being wronged by the system, the government, the heavy hand.

That's why they got involved, many of them. Many of them started in the union shop because they thought there were inequities on the shop floor and there were injustices, and it motivated them. It was the motivation of altruism, sincere and genuine. But now something happens: "We're in government, we're in power and we want to do something, and we make this because it's sort of a different situation; it's a bit of an emergency."

Now I say this very measuredly and cautiously. Please bear with me. I don't want to be confrontational and I don't want to be inappropriate in my comments, bearing in mind what my friend from Parry Sound said. One of the land owners said, "My dad lived in Germany in 1933 and left."

He said, "I want you to think about how I feel right now. He left because he was concerned about a government that said, 'We're going to take away your land or your business.' So he said, 'I'm going to get out while I can because it's only the first step." It was very insignificant to the people present at that point in time.

One of the land owners called me and he said another thing happened: "I had family that lived in eastern Europe, and some of them left for the same reason. And you know what happened? When people raised the issue back home in eastern Europe, back where my dad lived in the early 1930s, people said, 'You're making too big a deal out of a small thing.' They would say: 'Ah, come on, don't worry about it. It's just one piece of land; it's just one factory; it's just one small thing.'" But the principle was there that it began to erode a fundamental right.

Interestingly enough, I was told this week that there are people in the financial community who are watching this subsection 19(2). Why? Is it all that important? Let's be honest -- I apologize to my friends who are affected -- the 18 individuals who are affected are probably all financially sound and healthy. It may cost them some $4 million or $5 million out of their pockets. I'd like to be in a position where I could roll over a $4-million or $5-million loss and keep going. It's beyond my comprehension, but they'll probably keep going. And yes, it hurts. It would be like any one of us getting hit for $4,000 or $5,000 maybe, but boy, we would be upset if it happened and we felt that it had been done unjustly.

I don't want to minimize it. The impact on them is significant. That's huge, huge money, but it's more than the money; it's the principle involved. I find that the most troubling part of this legislation is the way that was introduced at the last moment, and we justify it on the basis that this project is important enough to do it so we've got to go ahead with it.

I wanted to get that over with and just say it and get it on the record, because I think it's going to come back to haunt many of us in this place who haven't picked up on the significance of what took place a couple of nights ago when we voted in favour of that amendment. Because as we vote in about 15 or 20 minutes, whenever we vote, on the full bill, it will be all wrapped up in there and will be sort of lost in the shuffle, and I'm not sure people will fully understand the impact of that.

I hope that there'll be an opportunity for the people who are affected and had a desire to come here and actually sit here in the gallery to meet with the press and say to the press: "Why don't you understand what's happening here? Do you understand the impact on me as an individual and to the broader community in terms of investment confidence?" It's not just section 19.2. It sends a very, very clear and definitive message to people that they're feeling very uncomfortable about it because, as you know, it comes before the courts for determination in just a matter of days.

I can only hope that, through that forum, this particular issue will be canvassed in a thoughtful and reasoned manner and that maybe something can be determined that will redress what I happen to believe is a very, very significant injustice and I think something that will come back to haunt many of my friends opposite, because I think most of them -- and I don't say this in, I hope, a haughty or disparaging sense -- don't understand the sense of frustration that some of those people feel and the anger and the sense of betrayal that they feel their government has effectively turned on them and, to use their language, is stealing from them.

That is a harsh statement and I say it in a measured way and I'm trying to say it dispassionately on their behalf, because they want to say that and they want it to be known that they feel the government of the day has sorely bruised them and done them an injustice. They're hurt, not just from a financial point of view but in terms of their faith in the system. Some of them, in terms of people they used to support, say that they can't believe that the people who they would have thought would have fought for the individual and fought for individual rights have now decided with the stroke of a pen to take them away. Only time will tell the full consequences of that.

I want to leave that, although much more could be said about that, but I think it's delicate at best, simply hoping that those who read or watch these kinds of things can understand between the lines what I'm trying to say, and say it in a fashion that I hope would not be confrontational but I hope instructive and perhaps thought-provoking for us in the future as we consider what governments might do and might be prepared to do to erode away some of our fundamental rights.

Let me touch on a couple of other little housekeeping measures that didn't come up. During the course of the debate the city of Windsor and other municipalities that were interested said that they felt that they wanted to have some ownership in terms of what was taking place there. Many of the proponents went to great expense and put in a tremendous organizational investment in time and effort in adding a local component to the proposals that were taken to the project team. I want to say publicly and say on the record that many of them feel that at the end of the day that local component, that local aspect, really counted for little, if anything. They felt very much aggrieved by the fact that they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and hours upon hours, hundreds of hours of time and energy and enthusiasm, in developing a local aspect. We've heard some of my colleagues on this side talk about how we end up at the end of the day with four mega, huge, multi-international companies that are left on the list.

I don't want to take anything away from them or from their proposals, but I think we should bear in mind that there were a lot of local people who felt that they just didn't get a fair shake. I'm not saying that it wasn't done fairly; they're saying that it wasn't done fairly. They're saying that they weren't given the fair treatment that they should have deserved.

We thought that the city of Windsor should have an opportunity -- or for that matter any other city, any other municipality that will host a casino -- to sit down and in camera, respecting the confidentiality and the necessity for privacy in terms of entering commercial contracts, have an opportunity to review what was taking place with the project team and with the proponents as we came down to the short strokes, if you will, of the contract and some of the legal niceties that will be contained therein.

The government again felt that it was important enough to pay lipservice to community involvement and local community leadership in terms of the casino project, but when it came to the end of the day it was not prepared to allow representatives of the municipality to see those contracts and be an integral and intimate, private party to the discussion with those contracts and the development and evolution of them.

I indicated earlier that we had another amendment that didn't get an opportunity for full discussion, that said that off the gross revenues we'd set up a formula to cover costs, not only in terms of policing but the city costs as well. Interestingly enough, my colleague the member for Parry Sound and I came up with many similarly worded amendments as we discussed this legislation, in large measure -- I want to take an opportunity to do this and pay tribute to the people who presented to the committee -- because of the people who came before the committee. They came out with some very thoughtful and well-reasoned suggestions, some in your community, Madam Speaker. I can't remember offhand the name of the group, one of the last groups that presented while we were visiting in the Niagara Peninsula, but it came forward with some very thoughtful and creative suggestions. My colleague and I tried to incorporate some of those into the amendments.

1710

I suppose it's part of what we learn to live with here, but it seems to me we could have looked much more carefully at some of the amendments that were certainly introduced by myself and my colleague but were generated by the people of the province. To them I say thank you, and I think all members would agree that we want to thank them for their participation. I regret that we weren't able to bring into the legislation by way of amendment some of their well-thought-out and well-reasoned suggestions.

There's another amendment that I might say was co-authored, in the sense that both the member for Parry Sound and I came up with the same idea, again on behalf of the people who presented. It read something like this: "Payments that provide for the purposes of establishing and funding gambling addiction treatment centres"; in other words, moneys that would be put in to address those concerns in the community. What happened again? It was blown out the window, and the government said it didn't want to deal with it.

Another amendment was taking care of charities on a rotating basis to make sure that the downside impact -- remember earlier on in my comments, not too, too long ago, about 25 minutes ago, I mentioned that the Coopers and Lybrand report didn't deal with the downside impact of the casino. One of the downside impacts will be charities, and the province has said, "Trust us; we'll take care of you." The charities said, "Actually, we'd like a bit more than that." Some 32 charities organized together and became an umbrella group and presented some very legitimate concerns, and we wanted to ensure that was taken care of. What happened? That was thrown out.

Here's one that I thought the government might want to respond to for a variety of reasons. Actually, I can't find it right now, but the essence of it was as follows: It basically said that the cumulative rate of all taxes charged on horse racing and on the horse racing industry wouldn't exceed the cumulative aggregate taxes that were involved in the casino project.

What we have right now, upon passage of this bill imminently, in a few minutes' time, will be a situation where casinos will be taxed at a much more favourable rate than the horse racing industry. The horse racing industry is in some peril -- for a variety of reasons; let's be candid about that. But let there be no question that the operation of casinos in and around the province will impact them very dramatically in a negative fashion.

We thought the least we could do is level off the playing field: tax them on the same basis; make the rules of the game the same, if you will. We're talking about a relatively inelastic consumer dollar for gaming and for that type of activity. At least give the horse racing industry the same opportunity from a financial point of view to compete. The government again said, "Not important enough; we don't believe in it," and that really troubles me a great deal.

Let me revert back to section 19 for a moment; I talked about it earlier in the amendments that were put forward. Some of my friends in government may be interested and want to know that there is a heritage building that was restored at considerable cost by one of the owners in partnership with Ontario Hydro funding. It's going to be demolished. Do you know when that was completed? Just a number of months ago. Government money went into restoring the building -- not just renovating it but restoring it to its original condition; handmade bricks to make it authentic. Do you know what? It's going to be wiped out by a bulldozer or a wrecking ball so we can get the casino in. No due regard for that.

There are those who say, "Well, those are small things." They're small, but they speak volumes about the way this whole project was handled. I think some people have grave concerns about that and can read between the lines on that one as well.

I've tried in the half-hour or so we've had just to touch on some of the amendments to be illustrative of the process that took place. Let me say this in conclusion about the casinos: I suspect that as we go into the 1995 election the government will hold out to a number of communities that, "We're going to provide you with economic opportunity by way of casinos." I can only say this: that we should be very cautious and careful. We had an opportunity to improve the legislation, and I think in a somewhat cowardly, heavy-handed manner, the government came down and said, "We will not allow full and complete discussion on those amendments that are generated by the good people of the province of Ontario and we will have casinos now," and they will be operating in Windsor and I suspect at least in the Niagara Peninsula, in Ottawa and in Toronto before we go into the next election, or the projects will certainly be under way.

The sad part of it is that the legislation we're going to pass now, notwithstanding that many of us disagree that it should even be passed at all, is fraught with minefields and errors, both in terms of its construction as a piece of legislation but also from a policy point of view. Some very fundamental principles that were once espoused by members of the government have been put aside for the sake of expediency.

As the member for Renfrew North said, many people sold their souls for the gambler's gold, and that's what happened. You think that money is more important in this case than principles, that money is more important than doing the best job you can, that money is more important than people's individual rights, that money is more important than a thoughtful, well-reasoned, well-balanced approach to entering into the gaming industry in this province.

At the end of the day, our society is going to move ahead with casinos; that's become evident, based on the government. It's a sad fact that it's being done in a fashion that is going to bring hardship to the horse racing industry, that it is going to negatively impact charitable gaming, that it's going to have social costs to the residents of the host communities and is going to have some downside implications that will be felt for years and years to come. Most important of all, it will be yet another piece of evidence in the mounting pile of evidence that this government is prepared to sell out its principles and sell out the things it used to believe in for the sake of expediency and for the sake of dollars and cents. The almighty dollar now rules what used to be ruled by principle and policy.

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

Mr Duignan, on behalf of Ms Churley, has moved third reading of 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.

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

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1718 to 1723.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. Could all members take their seats. Mr Duignan has moved third reading of Bill 8. All those in favour of Mr Duignan's motion, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Hampton, Harrington, Hope, 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, Swarbrick, Wark-Martyn, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

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

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Harnick, Henderson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kormos, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 53; the nays are 29. I declare the motion carried.

I resolve that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

REVISED STATUTES CONFIRMATION AND CORRECTIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 CONFIRMANT ET CORRIGEANT LES LOIS REFONDUES

Mrs Boyd moved third reading of Bill 115, An Act to confirm and correct the Statutes of Ontario as revised by the Statute Revision Commissioners / Projet de loi 115, Loi confirmant et corrigeant les Lois de l'Ontario refondues par les commissaires à la refonte des lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The Attorney General has moved third reading of Bill 115. Does the Attorney General have some opening remarks?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): No.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. There is a great deal of noise in the Legislature. It makes it very, very difficult.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): A very quick comment: Attorney General, why did it take so long to do this?

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): As I understand it, this is a bill to correct the Statutes of Ontario, which are revised every 10 years. This bill would be correcting all of the clerical and typographical but not substantive errors in the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990. I would hope that I'm going to be here to do the revised statutes in the year 2003, when we get around to correcting the next set.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate? I see no further debate.

Mrs Boyd has moved third reading of Bill 115. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

I do resolve that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Report continues in volume B.